Top
Best
New

Posted by urbanshaman 4 hours ago

Roblox Requires Age Checks for Communication, Ushering in New Safety Standard(corp.roblox.com)
42 points | 43 comments
jswelker 2 hours ago|
The most impressive thing about Roblox is how many predatory parties they have managed to pack into one children's platform. The company itself with its microtransactions, cash hungry creators with lowest common denominator and/or sexualized content, creepy adults behaving badly, probably some hostile foreign governments in all likelihood. Maybe add in a 4chan integration next just to cover a wider spectrum of villainy.
stocksinsmocks 1 hour ago||
There are parental controls that don’t seem to do much good at all. I set a filter so that my 6-year-old son would only see content that was rated for kids. The next thing I know I see he’s playing a prison riot simulator and having a shootout with the police. There were some appropriate games, but the screening just isn’t serious. When it’s game time, we pretty much stick to Mario and offline Minecraft.
a_bonobo 42 minutes ago|||
I've implemented the per-day time limit and it's just broken? It's very hard to measure how much time has been spent on the day, their measure is often above the limit I set, and sometimes a low limit will trigger immediately.

It seems like the limit and time measurement is based on the US time zone alone, not the local time zone. We're in Australia and that's the only explanation I can think of.

password4321 39 minutes ago||
If you're interested in a technical solution, Amazon Kids+ on Kindle seems to enforce time limits reasonably well, except for the camera.
password4321 44 minutes ago||||
Also, disabling chat is insufficient because some Roblox experiences re-implement their own chat and ignore the parental controls setting.
hedora 1 hour ago||||
Be sure not to pay for switch online. They bury a bunch of social media / data sharing opt-ins about halfway through the game, where parents will not discover them. (Look for Luigi to see if your kid opted in.)
antonymoose 1 hour ago||||
I don’t think it’s serious in any platform of any scale. I remember having some pedo on AOL try to groom me as a 7(?) year old, except I was aware enough to punch out of the situation very quickly. The kind of thing basic keyword filters could have flagged and caught.

Similarly, I remember my families account being banned because I dared to say “Santa isn’t real” in a chat around the same timeframe.

Very serious administration for a billions dollar firm…

jswelker 43 minutes ago||
Hmm maybe the answer is that there should be no anonymous online platforms targeting children at all.
ch2026 51 minutes ago|||
It’s almost like age-appropriate is subjective. Roblox is primarily concerned with child safety when it comes to communication, and less about dictating what’s appropriate and not appropriate for arbitrary ages.
poemxo 59 minutes ago|||
4chan would be looking in the wrong direction since it has nothing for kids. Other games and game-like experiences are probably just as bad as Roblox and just haven't been brought out into the light. I personally remember Gaia Online being pretty bad back when I was a teen.
hedora 1 hour ago|||
Now they’re trying to normalize mandatory “turn on the camera to access porn” services. Really?!?

As a parent, all I want is for the fucking thing to let zero people that I have not approved communicate with my kid in any way. This especially includes people that made games and gambling dens.

Also, influencers.

tclancy 1 hour ago||
Truly. My daughter and her friends play a lot on it but only a few games and I always have an ear out for which ones because it’s such a cesspool.
xeonmc 2 hours ago||
Roblox calling themselves the industry gold standard in online safety is about as ridiculous as Riot Games calling themselves the beacon of technical excellence in game development.
sanex 3 hours ago||
I've been saying we need a separate Internet for kids. Not just because of pedos, but because young adults don't have the same level of respect and filters that one should have when dealing with kids and it's exposing them to behavior they shouldn't. This is a great step.
JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago||
> we need a separate Internet for kids

Good start. But this still leaves them at the mercy of these tech companies.

Kids—especially pre-teens—should not have social media. There is just way too much evidence that this has harmed and is harming an increasingly class-segregated generation.

Gas stations are careful about selling cigarettes to kids. We need these developers to have even a shadow of that concern.

bilegeek 2 hours ago|||
Problem is some kids don't have alternatives to online. Just recently on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45945114

Not saying you're wrong, but it's more complicated than you think in many cases. The rot goes deep into society as a whole, which tech corpos then exploit.

Aloisius 2 hours ago|||
Today: Social media is harming our kids, ban it!

30 years ago: Video games are harming our kids, ban it!

60 years ago: Rock and roll is harming our kids, ban it!

There is little evidence to support social media causes harm. Even correlations are weak. As a large study on the subject put it, the association of well-being with regularly eating potatoes was nearly as negative as the association with [social media] use.

This looks like yet another moral panic.

anonnon 1 minute ago|||
30 years ago: leaded gasoline and lead-containing paint is harming our kids.
rgregg 1 hour ago||||
I mean.. you do you, but the data seems pretty clear. Social media use among children significantly impacts mental health in a negative way, in well designed study after study. There's a good summary out of the HHS (at least until they take it down): https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/reports-and-publications/...

You have any pointers to well designed studies that show it's as innocent as a video game or rock and roll?

Aloisius 1 hour ago||
That Surgeon General's Advisory also warns against video games.

As did the Surgeon General in 1980 who warned kids were addicted to video games body and soul.

crummy 52 minutes ago||
wow, you're not kidding.

https://www.nytimes.com/1982/11/10/us/around-the-nation-surg...

hollerith 1 hour ago||||
>the association of well-being with regularly eating potatoes was nearly as negative as the association with [social media] use.

