My son is 10 and has been playing Minecraft for most of his life. I would consider him quite good at it. I sometimes watch. Every couple of months one of his friends will get banned for no reason. Usually the reason is profanity in the chat, even though they play with the chat off and are FaceTiming on the side with each other. It turns out that the system is so easy to manipulate that other users (kids) will report them just because they don’t like how the game went.
Basically spoiled kids will say if you don’t do what I want then I’m reporting all of you and getting you banned. And they do. Microsoft doesn’t actually verify the claims, just blanket bans all of them.
So the kids create a new account, and keep playing. It just seems like something that is perfectly natural to them. It does mean that I would never spend a dollar on anything Minecraft related though.
I know you want to trust your child’s friends, but “it happened for no reason” is exactly what kids say when they don’t want to own up to the consequences of their actions. Obviously, you can only monitor your own child’s gameplay and not what their friends are doing on their own time. I strongly suspect there’s more going on than you realize.
> It literally is as easy as fill out the form, user is automatically banned, no verification required. Microsoft is not actually enforcing anything.
I highly doubt this. The Minecraft FAQ has this to say about it:
> Will I get banned without my case being reviewed by a human?
> No. Our team of human moderators handle player reports. This team is dedicated to Minecraft, and familiar with the community, platform, and lore. Our team reviews every report before any action is taken.
And I was once banned from Dota2 for "intentional feeding" which I guess is just a fancy way of saying that the others in my team expected my skill level to be higher than it was.
These online ban systems really are random. And typically the "moderation" is fully automated. I predict soon GPT3 will write the message to inform you.
It has to be on a very regular basis, and even then you probably first get put into low priority matchmaking as your behavior score drops. Banning accounts usually only applies to cheats or buying and selling accounts.
1 the bastards did not send me the parent any detaisl about the ban, just a extremely vague reason so I have to guess all possible reasons (maybe chat, maybe screenshots shared in chat, maybe Sony devs fucked up with native languages, maybe my son tells the truth and it was that guy that demanded Fortnite gifts otherwise they will report them and get them banned
2 Sony did not let me appeal, or ask for details, fuck you Sony, you lost a customer
3 at that time I had a 12 months subscription that is required for online play, so the banning robbed me for 2 months subscriptions.
IMO, I believe my son , that it was a troll, Sony lost a customer , they could avoided this if they could show me exactly the "crime", I could then educate my son if he used some "bad word" (we are not native speackers so he might not know that some word is dangerous, soem can use it but if you get reported you are screwed)
This level of naïvety is somewhat endearing.
Reminds me of the classic:
> No, I wasn't looking at dirty websites, it was a virus!
Not to mention tacking on the requirement that instead of a bunch of 10 year-old children being - as they tend to be - offensive/testing limits when adults aren't looking, Microsoft is publicly lying to their customers (creating liability) and implementing an automated system so poor it doesn't so much as check if the reported user even uses chat.
EDIT: To further substantiate what I'm saying, I just checked and you cannot submit a report without selecting the specific messages that relate to it. The UX requires that the individual messages are selected and cannot be submitted empty. The parent is at least being misled in thinking their child or their friends don't use the chat feature.
You know they are likely playing with a large group of other 10 year old children right? There’s going to be at least a few amongst them that just think it’s fun to mass report everyone that says anything marginally inappropriate.
As a side effect, if you or your child are a bit inconsiderate during a tense moment of the game and someone gets mad back, with a press of the button they can block you from ever playing by reporting select words to game publisher. You will not be entitled to refund. Would you say that if this was not abused in a couple of months then it's definitely OK and we shouldn't worry about it?
Minecraft was sold as a game set. There are paid official places you can go play it now, but buying the game set does not require you to use them. Do not mistake it with Roblox, that one is both a game cafe and a game set.
To be mass reported, you need to be on a server with all the people who want to report you.
Honestly, Mojang built this system well, and seeing Hacker News full of assumptions is really disappointing.
