I get reminded of this quote from their studio exec:

“You can say, ‘Okay, we are exploiting, you know, child labor,’ right? Or you can say: we are offering people anywhere in the world the capability to get a job, and even like an income,” Corazza said. “So I can be like, 15 years old, in Indonesia, living in a slum, and then now with just a laptop, I can create something, make money, and then sustain my life.”

When I read that quote a few weeks ago, I thought about how that's the kind of argument people who travel abroad to rape kids use to justify themselves.

It feels related to this, somehow. Maybe something about how children are treated like a disposable resource or an object to be used unless the person who owns them (parents?) are powerful, well to do, white, etc, etc. And that's because their owner is those things, so they're valuable property. I'm not sure if I'm articulating myself well. Too much sun.

This is the type of experience that is advertised for children but has the same lootbox system thats predatory and paylocks most of the games. Every shitty mobile game practice is worshipped by every “dev” in Roblox to make a quick buck of children wanting to have fun. Its basically a child exploitation market.

I never played Roblox and tend to be fairly out of the loop, and even I have heard about Roblox in connection with child exploitation. Hope those kids eventually get justice and their predators prevented from harming them.

Well documented on youtube for years. Roblox condo is essentially a disaster because when one of those games go down, another one takes its place. There's so many of discord servers dedicated to condos, all of which are essentially places that manipulate and groom underage people.

Its always against tos, but like always, they choose what to moderate, and clearly they don't give a fuck about these enough

"Allowed" implies they knew about it, and let it happen anyway. Is that actually provable? They knew about these specific cases and knowingly let them continue happening? Some may say its just semantics, but semantics is literally the only thing lawyers and judges care about.

Like, if someone buys a car and then drives into a crowd of people killing multiple and injuring many more, you wouldn't say that the car manufacturer "allowed" a mass murder to happen. I wonder how the lawyers will talk about this case.