5 ms·

I don’t know what the big deal is with people in this thread saying, “bah, this is impossible” but I work on a COPPA compliant game and “chat off for kids by de

by tyleo 4y ago

I don’t know what the big deal is with people in this thread saying, “bah, this is impossible” but I work on a COPPA compliant game and “chat off for kids by default” is a standard or < 13 cannot play your game (my understanding, IANAL). https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule-six-step-compliance-plan-your-business https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/childrens-on...

zamadatix 4y ago
How are you verifying age? The "this is impossible"s are about it being accurate on age not the disabling of chat once you have an accurate age. The point being the law is useless theatre that does nothing to prevent kids from using it but annoys everyone else anyways.
- tyleo 4y ago
  Here is a link to our support site which provides more information: https://recroom.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/4426900227735-What-is-a-Junior-Account- https://recroom.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/4426900227735-...
  - zamadatix 4y ago
    Love Rec Room :) But this is basically the button press the GP was talking about, during sign up (which can be separate from the main sign up on the same device) the kid just says they were born in 1912 and now the mic works. Yes it's compliant with the law but it's the same problem GP was actually talking about - there is no real verification. Having parental controlled accounts is a nice feature in general though, regardless of the legal requirements. Ultimately things like this come down to making good parenting easier and that can help.
    - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
      I think the idea is that parents are supposed to create accounts on Epic and Steam, not children. The parent selects the correct age during account creation.
      - temprose 4y ago
        What's stopping the kid from making a new account though? Knowing myself, I did similar things as a child especially since my parents were not very tech literate.
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        Exactly. It's a well-armoured safe door on a safe with no sides.
        HDThoreaun 4y ago
        100% stopping kids in voice chat isn't the goal. Stopping kids from accidentality joining voice chat is. So nothing is stopping them from purposefully getting a chat activated account, that's the point.
        zamadatix 4y ago
        The law itself disagrees. It's quite explicit that the point is to not allow kids into chat rooms at all without parental consent. It does not mention anything about preventing kids from accidentally joining chat just that they are not the ones able to provide consent to allow chat.
        P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        Is your argument that the law specifically has language interpreting its goal? Can you quote it please, because I find that surprising.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        4y ago
- ethanbond 4y ago
  So just set it to off by default for everyone? That seems like a pretty pragmatic and very non-theatrical improvement. Of course it will have to contend with the theatrics of gamers whining about the immense hassle of a one-time settings change to enable voice chat.
  - zamadatix 4y ago
    How does this prevent children from enabling voice chat?
    - ethanbond 4y ago
      The FTC's statement specifically says the issue is that it was on by default. Not that it could possibly be turned on by a child. > The FTC’s $275 million proposed settlement with Epic Games, owner of Fortnite, alleges the company violated the law by collecting personal information from kids under 13 without parental consent and by enabling voice and text chat by default
      - zamadatix 4y ago
        The law is that <13 can not be voice recorded without parental consent, the way Fortnite broke this was by having it on by default. This does not mean the only way to break this is by having it on by default it's just what Fortnite was doing. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2017/10/ftc-provides-additional-guidance-coppa-voice-recordings https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2017/10/... Even if "by default" was the law though that would seem to make things even more theatrical and less pragmatic anyways.
        ethanbond 4y ago
        Right but could it possibly be the case that FTC knows there's no reasonable way to validate ages, and they'd not go after companies for "affirm you're not <13 years of age" so long as they make a reasonable effort to prevent it, or at least not set the default to be in clear violation of the law? You know, alcohol, weed, and porn companies have managed just fine with user affirmations.
- lkramer 4y ago
  There are multiple ways, but considering they own a company that is supposed to do this as a service, failing to do this for the own biggest game seems a bit weak. https://www.superawesome.com/ https://www.superawesome.com/
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    Amazing the contradictory thinking people have about “it’s impossible to know a child’s age” vs. “it’s totally fine and reasonable that Google knows you’re pregnant before you do”.
  - zamadatix 4y ago
    SuperAwesome KWS is another click button "verification" solution. Being interested in selling ads in a COPPA compliant-enough way isn't the same thing as making COPPA verification accurate/more than theatre. Fortnite was too blatant with it by doing this with all accounts including ones that had entered young ages but that doesn't mean other apps that follow the entered age are accurate it just means they aren't likely to get fined. Which sure - still fine Fortnite. Knowingly breaking a law because you want to doesn't make you exempt from the law even if the law is useless in practice. I'd personally like if the law could be made into something more meaningfully verifiable I just don't think there is a reasonable way to do so. E.g. the UK has an opt-in requirement at the ISP level for porn access because "I am 18+" buttons weren't actually doing anything but making a legal bypass. Yet it's both a ridiculously bad solution and still easily worked around anyways.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but does the law require 100% un-hackable accuracy? Not the law as-written, but as-enforced? Has anyone been successfully penalized because they failed to catch one under-13 year old who said "Yes" to a dialog? Most sites I've seen either ask for your birth year or your age, and trust what the user says. If that's enough to be in compliance, why would any company make it more complicated? It's like if you've ever visited an alcohol company's web site, they ask "Are you 21?" and if you say yes, that's all they care about.
sieabahlpark 4y ago

by tyleo 4y ago

zamadatix 4y ago

How are you verifying age? The "this is impossible"s are about it being accurate on age not the disabling of chat once you have an accurate age. The point being the law is useless theatre that does nothing to prevent kids from using it but annoys everyone else anyways.

