Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Roblox shares plummet 18% as child safety measures weigh on bookings

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 160 posts

Re: Roblox shares plummet 18% as child safety measures weigh on bookings

#121

Post by subscribed »

TheCoreh wrote: post #70
stebalien wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't: > Users only speak to other players ±1 age group I.e., 18-20 can speak to 16-17 AND 21+, but 21+ can only speak to 18+

This seems like a very reasonable system to ensure e.g. you and your classmate/friends can still interact as you grow up and switch age brackets. I wonder how families etc deal with it though? Can you play with your younger sibling/cousin? Is there some sort of parental approval/override?

I can play with my kids but we're not allowed to talk. They're not allowed to talk with each other as well.

This sucks big time, and it will even more, because we soon won't be aple to play together at all: https://thenextweb.com/news/roblox-age-gated-account-tiers-k...

Re: Roblox shares plummet 18% as child safety measures weigh on bookings

#122

Post by subscribed »

malfist wrote: post #83
jjmarr wrote: post #31

The "child safety measures" was dividing the playerbase into age groups and banning almost all communication between them. The age groups are under 9, 9–12, 13–15, 16–17, 18–20, and 21+. Users only speak to other players ±1 age group, so 18-20 can speak to 16-17 or 21+. The problem is almost every game on Roblox is social and the matchmaking isn't mature enough to ensure players in a lobby can all communicate. My fav…

> Heck, I'd rather play that game with only other users over 18+ because I could swear and be more toxic. Perhaps reexamine why you find it preferable to "be more toxic"

So adults having innocent fun together and perhaps "cussing" while in strictly 28+ game are somehow problematic to you? :D

Re: Roblox shares plummet 18% as child safety measures weigh on bookings

#123

Post by lostlogin »

Aeolun wrote: post #117
lostlogin wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but for Roblox? That’s child gambling and child grooming.

Roblox made a platform. The people on that platform used it for making gambling and child grooming. I guess the worst you can say for roblox is that it incentivizes that with the way they’re selling Robux, but that’s also the only way their platform can work.

I don’t think that’s a defence in the slightest.

Re: Roblox shares plummet 18% as child safety measures weigh on bookings

#124

Post by subscribed »

phatfish wrote: post #95
xp84 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who dislikes predator havens that are combined with addictive dark patterns honed to maximize children begging parents for Robux (or just stealing parents’ credit cards to get it) I couldn’t be happier to see Roblox collapse. I’m sure what replaces it will be even worse though. :/

> I’m sure what replaces it will be even worse though. :/ Hopefully not, it feels like regulation is catching up with the child exploitation. Once the giant platforms are dismantled and can no longer bully governments it will be easier to keep the smaller ones in check. And no, "dark web Roblox" isn't going to be a replacement. Not matter how much the existing exploiters try to make it a scare tactic.

No, it doesn't. Not long time ago a microblogginf platform run by a billionaire introduced an easy way to "virtually undress" real kids.

Outrage ensued, owner showed the middle finger to everyone, moved the undressing part behind a paywall.

Site is still supported by payment processors, still hosts accounts of all the major preas/government/NGO organisations.

There are some token actions from some governments but absolutely nothing that would happen of it was someone poorer running this site -- for example 4chan fights CSAM (as I understand), yet British Ofcom tries to issue a fine against them.

With Twitter generating CSAM though? Ofcom still have their account there.

Re: Roblox shares plummet 18% as child safety measures weigh on bookings

#125

Post by subscribed »

Aurornis wrote: post #108
skybrian wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideally Roblox would be able to rely on the platform to tell them whether the device is child-locked or not. It would be up to parents to make sure their kids only have access to devices with appropriate locks turned on. Parents could rely on vendors to make devices where it’s easy to set appropriate locks, and rely on stores not to sell unlocked devices to kids. But we don’t live in that world. Also, the are trying…

This is an interesting comment because there’s a parallel effort to shift age verification to devices, which draws a lot of hate here.

Because almost universally it's not an privacy-preserving age verification, but permanently deanonyming identification.

Please, let's keep it accurate.

