Roblox sued for allegedly enabling young girl’s sexual, financial exploitation
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
This reads like the synopsis of a Philip K Dick story.
Given those two together, it's not difficult to infer.
There are literally thousands of lawsuits filed every year seeking liability from companies that are thrown out simply because of the CDA. I wouldn't say that those thousands of lawsuits are pressed by unreasonable people.
That aside, at least to me, if you're going to provide a platform for children to interact with other people, you better make sure those other people can't and aren't using your platform to exploit kids.
What if an abuser walks into a theme park or indoor play yard or ice skating rink? Should the operator be liable for monitoring the behavior and speech of every adult in the facility?
Most people find the parents that deny their children any privacy as abusive.
It's healthy for children to have time away from their parents, so they can learn and practice being adults.
The vast majority of teenagers have managed to do this without becoming pregnant, alcoholics, drug addicts, or join violent street gangs. (And some that do still manage to sort their lives out when they get older.)
What's changed in recent years are unregulated, algorithm-driven social media
- that guess people's moods to get them addicted to content and purchase products, including harmful products;
- that pushes content full of misinformation, conspiracy theories and violent extreme politics;
- allows random adults on the other side of the world to reach out to children for exploitation (sexual or financial) or recruitment for violent political causes;
- 24-hour interaction, so there's no break from the drama or abuse of school when you leave school for the day or weekend;
Supposed child-friendly platforms like YouTube Kids or Roblox are attractive places for people who want to exploit children. The profit motive encourages companies to take a hands-off approach, and the scale of users and content means that it's difficult to control.
GD I hate what "tech" has done to us.
And while at some point, parents need to be aware of what's going on, some of the apps certainly seem to go out of their way to make it impossible - I was not aware of SnapChat's My Eyes Only folder, but I'm not surprised given that the app is for ephemeral photo messaging and has payments built in. The obvious uses there are obvious.
When I started using computers, it was a tower with a proper screen and no camera no microphone. That meant the risk of apps spying on me was low and my parents could see everything on-screen to make sure bad stuff doesn't happen.
But giving the kid an iPad means apps know that there's a camera and a microphone available. And it means typically nobody else sees what's on your screen. And it makes it easy to bring "the internet" into your bedroom.
Using social media always means giving up privacy. So I feel like it's not unreasonable for parents to require it as a prerequisite for a minor to interact online. And that means the device needs to have a screen which is easily visible to parents at most/all times.
How about kids don't use devices unattended.
Not to mention the infeasibility if the kid is allowed to hang out with other kids without adults present.
The internet is a terrible place.
It’s true that the Internet has dark places, but it also has wonderful places that are good for children to socialize and learn. It’s the job of parents to guide children to use the Internet responsibly. This isn’t easy, and tragedies will occur. That’s true for all aspects of life.
1 - Children under 13 are way, way different than a 16 year old. They both do 'stupid' things, of course. Middle school age children are probably most susceptible to about everything.
2 - Kids don't need the internet to become responsible adults. We have thousands of years of examples proving as much. I think it is perfectly reasonable to raise kids with heavily restricted internet, or no internet at all if the parents so choose.
"Stupidity" is, in most cases, inexperience. By withholding their ability to experience the Internet until their teens, your children be worse off than less intelligent teens with years more experience in navigating the web. They'll likely ending up repeating the same mistakes at 13 that they're cohorts learned from at 5. All you're doing is delaying the inevitable.
> 2 - Kids don't need the internet to become responsible adults. We have thousands of years of examples proving as much. I think it is perfectly reasonable to raise kids with heavily restricted internet, or no internet at all if the parents so choose.
That's become less true as more institutions and information sources move online. Sure, parents have the right to heavily restrict what information their kids learn in their homes. That's what the religiously fanatical do when they homeschool their kids. But the outcome of that is often one where children lack the ability to be self-sufficient adults at the appropriate age. Hiding what people on the Internet do or say won't save your kids, only stifle them.
That being said, we have continued to push back the age when our kids have an internet connected device of their own (oldest is a 7th grade / 12yo boy).
Went with an Apple Watch with cellular so my son could text his friends and listen to music. Neither him or his 2 year younger sister can be on a laptop in private. I use NextDNS to block a bunch of sites. They don’t have any social media accounts.
