My Kid Sold Her Soul to Roblox

It’s my daughter’s main social outlet, and I’m not taking it away from her.

View in browser|nytimes.com Continue reading the main story September 23, 2020 My Kid Sold Her Soul to Roblox By Emily Flake Jackie Ferrentino I’m taking a break from this week to get my kids acclimated to remote learning, so I handed the newsletter over to the prodigiously talented Emily Flake, a writer, cartoonist, performer and illustrator living in Brooklyn. She’s writing about how Roblox raised her daughter this summer, and how that’s not such a terrible thing. — Jessica Grose, lead editor, NYT Parenting I made a deal with the devil this summer. Lots of devils, if we’re going to be accountants about it. But one in particular weighs heavy on my heart: Roblox. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT I have never liked video games. Not for myself, and not for my daughter. I’m not uptight about screen time, but the addictive, immersive world of video games was something I’d hoped to keep her out of for as long as possible. And then, of course, the pandemic happened. When the creaky old laptop we’d been letting my daughter use for online school wheezed its last, I made a fateful choice. I got her an iPad, reasoning that it would serve as her laptop for years to come. Sometime in the not-too-distant past, I’ve said things like, “Why would anyone spend that kind of money on a device for a child?” I have had to go back in time, find those words, and eat them with a knife and fork. Say it with me now: This is what happens when we get smug. I had never heard of Roblox before we got the iPad. I thought maybe it was something like Minecraft, another game about which I know nothing. Even now I am unclear on exactly what Roblox … is. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT As far as I can tell, it’s not so much a game as it is a gaming universe. Players choose avatars, and move through frankly ugly landscapes and obstacle courses acquiring skills, objects and animals. You haven’t lived pandemic parenting until you’ve sat, bewildered, on your daughter’s bed as she sobs inconsolably because somebody scammed her out of her kitsune. Can you spend real world money in this game? You bet your mortgage — a friend in California forbade his son to use Roblox after the kid racked up $700 worth of in-game purchases. What makes Roblox so devilishly attractive is that it’s a multiplayer gaming world. When the actual world stopped being a place where children could go and meet their friends, it’s just the natural order of things that a digital world would pop up to replace it. My daughter got tight with the 10-year-old kid who lives upstairs who introduced her to it. They played for hours a floor apart from each other. She discovered that a lot of her other friends were on the platform, too. Then she figured out how to use FaceTime to talk to them as they played. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT How could I deny her a social outlet in a time when companionship had been taken from her? It would have felt monstrous. But let’s not sit here and pretend I let her do it just for her sake. I let her do it for mine, too. Roblox had become a babysitter, a youth group and a camp all in one. I have come to think of it as a place she goes rather than a thing she does. She can happily spend hours there and I hear nothing but screeches of “Teleport! Teleport to me!!” I wouldn’t say I get great work done while she plays, but I get *some* work done. Or some housework. Or some dispirited doomscrolling. I knew, abstractly, that there would come a time when I lost the child I knew. That my baby would become an adolescent, a gawky thing full of spite she could use as rocket fuel to blast out of my orbit. But my daughter is on the cusp of turning 8. I thought I had more time, and I never thought the fuel she burned would be supplied by me. Because I see her stepping into a new world, trying on new personae, different avatars. I see her deftly navigating a space in which I am all thumbs. When I tried to play, she typed in the chat bar: “Mom. Mom! Follow me, Mom! My mom is so bad at this and I’m trying to teach her but she is an amazing mom.” I appreciated the softening of the blow, but the truth is I am not an amazing mom. I let her move to a two-dimensional arcade because, in the depths of my torpor and sorrow this summer, I could barely string two words together, let alone get it up for a fun mother-daughter project Generally speaking, it sets my teeth on edge when parents (ugh, mothers, I mean mothers, it is always mothers) describe themselves as failing as parents, as though this were a competition or a job for which we might be awarded a gold star. But I found myself truly understanding that I wasn’t so much failing at the task of parenting as I was failing her. As we move forward into school time (a fraught and indefinite phrase), things are going to have to change around here. I have felt, this summer, like a woman drowning in Karo syrup. Sure, I’m depressed, aren’t we all? But I can’t pull her back into the real world if I can’t even get there myself. On one of the last perfect, golden days of summer, my daughter and I joined the family from upstairs at the beach. Their kid and mine play together in the real world a lot now, and they frolicked in the waves like seal pups, shouting with joy. The older kid is a strong swimmer, and he jumped fearlessly into the waves. But at the same time, he looked out for my daughter, and helped her navigate the choppy surf much better than I could. That friendship blossomed under the auspices of software, but it has come to flourish in the real world as well. It felt wholesome, it felt true. It gave me hope that maybe, despite my damningly poor showing, there’s hope for her after all. Want More on Kids and Tech? Anya Kamenetz was a screen time expert. Then coronavirus happened. Read about how she changed her recommendations in light of our new reality. Do you want to figure out how to end a screen time session without causing a meltdown? Andrea Petersen wrote these tips before the pandemic, but they are still extremely applicable today. Read NYT Parenting editor Jess Grose’s recommendations for semi-educational screen time here. Some other big hits in her family since she wrote that in March are GoNoodle, which gets kids moving, Epic Books for oodles of e-Reading and Pinna podcasts, particularly “The Unexplainable Disappearance of Mars Patel.” Tiny Victories Parenting can be a grind. Let’s celebrate the tiny victories. My 4-year-old hates wearing any pants except leggings, so having to wear khakis during this first week of remote Pre-K has caused a thunderstorm of tears every morning. On day 3 we struck a deal that she could wear leggings under her khakis, so finally day 4 was tear free!— Joyce Adesina, Dallas If you want a chance to get your Tiny Victory published, find us on Instagram @NYTparenting and use the hashtag #tinyvictories; email us; or enter your Tiny Victory at the bottom of this page. Include your full name and location. Tiny Victories may be edited for clarity and style. Your name, location and comments may be published, but your contact information will not. By submitting to us, you agree that you have read, understand and accept the Reader Submission Terms in relation to all of the content and other information you send to us. Continue reading the main story Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance. You received this email because you signed up for NYT Parenting from The New York Times. To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences. Subscribe to The TimesGet The New York Times app Connect with us on: Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

On Tech: A capitalist fix to the digital divide

What if big tech companies paid for lower-income Americans to have fast internet access?