Maybe regularly eating potatoes is a lot worse for a person that most of us currently realize. (They do have an extremely high glycemic index and high levels of oxalic acid.)

Aloisius 1 hour ago||
Potatoes are harming the kids, ban it?

Seriously though, the correlation is just weak - far to weak to actually draw conclusions from let alone ban it.

loloquwowndueo 2 hours ago|||
Dude no, sorry, those things have nothing on Roblox, it’s the most toxic damaging thing ever.
rjdj377dhabsn 2 hours ago|||
No, we don't. You need to teach your kids the skills to deal with the realities of the modern world before giving them unrestricted access to the internet.
kachapopopow 3 hours ago|||
while yes, they probably should, however, it wouldn't protect them from pedos.
Natsu 2 hours ago|||
We had AOL back in the day, but...
cohogndaaz 2 hours ago||
[dead]
crtasm 2 hours ago||
So besides scanning your child's face they also want access to their phone contacts.
chris_wot 2 hours ago|
You can thank the Australian government for this change in direction.
rgregg 1 hour ago||
It'd be nice if they'd do some simple common sense things - like give you a report of which games were being played and provide parental controls around which games can be played. It shocks me (but not really) that they haven't done this.
ch2026 44 minutes ago||
If you have a parental account this is all available for a while now: You can see which games your child plays, full chat history, and who they chat with.

And you can block them from interacting with specific games or users.

xeonmc 1 hour ago||
They are held back by the exact same technical obstacles that prevented Google from adding the ability to disable YouTube Shorts on your child’s account.
kgwxd 1 hour ago||
> ability to disable YouTube Shorts on your child’s account

Can I disable it on my account!?

samename 1 hour ago||
This is deeply concerning. No parent should be letting their kids faces be scanned with this. They claim to “delete” the image a videos after the scan, but make no mistake, the signature is saved and will be used to track the child online for the rest of their life. We need to have better protections around biometrics. Surveillance is not the solution we want.
poemxo 50 minutes ago||
This is a threat model that needs to be discussed more. When you share personal information in a way linked to your identity, you should be aware that that link will exist forever. Can you trust custodians of your data forever?
ranger_danger 1 hour ago||
> the signature is saved and will be used to track the child online for the rest of their life

Source:

dbg31415 2 hours ago||
Remember, Roblox is toxic and exploits young people.

- Roblox Isn't a Game | Psychology Today // https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/video-game-health/20...

- Investigation: How Roblox Is Exploiting Young Game Developers - YouTube // https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gXlauRB1EQ

- Roblox Pressured Us to Delete Our Video. So We Dug Deeper. - YouTube // https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTMF6xEiAaY

Roblox is Darker Than You Think (ft. Ruben Sim) - YouTube // https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av03P5D11PQ&t=55s

theturtle 15 minutes ago||
[dead]
cohogndaaz 2 hours ago||
[dead]
gambiting 3 hours ago|
Does that help with any of this?

https://hindenburgresearch.com/roblox/

"Following years of scandals, we performed our own checks to see if the platform had cleaned up its act. As a test, we attempted to set up an account under the name ‘Jeffrey Epstein’…only to see the name was taken, along with 900+ variations. Many were Jeffrey Epstein fan accounts, including “JeffEpsteinSupporter” which had earned multiple badges for spending time in kid’s games. Other Jeff Epstein accounts had the usernames “@igruum_minors” [I groom minors], and “@RavpeTinyK1dsJE” [rape tiny kids]. We attempted to set up a Roblox account under the name of another notorious pedophile to see if Roblox had any up-front pedophile screening: Earl Brian Bradley was indicted on 471 charges of molesting, raping and exploiting 103 children. The username was taken, along with multiple variants like earlbrianbradley69. After we found a username, we listed our age as “under 13” to see if children are being exposed to adult content. By merely plugging ‘adult’ into the Roblox search bar, we found a group called “Adult Studios” with 3,334 members openly trading child pornography and soliciting sexual acts from minors. We tracked some of the members of “Adult Studios” and easily found 38 Roblox groups – one with 103,000 members – openly soliciting sexual favors and trading child pornography."

BoredPositron 3 hours ago||
No but look how hard they try and now they have a feature they can wiggle around with if something bad happens. It's theater as always with stuff like this. There is just no way of doing it without real inconvenience for every user. Inconvenience really hurts the bottom line...
miohtama 2 hours ago|||
Fort Gayers want their limelight back

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-11258407

wizzwizz4 1 hour ago|||
There's no cheap way of doing it without inconvenience for every user. Rather than age checks, they could just remove the CSAE distribution groups, appropriately moderate abusive conduct, and so on. HN has basically no restrictions whatsoever, and it's hardly a hive of scum and villainy: it's not fundamentally difficult to accomplish this, you just have to put the work in.
DaSHacka 2 hours ago||
[flagged]
tclancy 1 hour ago|||
As other kids say, two things can be true at the same time. And not lasting five minutes in a CoD lobby is going to be my new heuristic for picking friends. I don’t really need to know someone who isn’t bothered by that shit.
ch2026 36 minutes ago|||
We’ll get downvoted but fully agreed. Because HN isn’t a place for constructive communication that lies outside the approved groupthink.