upvote
Pretending that those options are equal is a false dichotomy. Not participating is an option up to a point, and then it is increasingly limiting all other options.
reply
Fwiw we did that with Roblox too, but I hate it because Roblox Studio was a pretty damn fun collaborative gamedev experience.

I mean his classmates argue with their parents about whether they can install TikTok (and most parents lose). Meanwhile I’m denying my son the right to make a game together with a friend. It’s so creative and so educative and I’m saying no to it. It sucks and I hate Roblox for making something so cool and then taking it away for such stupid reasons.

I’d happily pay a license fee or sth. But I’m not gonna let them scan my son’s face.

reply
There's plenty of ways to make games outside of Roblox. Maybe they could sit down together and work through some Löve2D or Godot tutorials? No one can take that away arbitrarily
reply
I think GP meant “collaboratively” as in collaborating online through the game itself. The same way you might e.g. collaborate on a Google Doc.

“Sit down together” might be impractical here, if GP’s child’s friends are e.g. friends they made before a move, who are thus quite far away physically. Or friends with snobby parents who won’t let them come over to GP’s house for whatever dumb reason. Or friends with extra-curriculars such that their free time never lines up with GP’s kid’s free time—meaning that only async collaboration will work.

(That’s just a steelman position, though; in general I agree.)

reply
Thats obviously fine to do but it is very much going to have consequences for some kids. My kids spend hours a week playing roblox with their IRL friends. 10 - 15 kids on a group call on speaker phone all logged into the same code laughing and yelling for a couple hours a night. If I was to suddenly tell them that they can't play those games with their friends it would have very real effects on their social life. My kids spend a ton of time outside with friends but to ignore that they also spend time gaming with them is not an option.
reply
Self-hosting a minecraft server is still an option. And tons of customisability there and you aren't turning everything over to a centralised server.
reply
but the other kids are playing roblox, not minecraft
reply
>There are other options, such as refusing games that require them.

How about the option of the state not being so tyrannical in meddling about what people anonymously do online in their free time?

reply
This is generally my opinion, and goodness it's swung around quite a bit. This entire debate feels like it should be solved by adequate parental controls.

To the extent that it matters, I think the missing link here is "primary education should support a parent's intent to limit unrestricted internet access for their children." That is, during school activities where internet use is unavoidable, require supervision. (Maybe a lab monitor that can roam the room and see screens?) And for homework, don't assume the kid has internet access, because that is the parent's choice, and they may well not. On the flip side, if the parent trusts their kid with that access, or intends for them to learn through real world experience, let them. That should not be the state's decision.

The problem of course is that this idea in my head is a pipe dream. Schools seem to be well onboard with digital coursework, presumably for efficiency reasons? Unclear. I'm not sure what a more practical middle ground actually looks like.

reply
To the extent that it matters, I think the missing link here is "primary education should support a parent's intent to limit unrestricted internet access for their children." That is, during school activities where internet use is unavoidable, require supervision.

Don't get me started. We try to restrict internet time, no Youtube (Shorts are poison/heroin), TikTok, etc. They go to primary school and there is a teacher that makes TikTok videos at school, they can play Roblox in breaks, etc. (Aside from this issue, the teachers are great though!)

There are only so many battles you can choose as a parent (not getting your kids photographed, put on Facebook, etc.).

In contrast to what the grandparent states, the government should unambiguously state: no smartphones, social media, and online games in primary school, period. That's the only way to make it work. Ironically, smartphones are forbidden in all high schools here.

reply
The California Digital Age Assurance Act is a law mandating adequate parental controls. And it's a great law that should be copied instead of doing the verification nonsense.
reply
Homeschool and exercise close, very close, supervision over what your kids do on the internet.

I'd have hated this as a child. But the case for unrestricted internet and social media access for children being harmful, at this point, seems pretty shut.

For those who sadly cannot homeschool their children... well, we need to push for school choice and to dismantle the teachers' unions. Which probably ultimately is the same thing.

reply
In many European countries, homeschooling does not really exist. For good reasons. Mingling with many kids from the same age cohort with diverse backgrounds is good for kids. Homeschooling is also often used by religious zealots to indoctrinate their children.
reply
You think most of the unsupervised internet time is happening at school? I mean, maybe it is, but that's an assertion I haven't seen before.
reply
Truthfully, I don't know! Especially for younger kids though, there's usually at least an adult in the room, right? Even when they're visiting a friend, the other parent is there to step in and check on them occasionally?

I guess once you hand your teenager a smart phone (and all their friends have one too!) all bets are off. That's new, and wasn't a thing when I grew up. We were rural and on the tail end of dial-up, so I couldn't get online at home without someone hearing the modem. That sure limited my attempts to do so without permission!

reply