View in browser|nytimes.com Continue reading the main story September 22, 2020 A capitalist fix to the digital divide Ari Melenciano By Shira Ovide The pandemic has made it more clear that millions of Americans are falling behind in work, school and life because they don’t have or can’t afford decent internet access. I’ve written about one proposed Big Government solution: for the United States to spend tens of billions of dollars or more to bring internet lines to every American, as it did to wire electricity everywhere. But Apjit Walia, the global head of technology strategy at Deutsche Bank, has a more free market suggestion: Big technology companies should pay for millions of lower-income Americans to get what they need to go online. And not out of the goodness of their heart. In Walia’s view, it would be a smart business decision to reach new customers and repair Big Tech’s reputation. “Rarely in my investment career do I see what’s good for society is also good for investment returns,” Walia told me. Walia is far from the first person to highlight the digital divide along race and income lines. But the messenger and his proposed way of tackling the problem are an unusual combination of the cold language of return on investment and outrage about racial inequality. Walia’s proposal also points to the reality that to get an essential service to more Americans, we might need a scattershot approach with both more effective government policies and actions by self-interested corporations. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT America’s “digital divide” is at least two problems. In less populated parts of the United States, it doesn’t always make financial sense for internet providers to build service lines to people’s homes. And in heavily wired population centers, there are internet deserts where internet access isn’t available or is subpar, particularly in lower-income neighborhoods. If it is offered, not all households can afford internet service or think it’s a priority. There are government subsidies to address some of these gaps, but they haven’t always worked. Walia’s research — based on surveys, existing data, interviews with experts and an analysis of cellphone location information — reinforced existing data that Black and Latino Americans are far less likely to have internet access and computers at home. Walia also found that Black people are more likely than white Americans to have poor quality internet service. He penciled out a five-year plan for big tech companies to collectively spend about $15 billion on three things for millions of Black and Latino households with an annual income below $30,000: providing discounted internet service, supplying basic computers, and providing mentorship and education on technical skills. Why would tech companies do this? Self-interest. This internet gap is an economic liability for these Americans and the country as more jobs have digital components, Walia said. It’s bad for tech companies, too. “This is about investing in a market that is going to be a large demographic group in a generation,” he said. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT Walia also said that by starting to tackle the digital divide, tech companies build good will among lawmakers and regulators, who are more closely watching how Big Tech uses its power. I asked Walia whether there is a risk of tech companies barreling in with magical fixes for a problem they don’t understand. He said that his proposal wouldn’t be a cure all, and that tech companies have the competence and cash to implement comprehensive programs. “It’s a meaningful start,” Walia said. If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT In defense of pressuring corporations A number of readers disagreed with Friday’s newsletter, which examined how best to influence policies at companies like Facebook. Instead of boycotting companies to demand change, I wrote, what if people demanded that elected officials change laws that apply to the company? Some of you emphasized the importance of people pushing for change with our wallets and habits. Others said that pressuring companies to change their behavior is pragmatic because our elected officials are often less responsive and effective than corporations. (My astute analysis: This is true, and, wow, it bums me out.) These reader emails have been lightly edited: “Citizens need to be more consciously involved in the society and norms we produce. The most effective way to do that is through our consumption. Relying on the government (which is only an extension of us) to have the answer is avoiding our responsibility and historically ineffective.” — Mike “The outset of this missive misses the point that boycotting or changing personal habits to reduce their revenue is an accessible, tangible way to influence the companies mentioned. We can vote sporadically but even that won’t necessarily result in the changes desired. It also isn’t either or!" —Conrad “The reason people do not look to the government for changes to Facebook is that our government has been decimated by individuals who use their seat in government for their own profit. America is shocked, disappointed, used and abused by their own government. It’s no place to get action or to resolve problems.” — Johanna Baynard Before we go … United States vs. Google: It’s been coming for a long time. The Justice Department could sue Google within days for violating antitrust laws, in one of the government’s biggest legal challenges in years to an American tech superpower. My colleagues wrote that the government’s case is expected to focus on Google’s search business and whether the company wielded its search heft in ways that blocked competitors and hurt consumers.(If you’d like a refresher on the case, here’s my reader guide outlining the motivations of a possible Google lawsuit.) Do tech superpowers tilt the game to their advantage? That’s the heart of the ongoing antitrust investigations into Google and other tech giants. The Wall Street Journal wrote that Amazon allows its own devices to promote themselves on the shopping site by capitalizing on interest in competing products, but Amazon doesn’t permit serious rivals to do the same. A school that did a lot right for digital learning: The New York Times’s coronavirus and schools newsletter wrote about how a school district near San Diego managed to reopen this fall for virtual and in-person classes. It prepared for years to get families, teachers and its curriculum ready for digital instruction, and it responded quickly when it discovered problems like families who lacked home internet. Hugs to this There is meaning, probably, behind these absurdist, intentionally imperfect pandemic-life cakes for Instagram. Don’t miss the one that looks vaguely like Jabba the Hutt, decorated with shrimp. We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com. If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here. Continue reading the main story Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance. You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times. To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences. Subscribe to The TimesGet The New York Times app Connect with us on: Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018