Government issued versus corporate issued age verification is a false dichotomy. There are other options, such as refusing games that require them. (Yes, we do have a teen, and yes we did exactly that with Roblox.)
Pretending that those options are equal is a false dichotomy. Not participating is an option up to a point, and then it is increasingly limiting all other options.
Thats obviously fine to do but it is very much going to have consequences for some kids. My kids spend hours a week playing roblox with their IRL friends. 10 - 15 kids on a group call on speaker phone all logged into the same code laughing and yelling for a couple hours a night. If I was to suddenly tell them that they can't play those games with their friends it would have very real effects on their social life. My kids spend a ton of time outside with friends but to ignore that they also spend time gaming with them is not an option.
If the other kids are jumping off bridges, I would have a great reason to tie my kid to the house. But this isn't that obvious to kids. They will be resentful, they will hate your guts. This will have lasting consequences to your relationship
But they aren't jumping off bridges are they? They are all having a good time playing together on Roblox. Are you honestly saying that playing on Roblox is as bad as mass suicide?
Sure except none of them are playing minecraft so its not really the same thing.
Me siting down and explaining how government or corp. issued age verification is bad is really not going to make him feel better about sitting alone in his room night after night while all of his friends are online having a good time.
Fwiw we did that with Roblox too, but I hate it because Roblox Studio was a pretty damn fun collaborative gamedev experience.
I mean his classmates argue with their parents about whether they can install TikTok (and most parents lose). Meanwhile I’m denying my son the right to make a game together with a friend. It’s so creative and so educative and I’m saying no to it. It sucks and I hate Roblox for making something so cool and then taking it away for such stupid reasons.
I’d happily pay a license fee or sth. But I’m not gonna let them scan my son’s face.
There's plenty of ways to make games outside of Roblox. Maybe they could sit down together and work through some Löve2D or Godot tutorials? No one can take that away arbitrarily
I think GP meant “collaboratively” as in collaborating online through the game itself. The same way you might e.g. collaborate on a Google Doc.
“Sit down together” might be impractical here, if GP’s child’s friends are e.g. friends they made before a move, who are thus quite far away physically. Or friends with snobby parents who won’t let them come over to GP’s house for whatever dumb reason. Or friends with extra-curriculars such that their free time never lines up with GP’s kid’s free time—meaning that only async collaboration will work.
(That’s just a steelman position, though; in general I agree.)
You are correct. And they do sit down together. Hours of ridiculous ideas flowing, and then when they go back home they can continue working on it. Or, well, they could until recently.
This thread is like me complaining Google face-scan-gated Google Docs and people are saying “he can just sit down with the friend and learn LaTeX together!” Yeah, no.
Neither multiplayer gamedevving nor multiplayer game playing are supported as well by either of these.
Fwiw he does Godot too. It’s fun, but it’s purely solo. Godot’s answer to collaboration is Git, which is a complete non-starter for a 13yo. Note, I don’t judge them for it, they compete with Unity, not with Roblox.
This is generally my opinion, and goodness it's swung around quite a bit. This entire debate feels like it should be solved by adequate parental controls.
To the extent that it matters, I think the missing link here is "primary education should support a parent's intent to limit unrestricted internet access for their children." That is, during school activities where internet use is unavoidable, require supervision. (Maybe a lab monitor that can roam the room and see screens?) And for homework, don't assume the kid has internet access, because that is the parent's choice, and they may well not. On the flip side, if the parent trusts their kid with that access, or intends for them to learn through real world experience, let them. That should not be the state's decision.
The problem of course is that this idea in my head is a pipe dream. Schools seem to be well onboard with digital coursework, presumably for efficiency reasons? Unclear. I'm not sure what a more practical middle ground actually looks like.
The California Digital Age Assurance Act is a law mandating adequate parental controls. And it's a great law that should be copied instead of doing the verification nonsense.
To the extent that it matters, I think the missing link here is "primary education should support a parent's intent to limit unrestricted internet access for their children." That is, during school activities where internet use is unavoidable, require supervision.
Don't get me started. We try to restrict internet time, no Youtube (Shorts are poison/heroin), TikTok, etc. They go to primary school and there is a teacher that makes TikTok videos at school, they can play Roblox in breaks, etc. (Aside from this issue, the teachers are great though!)
There are only so many battles you can choose as a parent (not getting your kids photographed, put on Facebook, etc.).
In contrast to what the grandparent states, the government should unambiguously state: no smartphones, social media, and online games in primary school, period. That's the only way to make it work. Ironically, smartphones are forbidden in all high schools here.
Truthfully, I don't know! Especially for younger kids though, there's usually at least an adult in the room, right? Even when they're visiting a friend, the other parent is there to step in and check on them occasionally?
I guess once you hand your teenager a smart phone (and all their friends have one too!) all bets are off. That's new, and wasn't a thing when I grew up. We were rural and on the tail end of dial-up, so I couldn't get online at home without someone hearing the modem. That sure limited my attempts to do so without permission!
Homeschool and exercise close, very close, supervision over what your kids do on the internet.
I'd have hated this as a child. But the case for unrestricted internet and social media access for children being harmful, at this point, seems pretty shut.
For those who sadly cannot homeschool their children... well, we need to push for school choice and to dismantle the teachers' unions. Which probably ultimately is the same thing.
In many European countries, homeschooling does not really exist. For good reasons. Mingling with many kids from the same age cohort with diverse backgrounds is good for kids. Homeschooling is also often used by religious zealots to indoctrinate their children.
People with bad takes like that give homeschooling a terrible name, and make it easier for those regularly trying to dismantle it. It's an excellent tool for responsible parents, and a horrible weapon in the hands of zealots.
I am thankful to have had extensive access to technology as a (homeschooled) kid, and parents who encouraged curiosity.
Destroy "optimize for engagement" social media, which harms everyone, and stop pretending like this is some problem that only harms children.