No, me deciding to not skip past a child is not because I feel a sense of obligation to make up for the fact that the child might be sad after being skipped by some other random person, but because taking everything into consideration at the time, I didn't see any reason to skip. It makes them sad that some rando on omegle skipped them? So you need to talk to all of them? What? Not talking to strangers is like rule #1 for children. If you care to give examples, I would be happy to explain further. With respect, I don't think you could argue that deception isn't immoral, but you may be able to point out examples where engaging in an immoral behaviour has a net moral benefit, and so is considered to be permissible by society. I can think of many situations where deception isn't immoral. By your logic, that parents are responsible for the harm caused to their children from being rejected by a catfish, it would also follow that the parent is responsible for the harm caused to their child by a predator who does end up causing harm. I believe all moral agents have an obligation to behave morally, even when harm could be partially attributed to a third party. Having said that, I know that children do go on there so no reasonable person would accept that they aren't on there, just because of the age limit. If it is accepted that children are not allowed on the site, then the actions of a catfish pretending to be 13/14 to catch would-be predators is completely inexcusable, on account of there being no real children on the site who would be at risk of harm without the intervention of the catfish. It's on the parents to make sure their kid isn't on a site where they will get hurt. Omegle is an 18+ site with minors only being allowed with parental consent.