You'll never catch me alive COPPA - Facebook's profiteering of children lawsuit unsealed

[jagdtigger]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I don't really agree. I think some of the responsibility falls on companies too. For example if a store sells alcohol to minors, then I think that store should be punished.

I do however think that only that store should be punished, not that we should implement a system where we can track every flash/can/box/glass of booze bought through GPS tags and monitor who gives what to who, just so that we can catch some people reselling it to minors. Protecting children has to be put in relation to other costs too.

The authorities have a responsibility in this too since they are the ones who have to enforce law, and make surprise under cover check of places if need be... (Like what our police did, they got enlightened and now they arent showing themselves, instead they hide in unmarked cars. It was needed since ppl only follow the rules when they see the police around...)

[TechyBen]

37 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I don't really agree. I think some of the responsibility falls on companies too. For example if a store sells alcohol to minors, then I think that store should be punished. Especially if the people in the store are instructed on how they should sell and handle those customers to make sure they for example buy again.

 

I do however think that only that store should be punished, not that we should implement a system where we can track every flash/can/box/glass of booze bought through GPS tags and monitor who gives what to who, just so that we can catch some people reselling it to minors. Protecting children has to be put in relation to other costs too.

Yep. Both parents are 100% responsible and stores are 100% responsible. Parents should not let kids run around the store unsupervised and stores should not sell dangerous things to kids. The "them not me" attitude is the dangerous one. Parents expecting everyone else to do it, or everyone else expecting the parents to do it.

 

IIRC that's how it is done here. Parents would get into trouble to some extent though, but depends on the age of the "child" (if just under drinking age or whatever).

[CharminUltraStrong]

Here's the thing, class action lawyers are the scummiest shit bags you can grab from any form of legal practice. It being a class action law suit means nothing, Facebook has a lot of money and it being a class action means you have MORE support/rapport than a typical lawsuit. Google even stores your payment info and the only verification it needs are the 3 wacky numbers on the back. That's it. This isn't Facebook's fault, it's merely a platform where these games are published. Could they step in? Absolutely but it would further destroy the damaged reputation it already has. It would be like admitting "yes we exploit children". Class actions are typically, bull shit cash grabs. Honestly though, what kind of parent sets their kid up with a tablet that has access to all of their payment options in the first place? It's a group of stupid people trying to get an insignificant amount of money, tantamount to a get rich quick ponzi scheme. 

[Fasauceome]

2 hours ago, Jumper118 said:

Parents are 100% responsible for there children. Its is your job as a parent to raise your child, not the governments. If you let your child watch porn and gamble all your money away, you have failed totally and if you lost your whole life saving in fifa you should have to pay all of it. Even if it means you are homeless.  

The difference here being that this form of gambling is marketed towards children, but I have yet to see porn for kids.

[Jumper118]

16 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

The difference here being that this form of gambling is marketed towards children, but I have yet to see porn for kids.

doesn't matter, the child cant got out and gamble without the parents being morons. 

[TechyBen]

9 minutes ago, Jumper118 said:

doesn't matter, the child cant got out and gamble without the parents being morons. 

Nah. Actually targeting children is a crime, even if said children are somewhere else safe.

[Jumper118]

13 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Nah. Actually targeting children is a crime, even if said children are somewhere else safe.

Depends where you are. I dont think an advert targeting children with gambling should be a crime. The parents job is to stop the child going on the website with that advertisement or explain to them why its bad, so they dont get drawn in like a Muppet.   XD 

[jagdtigger]

6 minutes ago, Jumper118 said:

I dont think an advert targeting children with gambling should be a crime.

Yes it definitely should be, kids dont have any kind of comprehension of money, and how much it exactly worth. For them its just a game.... Exploiting the weak, especially kids turns my stomach....

[Jumper118]

1 minute ago, jagdtigger said:

Yes it definitely should be, kids dont have any kind of comprehension of money, and how much it exactly worth. For them its just a game.... Exploiting the weak, especially kids turns my stomach....

They dont if their parents dont teach them...... There is no Exploiting the weak here. Children do need to be protected from certain things, yes, but its is 100% parents job 0% governments job unless the child does not have any parents. The only protection the government should provide is from physical violence, that applies to both a child and adult. 