tyleo 4y ago
Here is a link to our support site which provides more information: https://recroom.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/4426900227735-What-is-a-Junior-Account- https://recroom.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/4426900227735-...
- zamadatix 4y ago
  Love Rec Room :) But this is basically the button press the GP was talking about, during sign up (which can be separate from the main sign up on the same device) the kid just says they were born in 1912 and now the mic works. Yes it's compliant with the law but it's the same problem GP was actually talking about - there is no real verification. Having parental controlled accounts is a nice feature in general though, regardless of the legal requirements. Ultimately things like this come down to making good parenting easier and that can help.
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    I think the idea is that parents are supposed to create accounts on Epic and Steam, not children. The parent selects the correct age during account creation.
    - temprose 4y ago
      What's stopping the kid from making a new account though? Knowing myself, I did similar things as a child especially since my parents were not very tech literate.
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        Exactly. It's a well-armoured safe door on a safe with no sides.
      - HDThoreaun 4y ago
        100% stopping kids in voice chat isn't the goal. Stopping kids from accidentality joining voice chat is. So nothing is stopping them from purposefully getting a chat activated account, that's the point.
        zamadatix 4y ago
        The law itself disagrees. It's quite explicit that the point is to not allow kids into chat rooms at all without parental consent. It does not mention anything about preventing kids from accidentally joining chat just that they are not the ones able to provide consent to allow chat.
        P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        Is your argument that the law specifically has language interpreting its goal? Can you quote it please, because I find that surprising.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - 4y ago
ethanbond 4y ago
So just set it to off by default for everyone? That seems like a pretty pragmatic and very non-theatrical improvement. Of course it will have to contend with the theatrics of gamers whining about the immense hassle of a one-time settings change to enable voice chat.
- zamadatix 4y ago
  How does this prevent children from enabling voice chat?
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    The FTC's statement specifically says the issue is that it was on by default. Not that it could possibly be turned on by a child. > The FTC’s $275 million proposed settlement with Epic Games, owner of Fortnite, alleges the company violated the law by collecting personal information from kids under 13 without parental consent and by enabling voice and text chat by default
    - zamadatix 4y ago
      The law is that <13 can not be voice recorded without parental consent, the way Fortnite broke this was by having it on by default. This does not mean the only way to break this is by having it on by default it's just what Fortnite was doing. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2017/10/ftc-provides-additional-guidance-coppa-voice-recordings https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2017/10/... Even if "by default" was the law though that would seem to make things even more theatrical and less pragmatic anyways.
      - ethanbond 4y ago
        Right but could it possibly be the case that FTC knows there's no reasonable way to validate ages, and they'd not go after companies for "affirm you're not <13 years of age" so long as they make a reasonable effort to prevent it, or at least not set the default to be in clear violation of the law? You know, alcohol, weed, and porn companies have managed just fine with user affirmations.
lkramer 4y ago
There are multiple ways, but considering they own a company that is supposed to do this as a service, failing to do this for the own biggest game seems a bit weak. https://www.superawesome.com/ https://www.superawesome.com/
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  Amazing the contradictory thinking people have about “it’s impossible to know a child’s age” vs. “it’s totally fine and reasonable that Google knows you’re pregnant before you do”.
- zamadatix 4y ago
  SuperAwesome KWS is another click button "verification" solution. Being interested in selling ads in a COPPA compliant-enough way isn't the same thing as making COPPA verification accurate/more than theatre. Fortnite was too blatant with it by doing this with all accounts including ones that had entered young ages but that doesn't mean other apps that follow the entered age are accurate it just means they aren't likely to get fined. Which sure - still fine Fortnite. Knowingly breaking a law because you want to doesn't make you exempt from the law even if the law is useless in practice. I'd personally like if the law could be made into something more meaningfully verifiable I just don't think there is a reasonable way to do so. E.g. the UK has an opt-in requirement at the ISP level for porn access because "I am 18+" buttons weren't actually doing anything but making a legal bypass. Yet it's both a ridiculously bad solution and still easily worked around anyways.
ryandrake 4y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but does the law require 100% un-hackable accuracy? Not the law as-written, but as-enforced? Has anyone been successfully penalized because they failed to catch one under-13 year old who said "Yes" to a dialog? Most sites I've seen either ask for your birth year or your age, and trust what the user says. If that's enough to be in compliance, why would any company make it more complicated? It's like if you've ever visited an alcohol company's web site, they ask "Are you 21?" and if you say yes, that's all they care about.

sieabahlpark 4y ago