that was a bit vague. here's an example of a quality answer (though the real strength is in the consistency of the quality, for now) in response to the question:

How did Chatroulette become such a global phenomenon so quickly?

21 votes by Anon User, Kevin Li, Marc Bodnick, Dave Hodson, more

Anon user: "Chatroulette is the latest in a long line of lower-effort, higher-interaction social marketplaces. It literally has a higher risk-adjusted social ROI than almost any other site in the history of the Internet, and scales downwards especially well.

Let me explain my terms.

R: The (social) return of Chatroulette is an instant video conversation with another individual, a stranger. This basic return has been available in other venues for a while (see WooMe for a dating-specific version). What makes Chatroulette so different is not the high R, but the incredibly, historically low...

I: Investment. Meaning, the sum of risk taken, effort, financial cost, time cost, and technical skill. Chatroulette is near-zero on all of these. There is no effort, not even a sign up--just allow the flash app to access your camera, and you are done (the anti-eHarmony). There is no special skill required--this isn't like dragging your Mom through the facebook photo uploader. There's no incremental financial cost at all. There's no selection, paradox-of-choice paralysis--click a button, and you are matched (a two-way benefit--there's no waiting to be selected by picky counterparts). And, most importantly, there is no social risk--unlike dating sites, you have no idea who the other user is, and can descend into crazy/exhibitionist behavior with wild-eyed impunity.

As mentioned above, Chatroulette scales downwards especially well. Unlike auction marketplaces (divided by products) or dating/service marketplaces (divided by location), Chatroulette is perfectly usable with tens of individuals spread uniformly across the world, of any age or gender, with almost no common interests.

Every time a site comes out that simplifies an existing, popular use case, it does well--even when it offers far less functionality. It is literally disruptive in the Clayton Christensen sense. Think Twitter against Facebook; or the iPod against the many previous mp3 players; or the iPhone against previous smartphones. In the echo chamber of Silicon Valley, we greatly underestimate how high the 'Investment' (especially skill/effort) of using our products is, and are always surprised when 'dumbed down' products come out and do well. Who needs a Snuggie? Who has trouble wrapping a blanket around themselves properly, or thinks putting on a sweater is a hassle? More people than you think."