this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2025
301 points (100.0% liked)

PC Gaming

13096 readers
1180 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 101 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I'd be far happier if they just shut down chat under 18. The pedos will find a way to get through otherwise.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 40 points 1 month ago (3 children)

...and how do you verify that chatters are over 18?

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

While I don't love age verification, taking 3d webcam scans from adults won't create a catalog of kids.

edit: and to clarify, IDGAF about chat ID verifications for almost all sites, but Roblox is marketed explicitly toward and occupied by children.

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

no amount of age verification/id controls is stopping bad parents from failing their kids, it's a pointless waste of time which ultimately opens up these kids/people to being even more vulnerable when somebody hacks their database.

if you run a business that provides some digital entertainment service to children, and facilitates their communication while using it...the only way your stopping groomers (or just generally keeping it from turning into a cesspool) is by actually paying people to moderate the chat rooms, simple as that

and, atleast in an unregulated shithole like the US...the only way they'll do that is if they end up being held liable under some class action lawsuit

small communities like this are work because the population using it is still relatively small

[–] lime@feddit.nu 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

either way you're creating a database of people's faces. it's gonna be handled by a third party no matter what so whether you're above or below the cutoff is just a flag.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Ask for verification only to enable chat. So at least in theory it's only adults.

Or, you know; don't.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

i mean, to matter which way you go you'll have created a database of people's real identities. which is a problem.

[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah but at least it wouldn't be mostly children.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

did you bypass verification prompts as a child? so will they.

[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Yes, and Ana von mcfakenamesdottir the third, born jan1 1900 will be in the database forever.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

hah.

personally i think a big part of the problem is that real-name identification for things that shouldn't need it is just sort of accepted, rather than being criticised as the massive invasion of privacy that it is. whether it includes children or not is a side note in my mind.

[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Oh absolutely, and we should go back to 1990s anonymity

But here we are. Everything has an endoscope.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

well, we're here. but the companies and governments pushing this are already looking at possible next steps, like building systems where your real identity is used everywhere.

[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And part of what I want is for children to be excluded. To not be tracked. It's a good wedge that turns their rhetoric against them.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

maybe. when china did it with their law about children not using their phones after curfew, they handled it by building a face database of everyone except children, then matching against that.

[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Still fucking awful, but more work and keeps kids a little safer than the opposite

[–] lime@feddit.nu 3 points 1 month ago (11 children)

also a very useful way to mask your true reason if your true reason is "i want to build a database of people". four horsemen of the internet type shit.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Just send one (1) child picture.

[–] atthecoast@feddit.nl 32 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Parents can turn off chat in the parental controls. Then I found my daughter chatting using the handheld “protest signs” in game that have customizable text…

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It's a losing battle, but it shows your child is clever and adaptable. You're training them well.

[–] joyjoy@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 month ago

I would be willing to verify my age if it meant I didn't have to play with children.

[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 65 points 1 month ago

... to access chat features.

I'm going to go ahead and click 'No'

[–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 59 points 1 month ago

How nice to ask kids who cannot consent to share pictures with that company…

[–] DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca 48 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

No? Still no flags popping up? Bells ringing? Alright, I'm sure this is fine too. It's ~~keeping an eye on~~ protecting the kids at least.

[–] NoForwardslashS@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But we obviously can't protect the kids if we don't know who they are and therefore must have a database of all their faces.

[–] DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago

Yeah, I'm sure that couldn't possibly exist for ulterior motives. Bunch of fucking creeps.

[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 41 points 1 month ago

Getting an early start on cataloging with facial recognition.

[–] C1pher@lemmy.world 41 points 1 month ago

Pedo app asking for pictures of children. Ban Roblox already, Jesus Crist.

[–] einlander@lemmy.world 34 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Looks like they are building a menu...

[–] KelvarCherry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago

Release the Roblox Files!

[–] Gork@sopuli.xyz 20 points 1 month ago (2 children)

How will it combat AI generated profile pictures? They're literally everywhere now, I'm seeing them in brainrot mobile games even.

[–] real_squids@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Probably with a different AI that's trained to spot that. Realistically, they won't.

[–] ThunderComplex@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago

Well it’ll improve the AI profile pics to the point that you won’t recognize it’s AI. Can’t be mad at AI images if you don’t recognize 'em

[–] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 1 month ago

What could go wrong

[–] Elgenzay@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"Sir, people keep using our service to get children to send them selfies! What do we do?"

[–] KelvarCherry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago

Too many kids know not to send pics to strangers, so now the Roblox devs gotta log off their alts and use power instead of deception.

[–] hayvan@feddit.nl 13 points 1 month ago

Sounds like a great plan to me. I see no way this could go wrong.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

I'm disappointed this wasn't the onion when I had to check.

[–] Worx@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yum yum, get those kiddy pics!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] caboose2006@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

What could possibly go wrong?

[–] Sunsofold@lemmings.world 5 points 1 month ago

There are too many people on the internet, let alone children.

load more comments
view more: next ›