[jagdtigger]

32 minutes ago, Jumper118 said:

They dont if their parents dont teach them...... There is no Exploiting the weak here. Children do need to be protected from certain things, yes, but its is 100% parents job 0% governments job unless the child does not have any parents. The only protection the government should provide is from physical violence, that applies to both a child and adult. 

[Jumper118]

7 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

 

[jagdtigger]

2 minutes ago, Jumper118 said:

 

*SIGH* There is a reason why gambling is illegal for minors. If you dont understand why then stop arguing against those who do. Gambling addiction is a serious thing and children are far more vulnerable than a adult. Im done with your ignorance.

[TechyBen]

58 minutes ago, Jumper118 said:

Depends where you are. I dont think an advert targeting children with gambling should be a crime. The parents job is to stop the child going on the website with that advertisement or explain to them why its bad, so they dont get drawn in like a Muppet.   XD 

So you have kids, and an advert tells them to "punch Jumper in the face, then steal his wallet, go get drugs" and this should not be frowned upon?

[Jumper118]

15 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

So you have kids, and an advert tells them to "punch Jumper in the face, then steal his wallet, go get drugs" and this should not be frowned upon?

yes it should be frowned upon, no the government should not regulate it. 

 

17 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

*SIGH* There is a reason why gambling is illegal for minors. If you dont understand why then stop arguing against those who do. Gambling addiction is a serious thing and children are far more vulnerable than a adult. Im done with your ignorance.

i understand exactly why, i just disagree  with you XD Gambling "addiction" is not present in children who dont have any money to gamble XD Presuming someone disagreeing with you is ignorant is unintelligent. 

[rcmaehl]

29 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

 

 

21 minutes ago, Jumper118 said:

 

[Thaldor]

1 hour ago, Jumper118 said:

They dont if their parents dont teach them...... There is no Exploiting the weak here. Children do need to be protected from certain things, yes, but its is 100% parents job 0% governments job unless the child does not have any parents. The only protection the government should provide is from physical violence, that applies to both a child and adult. 

The thing is many games today are designed to lure even well educated adults spent money on them (which kind of is the thing about monetizing). The problem is that games are more and more depending on same methods as casinos and other gambling because they are very effective methods proven by years and years of use. The biggest problem is that the gambling world is heavily regulated because there's the chance that people spend more than they can (which can happen but that is quite rare, thanks to regulation) and the methods they use to get people spend money are that effective and exploitative. And we don't even need to go as far as lootboxes and microtransactions, as said only hiding the real money behind "premium currency" is already very effective method to mask the use of real money in a game and it's even more effective if the premium currency is heavily anchored in the main gameplay cycle (like in some farming game you can use gems, which you can buy with real money, to speed up the growing of the crops, attach to that you give player 10 gems for achievement and one speedup costs 20 gems and you have successfully created very monetary exploitative gameplay mechanism which quarantees that most of the players will spend some money to the game and the best part, nothing is regulating that E: for the maximum effect also make it so that 10 gems cost 1$£€ and player gets 110 gems with 10$£€ and you can make a lot of money out of only tryers who go out and at least buy that 110 gem package).

[Jumper118]

59 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

The thing is many games today are designed to lure even well educated adults spent money on them (which kind of is the thing about monetizing). The problem is that games are more and more depending on same methods as casinos and other gambling because they are very effective methods proven by years and years of use. The biggest problem is that the gambling world is heavily regulated because there's the chance that people spend more than they can (which can happen but that is quite rare, thanks to regulation) and the methods they use to get people spend money are that effective and exploitative. And we don't even need to go as far as lootboxes and microtransactions, as said only hiding the real money behind "premium currency" is already very effective method to mask the use of real money in a game and it's even more effective if the premium currency is heavily anchored in the main gameplay cycle (like in some farming game you can use gems, which you can buy with real money, to speed up the growing of the crops, attach to that you give player 10 gems for achievement and one speedup costs 20 gems and you have successfully created very monetary exploitative gameplay mechanism which quarantees that most of the players will spend some money to the game and the best part, nothing is regulating that E: for the maximum effect also make it so that 10 gems cost 1$£€ and player gets 110 gems with 10$£€ and you can make a lot of money out of only tryers who go out and at least buy that 110 gem package).

I disagree with gambling regulation for adults as well. Regulation does not help people who might spend all their money there, all it does it help companies that are willing to do these practices keep in business and avoid getting sued. 

