A minimal level of protection against lawsuits like the one that just killed Omegle.

Yes, obviously, but what does it prevent in terms of the outcome we care about, i.e child abuse?

We shouldn't just take zealous well-paid lawyers as a fact of nature. If those "defense against lawsuits"-actions actually don't make a difference in terms of reducing child abuse, then we should not let them make a difference in the legal system either.

Another case of not making perfect the enemy of good. Some percentage of children who see a disclaimer saying, "Do not use if you're under 18, click here to confirm you're 18+" and decide not to lie and login -- so as a base level, sites that are dangerous for kids should do that.. the should also do a bunch of other stuff, and it certainly should be mitigating to Omegle's liability that they were doing a bunch of other stuff, but they apparently didn't do a few easy things which may cost them.

> Some percentage of children who see a disclaimer saying, "Do not use if you're under 18, click here to confirm you're 18+" and decide not to lie and login

That's assuming the evidence I would like to actually see.

Age limits can have a perverse effect on kids, or even young adults, eager to prove to themselves and their peers how "mature" they are. Retail stores and clubs where I live have exploited this for a long time.

For instance, there is no government-imposed limits on the age you need to be to buy energy drinks, but the grocery stores have coordinated to institute a 15 year limit. I'm pretty sure they do this simply to increase sales, not over concern for overcaffeinated kids.

They also used to have big signs saying "Over 18? PROVE IT!" with a big foaming glass of beer. I'm sure that flew over the head of most adults, but there was nothing about showing ID there.

it's the difference between an open and closed (unlocked) door. Very small actions can be a surprising deterrent for many people.