[Wowfunhappy]

> Imagine if Roblox didn't give money to the kids. Would that be better?

Yes.

> The efforts to criticize it strike me as pattern matching. Child labor = children working in coal mines or as chimney sweeps = bad. Kids making Roblox games for fun is child labor therefore kids making Roblox games is bad.

Only if it really is something the child is doing for fun. In many cases, I don't believe it is. Please see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gXlauRB1EQ. I apologize for linking a relatively lengthy video, but this one really shaped how I feel about Roblox.

This is in fact the same basis for why we ban children working as chimney sweeps. I'm sure many children do have fun sweeping chimneys on occasion—I can certainly remember a time when I thought it was fun to wash windows—but add payment to the mix and it generally devolves into something else.

[tasuki]

I don't want to defend child labour too much, I don't know much about the topic.

But is it really so clear that a child not working is somehow a better outcome than a child not being hungry and being able to provide shelter for themselves?

[punyearthling]

I'm in the same boat as you on not knowing much about child labour.

That being said, if a child is doing labour for a company (in this case Roblox, but the same could be said for Instagram, Tiktok, etc.), why is it considered more ethical to NOT pay that child for their work?

I know an argument could be made that adding financial incentives encourage more kids to participate in said child labour, but NOT paying them doesn't dissuade them from doing so.

And how is Roblox's practice different from the creator funds of social media sites that rely on user-generated content to justify their existence? It's all very murky to me.

I think my problem with this model is Roblox taking such a large cut from their workforce, not that they pay them at all.

[sitkack]

You might enjoy this

A 12-Year-Old Sued Roblox and WON https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dff7sHUzDww