To say nothing of the Roblox situation, anyone else having a hard time reading this piece of "reporting"?
It reads, to me, as so obviously slanted and opinionated against Roblox from the outset. It's not trying to portray facts, it's clearly trying to make the reader interpret the situation in an anti-roblox light, instead of letting the reader arrive there on their own.
It must be tiring though to keep the "neutral" approach for every article. How many benefits of doubts is Roblox owed, really? Asking for a more neutral tone is almost akin to asking for Hunter S Thompson to rewrite "The Kentucky Derby Is Decadent and Depraved" in a more neutral tone.
If a journalist does not at least attempt to present their viewpoint as neutral I will immediate presume they have irrational bias and grow skeptical of what the journalist is telling me - no matter what side of the issue their bias is on. In other words, if you talk to me like a salesman I will presume you are trying to sell me and I wont want to buy.
Talk to me like an adult. Tell me what happened. That doesn't mean sugarcoating it. When I read the quotes and combine that with my existing knowledge of Roblox I can come to my own conclusions just fine.
> If a journalist does not at least attempt to present their viewpoint as neutral I will immediate presume they have irrational bias and grow skeptical of what the journalist is telling me
So you’re saying you have an irrational bias against other people having opinions? Fascinating.
That's not what he was saying. It's not a irrational bias he has. It's a rational response for a neutal thirdparty trying to understand what the issue is.
Let the facts speak for themselves. I agree the interview sounds damning. However it reduces the quality of the article to introduce Roblox as a "pedophile hellscape" right off the bat, or tell me how it was so impressive how the interviewer "kept his cool" in response to the answers.
It's honestly the same style of writing anytime Fox news reports on any democratic action, or vice versa for other rags. Except this has a nice dose of "think of the children" that further lets them pull on heartstrings.
Again, fuck Roblox and their lack of an ability to improve on these issues, but this is just trash writing and editing.
Not at all. It reads exactly the opposite: grounded concern, and then an absolute mess of an interview that provides solid reason to question their governance.
> Polymarket, a cryptoscam-based prediction market
How is this "reporting" even real? Awful article. The interview was so bad that painting roblox in the bad light was the right and objective thing to do, yet they somehow managed to make it look biased.
I didn’t have a problem with it, given the headline I knew it was commentary on a shit show of an interview from someone who should be prepared to answer hard questions and represent a company position to the public. I’m not offended by the opinionated writing given the context.
> When asked about the “scope of the problem” of predators in the application, Baszucki came in shoulders first saying, “We think of it not necessarily just as a problem, but an opportunity as well.”
I mean… how much benefit of the doubt is one expected to give someone who runs a game for kids who sees paedophiles as an ‘opportunity’? Like, this isn’t a criminal trial, it’s a news article. There is no presumption on innocence, and the company’s past is relevant.
“Roblox CEO sees pedophiles as ‘opportunity’” would be a less biased headline that reports the actual interesting facts of the interview and would be more damaging to them in practice.
The story quotes directly from the interview. I watched the interview, and the characterization is accurate. Here's a passage:
Newton: (interjecting) You don’t think you have a problem with predators on the platform.
Baszucki: I think we’re doing an incredible job at innovating relative to the number of people on our platform and the hours, in really leaning into the future of how this is going to work.
>it's clearly trying to make the reader interpret the situation in an anti-roblox light
Yes, I would imagine the thing described as a "pedophile hellscape" should look pretty bad to the average reader. But just so I'm getting this right: the thing you're maddest about is the bad PR for Roblox?
Is Roblox now as controversial as Epstein news? Don’t mind the (Republican of course) elephant in the room. Vote for Trump. He’s our only hope. He can protect Roblox from the law.
I think this interview doesn’t require much analysis. The CEO’s own words make him look bad.
Or if you want the tl;dr, ask an LLM. I think the general sentiment is overt and simple enough that the LLM wouldn’t omit or misrepresent anything important.
I understand the justified hysteria against pedophiles grooming kids. Although it is amusing coming from a country that is reeling from the Epstein affair.
But this is not a Roblox problem it is an internet problem.
And I do not know how to solve it except more censorship and control.
The solution has been throughout the ages, content moderation and community policing. The village used to be that. We were promised the Global Village, but got the Global Content Farms.
If you can't run forums and chats because moderation is too expensive, then don't run 'em. Roblox is like the Pleasure Island in Pinocchio.
Wasn't pedophilia much more widespread throughout the ages than it is now? I think the real "solution" to the problem of child abuse back in time was not to view it as a problem at all!
Whatever it was, it was highly context dependent and distributed thus more resilient to the whims of a single commercial entity. Roblox is like centralized daycare. If you are fine with that, sign your kids up.
But I didn't say anything about roblox, why do you think I'm fine with whatever they are doing? I just think you are wrong to think that anti-pedophilia guardrails thorough the ages were good and should be example for us. If you are fine with how things were done, sign your kids up for marriage and pregnancy at 13 years old.
"And I do not know how to solve it except more censorship and control."
That has (almost) always been part of raising children. The important question is, who has control and with what intentions? The intention of roblox they say out in the open, bind kids to their plattform, increase their engagement (addiction) and introduce gambling as soon as legally possible. And pretadors they don't see as a problem despite independent research very much say it is. Trusting them in any way sounds like madness or lack of care. So I am not in a position yet, that I am pressured by my toddler to allow roblox, but he is hooked on minecraft now. Just singleplayer, but also no idea how it works in that universe with public servers. I am not generally against the idea, that adults can talk with kids, but random adults from the internet? No way.
It reads, to me, as so obviously slanted and opinionated against Roblox from the outset. It's not trying to portray facts, it's clearly trying to make the reader interpret the situation in an anti-roblox light, instead of letting the reader arrive there on their own.