Re: Roblox shares plummet 18% as child safety measures weigh on bookings

#126

Post by jjmarr »

malfist wrote: post #83
jjmarr wrote: post #31

The "child safety measures" was dividing the playerbase into age groups and banning almost all communication between them. The age groups are under 9, 9–12, 13–15, 16–17, 18–20, and 21+. Users only speak to other players ±1 age group, so 18-20 can speak to 16-17 or 21+. The problem is almost every game on Roblox is social and the matchmaking isn't mature enough to ensure players in a lobby can all communicate. My fav…

> Heck, I'd rather play that game with only other users over 18+ because I could swear and be more toxic. Perhaps reexamine why you find it preferable to "be more toxic"

Basically, the game takes place in a medieval walled settlement. The person who's on the server the longest becomes the "leader" and gets to tax everyone/manage the settlement/build stuff. This is extremely profitable.

If the leader dies, the next person in line becomes the leader. Players can also buy swords and weapons.

This means the goal of the game, if you're ambitious, is gain power instead of actually contributing to the settlement. You could directly murder the leaders, but this is slow.

It is more efficient to incite an angry mob and make everyone extremely violent. Then leaders will get repeatedly murdered by the mob as the settlement burns down/devolves into chaos.

Unfortunately, everyone else wants power too. You'll take power and get killed by the angry mob you created.

Being toxic in an emulation of the late Roman Empire is essentially the game.

https://www.roblox.com/games/4598019433/generic-roleplay-gae...

I want to invoke my inner Catullus and insult my enemies but I am limited in what I can say in the presence of minors.

Re: Roblox shares plummet 18% as child safety measures weigh on bookings

#127

Post by doctorpangloss »

mjr00 wrote: post #27
darth_avocado wrote: post #7

Investors are hilarious. What’s better: more investment in child safety measures so that a company remains a long term product that parents allow their children on, or no safety measures to increase profit so that parents stop letting their kids be on the platform, thereby killing long term viability of the product? Quarterly thinking is the bane of the health of corporate America.

In this case, "child safety measures" includes not just "stopping child predators," but also "not letting kids use their parents' credit card to buy $500 of Robux" and "not letting underage users buy lootboxes, aka gambling". It's completely understandable that the company, which profits off children, putting in measures making it harder to profit off children, would lower both its long and short-term valuations.

They're not really choosing to do that though. They are completely beholden to the out of sight conversation weekly with Apple that led to changes in how users can spend - especially funds that Apple gets less of a cut of, like Robux gift cards.

Another POV is that Roblox is overvalued and it's just a matter of time before the fragility of its business, which is being a time waster for kids, falls apart like everything else in that space.

Re: Roblox shares plummet 18% as child safety measures weigh on bookings

#128

Post by jihadjihad »

amarant wrote: post #47
jjmarr wrote: post #31

The "child safety measures" was dividing the playerbase into age groups and banning almost all communication between them. The age groups are under 9, 9–12, 13–15, 16–17, 18–20, and 21+. Users only speak to other players ±1 age group, so 18-20 can speak to 16-17 or 21+. The problem is almost every game on Roblox is social and the matchmaking isn't mature enough to ensure players in a lobby can all communicate. My fav…

You've had your Roblox account for 18 years? Wtf, I could've sworn that game was released 4 years ago! Thanks for making me feel old I guess.

Don’t forget the part where GP says they’re 25 years old (currently) and have spent “tens of thousands of dollars” on the platform.

Re: Roblox shares plummet 18% as child safety measures weigh on bookings

#129

Post by mysterydip »

jihadjihad wrote: post #128
amarant wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've had your Roblox account for 18 years? Wtf, I could've sworn that game was released 4 years ago! Thanks for making me feel old I guess.

Don’t forget the part where GP says they’re 25 years old (currently) and have spent “tens of thousands of dollars” on the platform.

Just a point of clarity (because I read that at first as well), they spent tens of thousands of robux, which are at a generic level 100:$1. So not as crazy as it sounds, still an investment.

Re: Roblox shares plummet 18% as child safety measures weigh on bookings

#130

Post by JSR_FDED »

subscribed wrote: post #124
phatfish wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m sure what replaces it will be even worse though. :/ Hopefully not, it feels like regulation is catching up with the child exploitation. Once the giant platforms are dismantled and can no longer bully governments it will be easier to keep the smaller ones in check. And no, "dark web Roblox" isn't going to be a replacement. Not matter how much the existing exploiters try to make it a scare tactic.

No, it doesn't. Not long time ago a microblogginf platform run by a billionaire introduced an easy way to "virtually undress" real kids. Outrage ensued, owner showed the middle finger to everyone, moved the undressing part behind a paywall. Site is still supported by payment processors, still hosts accounts of all the major preas/government/NGO organisations. There are some token actions from some governments but abs…

Poor 4chan
Post reply on HN