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

Post by sieabahlpark » Sun, May 03, 2026, 8:09 PM UTC

curiousObject wrote: post #141

hluska wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or perhaps you’ve aged out of a game that is primarily meant to be a place for children. The child safety measures make things more difficult for you because nobody wants you there. And it seems to be working as designed. Maybe it’s time to find a new game that’s more for your age group.

This is quite like saying that because you’ve “aged out” of high school, you must be suddenly cut off from interacting with all the friends you made in high school IRL, you stay in touch with some of those old high school friends for years. I don’t know if it’s the Roblox system deliberately trying to prevent players from maintaining contact outside the game with their friends? Or maybe just that the players haven’t…

Post by watwut » Sun, May 03, 2026, 9:21 PM UTC

jredwards wrote: post #92

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…

> But these measures were implemented poorly and needed to be paired with matchmaking to not destroy the platform. As a parent, my experience in discussion with other parents is: "Don't ever let your child onto Roblox, it is utterly toxic and should be avoided at all costs." From that perspective, I think most parents view the destruction of the platform as neutral to positive, and it suggests that the status quo wou…

Post by ytoawwhra92 » Mon, May 04, 2026, 12:21 AM UTC

subscribed wrote: post #125

Aurornis wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by watwut » Mon, May 04, 2026, 7:52 AM UTC

skybrian wrote: post #61

a2128 wrote: post #44

Roblox's introduction of mandatory face verification to chat is one of the most biggest examples of how people in tech can get so deep in trying to create a solid technical solution, that they completely miss the human problems it creates. You could create the best possible face verification system that processes everything completely locally, uses CPU security features to make sure the photos stay exactly where they…

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…

Post by subscribed » Mon, May 04, 2026, 5:35 PM UTC

ytoawwhra92 wrote: post #155

subscribed wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> permanently deanonyming identification As is showing your ID to a bartender.