Roblox is minting teen millionaires

Post by bstsb » Wed, Mar 11, 2026, 12:48 PM UTC

nananana9 wrote: post #156

nomel wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But they are not doing enough to protect children from predators My understanding is that the recent improvements are face scans, and communication limited to people within a few 4 year windows. They've also increased moderation of chat significantly, especially for the lower age windows. What low hanging fruit do you see? What's the "ideal" system? Seems like a hard problem, if any sort of cooperative communicatio…

Please don't make excuses for literal evil p*dophile megacorporations. There is plenty of low hanging fruit, and even if there wasn't, this issue is important enough that if they can't fix it they should go out of business. 1. They can just disable chat for non age verified accounts. Done. Problem fixed. Oh, but they'll lose money, won't they? That takes precedence over child safety. 2. The community is willing to he…

Post by warmedcookie » Wed, Mar 11, 2026, 12:49 PM UTC

Brybry wrote: post #161

CrzyLngPwd wrote: post #142

My grandsons would come and stay, bringing tablet devices with them, and would prefer to stay glued to them the whole time. Since we banned their use, they now play outside with my other grandchildren, on the rope swing, the zip line, or exploring in the woods making dens and forts, using their imaginations. Children should not be playing computer games, or scrolling on any social media, IMO.

I think a fair number of us here got into computers because of playing computer games as kids. The issue is setting limits. Now obviously banning is easier and lower friction but limiting to an X time per day routine can also help with self-discipline. Depends on the person. Kids can have the same issue with TV. I had an issue as a kid with books . My parents had to limit my reading time because I would stay up all n…

Post by embedding-shape » Wed, Mar 11, 2026, 12:53 PM UTC

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #197

embedding-shape wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And well, and he wants it done for a "educational" purpose without Robux (which I assume is the in-game currency), slightly missing context from your TLDR there. But as mentioned in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47334696 , for sure he's still out after dat monez, he's the CEO after all.

Where does he mention “without Robux”?

Post by giarc » Wed, Mar 11, 2026, 1:04 PM UTC

amiga386 wrote: post #38

Roblox turns a blind eye to child exploitation (whether being creeped on by adults, or being exploited by teens/adults to make games) and makes a fortune out of it. If it weren't online, it'd be illegal and people would be in jail. Also, Roblox's favourite thing - other than sitting back and rolling in the cash that their playerbase generated for them - is puff pieces in the news talking about how people who make gam…

Post by pastage » Wed, Mar 11, 2026, 1:07 PM UTC

embedding-shape wrote: post #191

Lutger wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brilliant conversation. "Would you let kids gamble?" - "It sounds very fun and obvious." "To be clear, we think it's a horrible idea!"

And then of course he continues (although won't make for a good social media rage point so understandable you didn't provide full context): > Well, I actually think it's a brilliant idea if it can be done in an educational way that's legal. > no free Robux, no free prizes, just a game called the dress to impress predictor where it's not like trying to get kids money or anything like that. Still, probably what he sees…