[Thaldor]

4 minutes ago, Jumper118 said:

I disagree with gambling regulation for adults as well. Regulation does not help people who might spend all their money there, all it does it help companies that are willing to do these practices keep in business and avoid getting sued. 

The regulation isn't there to stop people from spending their money, it's there to at least slow the rate at which companies lure more people to spend all of their money in gambling, level the field so that those who are more educated can make clear decision on where to put their money (like companies need to tell what is the return rate in slot machines and reveal the full prize pool for sweepstakes) and msot to make the lfie of gambling companies a lot harder. Also with regulation they keep the playingfield fair as in checking that slot machines are not tampered to give less than promised and lotteries are actually random without human intevention and card decks and roulette tables are as they should be. Also in some countries there are regulation about prizes fitting to the game, like having a sweepstake where a ticket costs 100$£€ and the only prize is Bugatti Veyron and they sell 1 million tickets could be seen illegal because the prize pool is way too small comapred to the ticket cost. Also there's higher taxes included in any kind of gambling. The ban of marketing to those who are more exploitative (like kids) is a corner stone, but after all quite a small part of gambling regulation.

 

Las Vegas is very good example what happens when gambling regulation is not to the bar. For example if you win the jackpot they basicly give you a free suite and a lot of other bonuses to keep you in the casino so you would spend that prize in the casino and (rumours) if you refuse they might try to refuse giving you your prize at least in full. Just like online casinos are very open handed to give you free tokens, but to cash out those you need to play certain amount of rounds and usually even spend certain amount of real money (like with 1000 free tokens you won 100$£€ you would need to at least play 10k rounds and spend 10$£€ in real money to cash out and usually when you have played 10k rounds you have spend more than that 100$£€ in real money, if you are a good player and know what you are doing and have luck with you, you might be left on profit, but most will be loosing money). And that's totally legal for online casinos, because (at least last time I checked) they were counted as video games and for video games there is no regulation (which is very much needed and fast, because EA and especialy mobile game develoeprs are become very greedy and very fast and "evolving" to use even more exploitative monetizing methods to milk every penny thay can).

[Jumper118]

1 hour ago, Thaldor said:

The regulation isn't there to stop people from spending their money, it's there to at least slow the rate at which companies lure more people to spend all of their money in gambling, level the field so that those who are more educated can make clear decision on where to put their money (like companies need to tell what is the return rate in slot machines and reveal the full prize pool for sweepstakes) and msot to make the lfie of gambling companies a lot harder. Also with regulation they keep the playingfield fair as in checking that slot machines are not tampered to give less than promised and lotteries are actually random without human intevention and card decks and roulette tables are as they should be. Also in some countries there are regulation about prizes fitting to the game, like having a sweepstake where a ticket costs 100$£€ and the only prize is Bugatti Veyron and they sell 1 million tickets could be seen illegal because the prize pool is way too small comapred to the ticket cost. Also there's higher taxes included in any kind of gambling. The ban of marketing to those who are more exploitative (like kids) is a corner stone, but after all quite a small part of gambling regulation.

 

Las Vegas is very good example what happens when gambling regulation is not to the bar. For example if you win the jackpot they basicly give you a free suite and a lot of other bonuses to keep you in the casino so you would spend that prize in the casino and (rumours) if you refuse they might try to refuse giving you your prize at least in full. Just like online casinos are very open handed to give you free tokens, but to cash out those you need to play certain amount of rounds and usually even spend certain amount of real money (like with 1000 free tokens you won 100$£€ you would need to at least play 10k rounds and spend 10$£€ in real money to cash out and usually when you have played 10k rounds you have spend more than that 100$£€ in real money, if you are a good player and know what you are doing and have luck with you, you might be left on profit, but most will be loosing money). And that's totally legal for online casinos, because (at least last time I checked) they were counted as video games and for video games there is no regulation (which is very much needed and fast, because EA and especialy mobile game develoeprs are become very greedy and very fast and "evolving" to use even more exploitative monetizing methods to milk every penny thay can).

It is there to keep companies who are currently doing well in business for as long as possible.

[mr moose]

13 hours ago, Jumper118 said:

Parents are 100% responsible for there children. Its is your job as a parent to raise your child, not the governments. If you let your child watch porn and gamble all your money away, you have failed totally and if you lost your whole life saving in fifa you should have to pay all of it. Even if it means you are homeless.  

Besides the fact you totally missed my point, what you said contains glaring problems with society and the way communities have to work.

