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

61–70 of 160 posts

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

#61

Post by skybrian »

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 to prevent adults from pretending to be kids, which is much harder than preventing kids from accessing adult sites.

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

#62

Post by stebalien »

codedokode wrote: post #49
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…

Why 18-20 are isolated from 21+? Aren't they all adult or in some countries children develop slower?

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+

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

#63

Post by ianm218 »

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…

This feels like a bit of a reach. It's not really clear that adding face scanning as a blocker for chat makes anyone more likely to fall for scams. These hypotethical god tier engineers should just make scam prevention software in addition to face scanning anyway?

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

#64

Post by hluska »

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…

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.

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

#65

Post by hluska »

tailscaler2026 wrote: post #39
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> these measures were implemented poorly and needed to be paired with matchmaking to not destroy the platform I see these as orthogonal issues. Your mathmaking gripe sounds legitimate, and is probably driven by Roblox's low 21+ user numbers. That would be expected to change over time. At the same time, I'm not seeing a great argument for why these folks (EDIT: Roblox) should continue to have unfettered access to kids…

If communication was proactively filtered to prevent bad actors (which Roblox obviously failed to do for years), why should it matter if an adult is playing a game with a kid they don't know?

Roblox is effectively a casino for kids with more social elements than in adult casinos. The corporation failed to prevent children from rapists for decades. Why would any rational person trust them to implement either proactive communication filters or to even allow something so close to gambling amongst different age groups?

Roblox doesn’t deserve to be a business and I hope the lawsuits and equity markets solve that in a hurry.

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

#66

Post by sokoloff »

tailscaler2026 wrote: post #39
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> these measures were implemented poorly and needed to be paired with matchmaking to not destroy the platform I see these as orthogonal issues. Your mathmaking gripe sounds legitimate, and is probably driven by Roblox's low 21+ user numbers. That would be expected to change over time. At the same time, I'm not seeing a great argument for why these folks (EDIT: Roblox) should continue to have unfettered access to kids…

If communication was proactively filtered to prevent bad actors (which Roblox obviously failed to do for years), why should it matter if an adult is playing a game with a kid they don't know?

There’s a large risk and hugely adversarial nature/motivation for predators to bypass whatever proactive filtering is put in place.

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

#67

Post by taejavu »

jjmarr wrote: post #58
vintermann wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like a really counterproductive system. Usually in age verification, you prove that you're over a certain age. 9 year olds don't have very many ways to prove that they're 9 years old. What's stopping the creeps from pretending to be younger than they are?

They automatically assign you to an age group based on AI/guessing/face verification. If you've been assigned to an incorrect group, you need to do KYC verification with ID.

What’s to stop a 40 year old from holding up a photo of their 15 year old self for the age verification camera?

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

#68

Post by golem14 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #25
fredoliveira wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That interview of their CEO with the NYT from last year was insane. If you've never seen it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpIXRgMlPo4

> interview of their CEO with the NYT Do you have a source from the New York Times ? (EDIT: Nvm.) Second EDIT: the CEO reminds me of the energy vampire from What We Do in the Shadows .

It’s time for me to re-read MOMO by Michael Ende.

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

#69

Post by brooke2k »

taejavu wrote: post #67
jjmarr wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They automatically assign you to an age group based on AI/guessing/face verification. If you've been assigned to an incorrect group, you need to do KYC verification with ID.

What’s to stop a 40 year old from holding up a photo of their 15 year old self for the age verification camera?

nothing at all, because it's PR security theatre done out of desperation as their platform has been gradually revealed to be a machine that destroys children's lives

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

#70

Post by TheCoreh »

stebalien wrote: post #62
codedokode wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why 18-20 are isolated from 21+? Aren't they all adult or in some countries children develop slower?

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?
Post reply on HN