[boublepop]

Sounds like you’ve not read anything into the details at all. At face value, yes there could be nothing wrong with a game allowing kids to be creative and share what they build.

But if LEGO started coming with lottery tickets in the kids sets, had adds for exploitative devs that ran real businesses with 7year olds on payroll in “pretend money” that can be exchanged on black sites that LEGO approved of by not taking any actions, well you start to get in to problems.

The thing is that Roblox is not just a unsuspecting pawn here. They are deliberately fostering this, they know about the toxic development environment, so they closed their own forums to avoid legal implications, they knowing promote gambling to kids, they allow sites that exchange in game currency for money because it helps grow their game.

> It also lets kids learn a lot of entrepreneurial skills if they have that bent, which I view as a massive plus.

I’m sure the experience of working as an underage kid for a grown man sexually targeting underage girls will very valuable in the startup world, especially the part where the company gets informed and doesn’t do anything more than the bare minimum because his child labor ring is making them money.

It’s a game for kids, but it’s not made or owned by kids. We can hold them to a higher bar of responsibility.

[adubaiconcon]

Sounds like you've read anything that article says without thinking about it.

1. What kind of "lottery ticket" are you referring to? Lottery ticket, by definition requires random element. Does Roblox provide any such mechanics? No. A platform that you can buy and sell is hardly considered "lottery ticket" platform.

2. The forum is closed because of the toxicity of the posts, not because of the development environment. For development communication, they could use Guilded which is owned by Roblox, it's not like there is no legit alternative. If people choose to communicate out of the platform, how do you suppose Roblox to take any actions? They can't even verify if the provided evidence is true or not. Should Google ban a user's gmail account if that user did sexual harassment in their own company?