3 ms·

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 he

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.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    There's a difference between broad societal shunning of someone for public expression of their sexuality, and wanting to keep things of that nature in the adult sphere of society and away from kids. I think sex work should just be legalized. Roblox's head of content moderation should not be a sex worker though. I don't have a problem with people having lots of visible body art. I also don't have a problem with employers not wanting to hire people who do. I don't think anyone is the victim there since its just the consequences of personal choices and should be seen as a situation which is working out for both sides of the equation (those people probably would never be happy at those jobs). Based on your job you may be held to different standards than society at large and there is nothing wrong with that.
  - collegeburner 4y ago
    Jfc dude saying somebody who literally makes kids toys should be horny on main is not a freeze peach issue.
    - concordDance 4y ago
      That sentence is unintelligible.
      - collegeburner 4y ago
        My bad dude i forget hn isn't the zoomers paradise all the other social medias is. Jfc = jesus fucking christ (exasperated) horny on main = being horny on ur main account. like the boomers who make thirsty comment on 20yo models ig posts without realizing it's their real names they're using. freeze peach = messed up spelling of free speech used to mock ppl who whine MuH fREE sPeECH when they can't say the nword on twitter (literally 1984). Urbandictionary is good for all these btw.
kmacdough 4y ago
I agree that this article does seem to lump some behaviors together of wildly different severity. But when the job is managing and monitoring the safety of children in a massive online space, it seems reasonable, nay necessary, to judge them by a high standard. It doesn't have to be a crime, or even inherently bad, to be a red flag. In this case, I find it very strange that the head of Roblox's Trust & Safety department didn't think twice about following indecent accounts on public social media account. Even stranger still, that a company who pretends to value the safety of children either didn't bother with a basic background check, or saw it and went "yeah, this guy's got good judgement." I've got nothing against people publicly endorsing/following these things, but I'd expect this dude to have enough discretion to recognize that many parents would object, and keep it on a private account like a normal person. Heads of PR for major companies have been fired for a heck of a lot less.

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.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  There's a difference between broad societal shunning of someone for public expression of their sexuality, and wanting to keep things of that nature in the adult sphere of society and away from kids. I think sex work should just be legalized. Roblox's head of content moderation should not be a sex worker though. I don't have a problem with people having lots of visible body art. I also don't have a problem with employers not wanting to hire people who do. I don't think anyone is the victim there since its just the consequences of personal choices and should be seen as a situation which is working out for both sides of the equation (those people probably would never be happy at those jobs). Based on your job you may be held to different standards than society at large and there is nothing wrong with that.
- collegeburner 4y ago
  Jfc dude saying somebody who literally makes kids toys should be horny on main is not a freeze peach issue.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    That sentence is unintelligible.
    - collegeburner 4y ago
      My bad dude i forget hn isn't the zoomers paradise all the other social medias is. Jfc = jesus fucking christ (exasperated) horny on main = being horny on ur main account. like the boomers who make thirsty comment on 20yo models ig posts without realizing it's their real names they're using. freeze peach = messed up spelling of free speech used to mock ppl who whine MuH fREE sPeECH when they can't say the nword on twitter (literally 1984). Urbandictionary is good for all these btw.

kmacdough 4y ago

I agree that this article does seem to lump some behaviors together of wildly different severity. But when the job is managing and monitoring the safety of children in a massive online space, it seems reasonable, nay necessary, to judge them by a high standard. It doesn't have to be a crime, or even inherently bad, to be a red flag. In this case, I find it very strange that the head of Roblox's Trust & Safety department didn't think twice about following indecent accounts on public social media account. Even stranger still, that a company who pretends to value the safety of children either didn't bother with a basic background check, or saw it and went "yeah, this guy's got good judgement." I've got nothing against people publicly endorsing/following these things, but I'd expect this dude to have enough discretion to recognize that many parents would object, and keep it on a private account like a normal person. Heads of PR for major companies have been fired for a heck of a lot less.