4 ms·

When your company's product is targeted at children, it is definitely weird when your social media director and your head of trust and safety both include porn

When your company's product is targeted at children, it is definitely weird when your social media director and your head of trust and safety both include porn in their public online persona. Nothing wrong with porn, but it's relevant to this article.

concordDance 4y ago
"Weird"? So? It might be weird if the head of social media was an orthodox jew, it would also be unworthy of note.
- acoard 4y ago
  It absolutely is worthy of note. I have nothing wrong with people selling porn, but it's not remotely kid appropriate. Society expects a large berth between the two. If a kids company hired a porn-star to sell their products that would be weird, even if they didn't mention porn while on the clock. Similarly it would be weird if Roblox was also a joint venture with PornHub. This wouldn't hold if they were just Orthodox Jews.
  - stickfigure 4y ago
    FWIW, I'd also flag extreme religious beliefs as "worthy of note": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_of_Us_(2017_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_of_Us_(2017_film)
- kentm 4y ago
  I'm taking the claim of "sharing porn on social media" at face value. I have nothing against producing, sharing, and consuming pornography but its typically done in private. A social media persona is public. It is inappropriate to share pornography in public. When that public persona is attached to a place of responsibility, then doing so is showing poor judgement. It's not at all comparable to being an orthodox jew.
nr2x 4y ago
It shows incredibly poor judgment on the part of the company that they’d put anybody who shares porn online in charge of children. Lots of people consume porn, very few see fit to share it on social media.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  Anyone is fine to share porn online. Just make a spare account and have some shame about it. When it's part of your public persona is when it's a problem. Unless it's literally of you, then things get a lot more complicated.
  - eptcyka 4y ago
    Why is it so horrible for a public persona to acknowledge a part of their life that isn't all that extraordinary?
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      Horrible is the wrong word. It's like meeting someone and they stink. In my experience the people who consistently fail to draw these lines also tend to end up being some sort of toxic to you and or your friend group and or your company. Invite a friend who stinks because they don't shower? You're going to lose friends over it who don't want to be around it. Invite a friend who publicly displays porn? Same deal.
- standardUser 4y ago
  Sounds like an outdated perspective that should be challenged. Any adult should be free to discuss and share porn in a consensual and adult-only environment, with zero regard for their day job.
eptcyka 4y ago
I wouldn't let children on twitter, and as a child, I really couldn't have cared less about Lego's marketing officers twitter follow list. Is the expectation here that any public facing representative of a company that mainly targets children must lead a pegi 3 life? I don't particularly enjoy defending corporate entities here, but unless their twitter handle was supposed to be used in official capacity for Roblox, who should give a shit? And again, unless the person in question shared smut with children, how would this be relevant to pedophilia? I am also not arguing that this is the wisest move on the part of the exec in question, it looks stupid, but there should be nothing indictable about this. Ultimately, this is an article about exposing how a corporation through negligence at best and malicious intent is empowering child abusers to abuse children, why go the Jess extra effort and try and make these people look worse by pointing out that these people like porn?
- lamontcg 4y ago
  > there should be nothing indictable about this. it isn't indictable, but people are free to have a much higher bar than the legal system sets for what they consider acceptable standards to interact with their children. you're free to post all the porn you like on your public social media profiles. parents are free to not really want you to be around their children. the fact that you are legally free to do all kinds of things in this country doesn't mean that you can do them without any social repercussions. the freedom of speech isn't freedom from criticism, and from other people's negative social reactions, it just says that the government won't throw you in jail for it.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    "Freedom of speech" has multiple meanings. One is a question of law (e.g. the gov won't arrest you) the other is a statement of guiding principle (e.g. that it is good for people to feel able to express themselves). The scope and worth of that principle can and should be debated, but it shouldn't be ignored. E.g. shunning anyone who expressed the opinion that maybe homosexuality shouldn't be banned would have been bad for social change.
    - 4y ago

concordDance 4y ago

"Weird"? So? It might be weird if the head of social media was an orthodox jew, it would also be unworthy of note.

acoard 4y ago
It absolutely is worthy of note. I have nothing wrong with people selling porn, but it's not remotely kid appropriate. Society expects a large berth between the two. If a kids company hired a porn-star to sell their products that would be weird, even if they didn't mention porn while on the clock. Similarly it would be weird if Roblox was also a joint venture with PornHub. This wouldn't hold if they were just Orthodox Jews.
- stickfigure 4y ago
  FWIW, I'd also flag extreme religious beliefs as "worthy of note": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_of_Us_(2017_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_of_Us_(2017_film)
kentm 4y ago
I'm taking the claim of "sharing porn on social media" at face value. I have nothing against producing, sharing, and consuming pornography but its typically done in private. A social media persona is public. It is inappropriate to share pornography in public. When that public persona is attached to a place of responsibility, then doing so is showing poor judgement. It's not at all comparable to being an orthodox jew.

nr2x 4y ago

It shows incredibly poor judgment on the part of the company that they’d put anybody who shares porn online in charge of children. Lots of people consume porn, very few see fit to share it on social media.

bioemerl 4y ago
Anyone is fine to share porn online. Just make a spare account and have some shame about it. When it's part of your public persona is when it's a problem. Unless it's literally of you, then things get a lot more complicated.
- eptcyka 4y ago
  Why is it so horrible for a public persona to acknowledge a part of their life that isn't all that extraordinary?
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    Horrible is the wrong word. It's like meeting someone and they stink. In my experience the people who consistently fail to draw these lines also tend to end up being some sort of toxic to you and or your friend group and or your company. Invite a friend who stinks because they don't shower? You're going to lose friends over it who don't want to be around it. Invite a friend who publicly displays porn? Same deal.
standardUser 4y ago
Sounds like an outdated perspective that should be challenged. Any adult should be free to discuss and share porn in a consensual and adult-only environment, with zero regard for their day job.

eptcyka 4y ago

I wouldn't let children on twitter, and as a child, I really couldn't have cared less about Lego's marketing officers twitter follow list. Is the expectation here that any public facing representative of a company that mainly targets children must lead a pegi 3 life? I don't particularly enjoy defending corporate entities here, but unless their twitter handle was supposed to be used in official capacity for Roblox, who should give a shit? And again, unless the person in question shared smut with children, how would this be relevant to pedophilia? I am also not arguing that this is the wisest move on the part of the exec in question, it looks stupid, but there should be nothing indictable about this. Ultimately, this is an article about exposing how a corporation through negligence at best and malicious intent is empowering child abusers to abuse children, why go the Jess extra effort and try and make these people look worse by pointing out that these people like porn?

lamontcg 4y ago
> there should be nothing indictable about this. it isn't indictable, but people are free to have a much higher bar than the legal system sets for what they consider acceptable standards to interact with their children. you're free to post all the porn you like on your public social media profiles. parents are free to not really want you to be around their children. the fact that you are legally free to do all kinds of things in this country doesn't mean that you can do them without any social repercussions. the freedom of speech isn't freedom from criticism, and from other people's negative social reactions, it just says that the government won't throw you in jail for it.
- concordDance 4y ago
  "Freedom of speech" has multiple meanings. One is a question of law (e.g. the gov won't arrest you) the other is a statement of guiding principle (e.g. that it is good for people to feel able to express themselves). The scope and worth of that principle can and should be debated, but it shouldn't be ignored. E.g. shunning anyone who expressed the opinion that maybe homosexuality shouldn't be banned would have been bad for social change.
  - 4y ago