[rektomatic]

You have to have a focus on strong families. If the child has parents or guardians who are aware of what they're doing and will stop them from doing it then there wouldn't really be a problem in the first place at least with five year olds

[skh]

Are you sure it’s wise to put the onus solely on the parents? Some kids are born into families with crappy parents. Are they to be exploited at the whim of whatever corporate goal is out there due to their bad luck of having crappy parents?

It’s more reasonable to say that parents ought to be on top of things and recognize that not all of them are. Thus it’s best to have other safeguards in place. Like make Facebook liable for its exploitive behavior.

[j16sdiz]

In this case (or the online casino case GP was suggesting), the parent should keep his/her credit card safe. How this not the parent's responsibility?

[CaptainZapp]

Here's the scenario :

  Kid asks parent if she's allowed to buy 10$ worth of gaming stuff
  Parent agrees, enters cc info, which is stored by FB without any warning
  Games are designed in a way that you just click some cuddly icon without even realizing that you spend real money

That's not just only the darkest of patterns it's also geared towards vulnerable kids. Intentionally and by design.

In my book we're slowly in executives should wind up in jail territory when it comes to this evil carbunkel of a company without any morals, whatsoever.

[xienze]

> Kid asks parent if she's allowed to buy 10$ worth of gaming stuff

So, stop right here. The solution is for parents to take a look at what their kids are playing and refuse to let them play F2P stuff. Mine aren't allowed anywhere near F2P games for the very reasons you outlined.

If you let them play F2P games, you know that inevitably the "pay" part is going to rear its ugly head repeatedly, even with perfectly-implemented controls that prevent the kid from taking your credit card for a ride. Every damn day they're going to ask you to buy that stupid in-game currency. Just say no before it ever starts. Otherwise, good luck.

[hombre_fatal]

How many people outside of HN even know what "F2P" is and how it works? In-app purchases aren't limited to F2P, either. Nor are they always a dark pattern.

My parents would buy me $10 of gaming stuff as a kid, like a month subscription to an MMO. Seems unreasonable to expect them to know there's some in-game button I can press that keeps charging their card. I played World of Warcraft for five years and still couldn't tell you if that feature existed in-game. How would my mother?

Seems like a tall order especially with all the other things a parent needs to stay on top of when raising kids. "Just don't make digital purchases" seems like a weak solution. Small measures like having to re-enter the CC control code after a time interval would really help parents.

[skh]

The solution is for all parents to be aware of potential for dark patterns and to put the onus on them to refuse to let their kids play F2P games? It would be nice to live in a society in which the government doesn’t view actions that Facebook engages in as something every parent ought to be aware of. Caveat emptor works in some cases but not all of them. Your diligence in this situation is not something every parent has the foresight or willpower or knowledge to do. What Facebook did was morally reprehensible. There aren’t other parties to blame in this case.

[xienze]

> The solution is for all parents to be aware of potential for dark patterns and to put the onus on them to refuse to let their kids play F2P games?

The pattern is very simple. If the game has an in-app purchase along the lines of:

* Buy 10 gems: $0.99

* Buy 50 gems: $2.99

etc. then it's F2P garbage. Get rid of it. Take the five minutes to see what your kid is playing.

Otherwise, you're asking to ban these games altogether or make them 18+. All because it's too much trouble to see what they're actually doing with that iPad you throw in front of them.

[pbhjpbhj]

You say "the solution ...". I think there are others.

Like have a default maximum spend in Facebook of $5 per app and $50 total, and require at least a double-lock to enable a higher level of payments.

Double lock: user confirms by ticking a box and by following a link in an email, say; then they get a message on their Facebook saying "you authorised higher spending for $game, up to $amount".

They could require pre-deposit, not allow use of credit cards, only allow spending if your credit rating is good, etc.. But none of this things increase mindless spending.

[mcv]

You're right that parents should be aware of what their children are playing, but that in no way justifies these deceptive practices by Facebook and other companies.

[skh]

Have you ever misplaced something? Have you dealt with kids with curiosity or who desire something without thinking about the consequences? Facebook had an employee who gave the company specific steps it could easily take to prevent children from becoming whales. They refused to do this. Let’s not lose sight of just how shitty the people at Facebook who decided to do this are. This was a deliberate act on their part. The focus ought to be on them.

[untog]

Sounds like it would be about as successful as abstinence only sex education.

The reason we end up with laws covering stuff like this is because it's a lot easier to do that than fix the whole of society. I don't think anyone disagrees that every child having a caring and attentive parent would solve a lot of problems, but how do we get there? While we work that out, we can pass some laws to protect those children.

[CaptainZapp]

The problem with that thinking was that those games were engineered in a way, where those kids couldn't even realize that they got fleeced for real money.

And Facebook handsomely and intentionally profited from that.

[seandougall]

Did you read the article before launching straight into victim blaming? It’s not about supervision, it’s about dark patterns. Parents were aware of what their kids were doing, but weren’t aware of what FB was doing.

[ardy42]

> You have to have a focus on strong families. If the child has parents or guardians who are aware of what they're doing and will stop them from doing it then there wouldn't really be a problem in the first place at least with five year olds

You're half right. We have to focus on strong families who would raise kids who, as adults, will have a strong enough moral compass to 1) say no to being involved in stuff like this stuff at Facebook, 2) blow the whistle when they find out about it, and 3) take urgent action when they hear the whistle being blown.

[fredley]

There will always be kids who don't get a strong family, whatever you do. You can certainly reduce this sort of thing (with adequate parental leave, financial parental support and broader societal compassion for parents (hard!)) but you can never reduce it to zero.

Because these children are the most vulnerable to begin with, they are the reason protections are required in law against e.g. marketing gambling products and junk food to children.

[whatshisface]

You will also always get people targeting kids, even outside of the law. Reducing the number of kids without a family still might be a lot more effective than regulating the world into being as safe as an extended family (although both would be nice).

[fredley]

You still want the law to be there to go after the bad guys though. I agree any sensible solution will incorporate both approaches.

[Spooky23]

So kids who lack strong families are left to the wind to be exploited? Really?