Roblox sued for allegedly enabling young girl’s sexual, financial exploitation(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Roblox sued for allegedly enabling young girl’s sexual, financial exploitation
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/10/roblox-sued-for-allegedly-enabling-young-girls-sexual-financial-exploitation/
46 comments
Where were the parents in that story?
The case likely doesn't have legal merit. If we could get money damages for actions of others through online platforms there'd be easy money to be made. A reasonable person would also not try to sue companies for this.
Given those two together, it's not difficult to infer.
Given those two together, it's not difficult to infer.
The only thing shielding companies from liability is Section 230 of the CDA. Without it, companies could be found liable for user generated content that they host.
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.
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.
[deleted]
> 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?
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?
I'm friends with someone who worked on a discussion board system for a popular kids' show channel. Every post was first read by moderators before being allowed to be seen. It's a 100% attainable goal for companies that actually care about providing safe places for children to interact online.
Yes, and in some parts of the world they are obligated to run background checks on their employees or contractors.
Parents cannot and should not be watching their teenaged children 24/7, and if they tried, the children would find ways to hide things from their parents.
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.
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.
Something something pandemic means kids aren't seeing their friends so they need social media to fit in. This is what I usually hear. I know people say to just parent your kids, but the right choice isn't always obvious
Her parents were probably just like the many "happy", middle-class families with kids I know - "it's so hard to be the only kid without a smartphone, and since the pandemic, it helps her keep in touch with her friends. And the school has an app now, and there are so many educational games!".
GD I hate what "tech" has done to us.
GD I hate what "tech" has done to us.
Why isn't snap and/or discord bring sued?
They are. It is stated in the subheading, as well as the article.
Soon to add to the lawsuit Visa and Mastercard for conspiring with Roblox to facilitate exploitation of children.
"Engagement and growth at all costs!" in fine form here. Lots of social media activity, lots of accounts created!
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.
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.
In my opinion, the issue here is the iPad.
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.
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.
Obviously the parents have no responsibility at all.....
How about kids don't use devices unattended.
How about kids don't use devices unattended.
The kid in the story is 10 to 13 years old. At what age would a kid be able to use a device unattended (presumably meaning one that access the internet and allows for communications)?
Not to mention the infeasibility if the kid is allowed to hang out with other kids without adults present.
Not to mention the infeasibility if the kid is allowed to hang out with other kids without adults present.
After 18. Before that you get a device that can make calls and has a GPS.
I’m not sure but currently planning 16 or 18.
The internet is a terrible place.
The internet is a terrible place.
I presume you’ve not raised kids of your own. If you had, you’d know that constant monitoring of older children is both infeasible and unhealthy. Children don’t magically become responsible at age 16 or 18; they get there by participating in the world in age-appropriate ways. That includes the Internet.
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.
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.
A couple thoughts. I generally agree with your post, except maybe a couple implications...
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.
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.
> 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.
"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.
"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.
Every parent will have different philosophies and every child matures at different rates.
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.
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.
> Every parent will have different philosophies and every child matures at different rates.
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".
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 don’t disagree with anything you’ve said and I’m not sure if you’re a parent. But I quickly realized that raising an actual human defies most of what I thought would work.
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.
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.
This is pretty much my stance.
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.
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.
The intent of Wikipedia vs. Pornhub are so different. The difference in outcome of seeing fellatio on those sites are not even comparable.
> 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.
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.
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.
In fact I have raised kids of 18, 6, 2, and 1.
THe internet is not appropiate for children. Full stop.
THe internet is not appropiate for children. Full stop.
Hacker News: Children over ten should be able to walk around the town by themselves!
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.
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.
Now that you mention it, I'd give my child full free access to the neighborhood alone before giving them full free access to the internet alone. Not the whole town, though.
Yeah there are dark places on the internet just a click away, and anyone can access anyone.
In a town that’s much less likely.
In a town that’s much less likely.
Right. I would let my kids walk 1/2 a mile to the store before I would let them use social media.
Your kids are just going to do it when you're around, and not talk to you about what they see since there's no trust in your relationship.
I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about, and you should refrain from speaking on what you don't know.
"Anyone who isn't an abusive helicopter parent shouldn't comment on parenting." Keep telling yourself you're doing your kid favors until the day they cut you out of their life entirely.
The app has been rated PEGI 7+. The fault doesn't lie solely on the parents there.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Some interesting related investigation (I think they mention this girl in the second video) related to roblox is anyone is interested. I had never used it, but after seeing these I don't think I would ever use it or encourage anyone to use it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gXlauRB1EQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTMF6xEiAaY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gXlauRB1EQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTMF6xEiAaY
As someone who knows nothing about roblox these videos were very interesting. Thanks for sharing.
If parents cannot monitor children 24/7.
Roblox and internet platforms should not be expected to either.
Roblox and internet platforms should not be expected to either.
This isn't the first time this has happened in "children's" communities.
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).
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).
> program reassured them, stating that it was safe and that the kids were constantly monitored.
> 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.
> 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.
It’s a serious problem. No-one wants to constantly monitor their kid, even to make sure they’re safe, but Roblox is like a playground full of unaccompanied adults.
This reads like the synopsis of a Philip K Dick story.