This sounds draconian. But the stuff kids can stumble upon online is terrible and I don’t buy into the idea that they’ll learn through experience. I think many people don’t realize how under developed a child’s brain is.
While I agree that every child matures at different rates, "maturity" as a term is a weasel word that says more about a parent's beliefs and expectations than any objective evaluation of a person's psychological state. Parental philosophy and biological maturity are orthogonal at best. Every parental system makes certain assumptions that turn out to be untrue/self-contradictory or become outmoded as the child grows up. People learn things in spite of their parents, not because of them. The only successful parental philosophies are the ones the allow the child to grow into himself while giving him a clear view of the world as it is.
> That being said, we have continued to push back the age when our kids have an internet connected device of their own (oldest is a 7th grade / 12yo boy). Went with an Apple Watch with cellular so my son could text his friends and listen to music. Neither him or his 2 year younger sister can be on a laptop in private. I use NextDNS to block a bunch of sites. They don’t have any social media accounts.
Oddly enough, the inverse occurred in my case. My parents more or less policed the music I listened to until I was about ten (that wasn't hard to do when music came on CDs). They also wouldn't let me have a feature phone until I was your son's age, but I already had my own laptop by then, albeit one only permitted for use on weekends. I probably learned more about the world from all the time I've spent in front of a screen than I have from my parents or anyone else.
While I personally didn't have a Facebook account when that was all the rage, that was a decision I made for myself. Given that your son is almost a teen,your son's friends are likely on some form of social media and he's probably miss out on socializing with them beyond texting and calling. That is unless he's more of a loner like I was at that age.
> This sounds draconian. But the stuff kids can stumble upon online is terrible and I don’t buy into the idea that they’ll learn through experience.
How and when did you learn to operate a computer yourself? How did you make your way to this forum?
Your kids can stumble upon a dead body in the real world. The internet is no more and no less gruesome than the events that occur in the real world.
> I think many people don’t realize how under developed a child’s brain is.
If a child's mind is developed enough to understand actions, consequences, and responsibilities, they have the ability to understand how to use a computer. Eventually, they're going to look up stuff you don't like. Even Wikipedia will provide explicit pictures of sexual acts if you type in words like "fellatio".
I think computers are great. Is the stuff computers introduce kids to that I don’t particularly care for which is much different than when I got online in 1995.
I’m much less concerned with my kid looking up “fellatio” out of curiosity than I am them developing addiction to instant gratification by playing games like Roblox where adults engineer them purposely to manipulate people’s psychological weakness to make profit. That may sound extreme but I’m not sure it is inaccurate.
Kids searching for things out of curiosity is no problem...kid has full access to wikipedia and Google search app. Who cares if she sees a private part, especially in some educational context.
Social media is a cancer, and anything that opens them up to random chats and DMs might as well be injecting her brain with a cocktail of insecurity, pedophiles, and dick pics directly.
The internet certainly has its good parts, but most kids today seem more interested(naturally) in the addictive parts.
When she's 18 she can do whatever she wants. And maybe she'll resent me for it. I just hope that she understands I was doing what I thought was best, not being some strict ahole. Time will tell.
To add to that, younger kids are much more “teachable” than teens. Young kids want to be guided and soak up information like a sieve, particularly through imitation. Teens want to strike out on their own and discover things for themselves. They overestimate their ability and underestimate risk.
It’s much more dangerous to be an uneducated “sneaking out” teen on the Internet than an uneducated and monitored younger child.
THe internet is not appropiate for children. Full stop.
Also Hacker News: Children shouldn't be on the internet by themselves until sixteen!
Yeah I know they are not the same commenters, but come on.
In a town that’s much less likely.
Roblox and internet platforms should not be expected to either.
Is there some way to prove a person is under 18? We can prove that someone is over 18 via ID's or using credit cards as a proxy, but is there a way to keep adults out and let children in?
Roblox seems like a space that could potentially be limited to children. I've never met an adult with an interest (anecdata, perhaps it doesn't generalize).
> S.U. was admitted into an in-hospital treatment program, where the lawsuit says she was sexually assaulted by another resident
Oof. IANAL, but I think they’ll have better chances suing the hospital than social media platforms.