[wanderingfool2]

I try looking at it this way, the part that Facebook had failure on is not re-authorizing any further purchasing attempts.

 

One could argue that the parent's are to blame, but it is also impossible to monitor a child 24/7 and when a few quick clicks are all that is needed to spend money the developers need to take some responsibility for their actions.  I do not always agree with the "protect the children" concept, but there does need to be certain safe-guards in place.  An example would be medicine bottles and child-locks.  If pills were stored on the bottle shelf of a grocery store in open bottles, and a kid ate it while the parent wasn't looking should it be the parent who bears the burden of responsibility for not "teaching" their kid not to eat it?

[mr moose]

12 hours ago, fasauceome said:

The difference here being that this form of gambling is marketed towards children, but I have yet to see porn for kids.

what about all the spider man and elsa stuff on youtube for kids?  It may not be hardcore porn, but it doesn't have to be if the child is young enough.

[Fasauceome]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

what about all the spider man and elsa stuff on youtube for kids?  It may not be hardcore porn, but it doesn't have to be if the child is young enough.

Suppose you're right, that shit should be banned too.

[mr moose]

 

This issue that a lot of people don't tend to understand when discussing this sort of thing, is that you can't escape technology.     It really doesn't matter your views on nanny government versus parenting versus net filters versus no screens etc and so on,  The reality is that it is 2019 and kids need to be using this tech from the day they can hold it (much like lego and mechano gave kids an edge in engineering 60/70 years ago). If you deny them that then you deny them a huge part of development they need to help them be competitive with their peers later on in life.  

 

This may seem like a trivial thing, but imagine if your parents followed you around to your friends house and watched you play just in case you got into trouble? Kids development of confidence, trust, self esteem (very often a misplaced condition) and the experiencing of emotions of what's right/wrong all require space and freedom and there is no difference between following them around physically and following them around on tech devices*.   What makes it so hard is the insidiousness of tech companies and products, the very nature of the internet being at times as dangerous as being out at night for a kid.  Tread carefully, but don't think for one minute that there is an easy answer in parenting, if you think that then you are either not a parent or a naive parent.

 

*kids need to experience their own failure in order to grow and they need to experience their own success to become confident.

[shahaan]

I believe both parents and Facebook share the blame for their own parts in the overall negligence and failure of this situation. Parents failed to appropriately monitor and advise their children, while Facebook failed to act in a socially responsible manner.

 

But why should Facebook be held responsible on the same level as parents, you ask? Because a corporation is an commercial entity which has similar legal rights as individuals. Thus, corporations should, ideally, be held to the same expectations to which we hold individuals. (In practice they are accorded far too much privilege.)

 

Everyone in a society must be held equally accountable for their actions (or inactions) in order for that society to maintain cohesion and stability, which ultimately leads to a peaceful and free existence for all--the basic core of what most sentient animals (including humans) want for themselves, their families and friends. This is why, for example, those accused of disturbing the established rules (crime) of social order (the law) are taken aside (arrested), tried (given a chance to explain) and awarded freedom or given appropriate punishment which ideally fits the degree of the crime committed. (Yes, this system is far from perfect but it appears to be our best effort thus far. But that's a different debate.)

 

Think about this analogy: Friendly neighborhood Ms. Mandy operates a stand by the local park, (legally) selling fun little toys to kids. Those kids have to ask their parents for their credit cards because that is the only mode of payment Ms. Mandy accepts. All is generally ok and the kids are enjoying playing with their trinkets. But one day Ms. Mandy notices that one of the kids, say little Billy, is frequenting her toy stand way more than the other kids in the neighborhood. And he's racking up quite a bill on his parents' credit card. Knowing that little Billy is just a kid, Ms. Mandy decides to give a quick call to his mom or dad and let them know what's going on. She's not able to get through to either of them but little Billy is back and wants to buy more toys. Ms. Mandy decides to tell little Billy that she can't sell him any more toys right now until his parents come to the stand or call her. Billy throws a bit of a tantrum but eventually goes off to play with his friends.

 

Who here thinks Ms. Mandy acted in a responsible manner? Now what's the difference between Ms. Mandy and Facebook? Why don't we want Facebook to act in a responsible manner the way we expect and assume Ms. Mandy should and would? Legally, both Ms. Mandy and Facebook are given similar rights. So why can't we hold them equally accountable to uphold the social norms and rules that we all abide by?