I had a spare minecraft account I migrated a while back. As an experiment, I had three friends of mine report the account for profanity. Any text field that could be filled was filled only with garbage or the name of the account
This is an account that hadn't logged on since verifying that the account got moved over, and that was long before the global moderation tools were made.
Within the hour, it was banned. When I tried getting to support, I gave up.
They are not using humans.
I have exactly 0 trust in such statements after Amazon's "New world" fiasco. I mean, it technically might be processed by human, hired from 3rd world country and paid next to nothing but it doesn't change the result: large number of reports was enough to ban people, no one check if those reports made any sense. Nor if they were all made by enemy clan.
Oof. They're kids. Cursing here and there is not the end of the world.
Hate speech, sexual content and soliciting improper contact, real life threats, exposing the personal information of others, posting links to malicious software, impersonating staff, cheating/exploits (this includes anything that would negatively affect another person’s gameplay experience), general commercial spamming
Profanity is considered the responsibility of specific server moderators since it's a low-level offense that's virtually impossible to police in a game like Minecraft. They're trying to avoid the notoriety recently obtained by Roblox for being a place for adults to exploit children.
Are you quoting reality of a FAQ? I don't believe the FAQ rules of Microsoft much more than I believe 10 years old kids.
If my own experience years ago is any indication, this would create so many ban options it’s not funny. 10 year olds love pretending to be more than they are.
Are they seeing the exact same screen as the one in the original post? There are two separate systems at play, each individual server has moderation by those who host the server (wherein they can ban anyone for any reason) and there is now a global moderation system introduced very recently, which is run by paid moderators hired by Microsoft.
You said "every couple of months" but this system did not exist before last month, at least on the Java edition of the game.
Source?
https://help.minecraft.net/hc/en-us/articles/7317376541197-M... says otherwise.
This hasn't been my experience. I've had friends reporting each other for fun across a ton of servers I'm in and haven't seen anyone banned on any of them, presumably because nobody has used any of the profanity that a report would actually ban for.
Hahahaha. No. Eventually, mass reporting could make it happen, but a single report does not cause a ban. If that's what your kid or his friends have told you, they're lying to you.
Maybe this is the plan all along. Keep the money flowing, since it is not subscription yet.
Maybe auditing the chat logs is an easy way for MS to try to fix this???
What's next? Maybe Office 360 profanity filter, where your Office 360 account gets banned for writing about the Austrian Village formerly known as Fucking[1] in MS Word? Maybe the Windows 12 won't let you access your perfectly legal porn anymore? Or any files related to Scunthorpe. Or Edge refuses to stream Game of Thrones for you because of nudity and profanity... and then goes on to delete all your data and ban your MS account?
I agree with what you are saying but of course somewhere Microsoft is probably hoping to convert Minecraft from a game anyone can host to a game that is always connected to some service of theirs. That way they can collect data or sell ads or maybe subscriptions.
I don't like the idea of open source games because you can't crowdsource editorial decisions. But I think gamers are going to be ready for a game that is made by a team, but owned and maintained by the gamers. Probably through a DAO or something like that. How else can you maintain a game for years in the best interest of people who bought it? Just making a game open source isn't enough imo.
That is the problem though. They run it, not the users like it used to be.
HN thread on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16668267
I’m trying to imagine having to explain to a 6yr old why they can’t play Minecraft until Dad creates another account and hope they can afford another license. And hope it doesn’t happen again the next time a troll joins their server.
It also seems to be incentivizing people to not have any chat reports at all.
(We're somewhat new to Minecraft, so I may be missing something here.)
There was a vulnerability in the past that 2B2T users discovered, which enabled them to essentially track any player's activity and find the IPs of private servers, even ones run by family. They used it to grief even a server where only one person was logged in, AFK, at the time. Though unlikely, a hacker with a new vulnerability helping them to discover this kind of information could hypothetically find anyone's private group, drop in, and report.
EDIT:
The griefing tool is called Project Copenhiemer, and the user named orsond who is a member of the Fifth Column which created Copenhiemer, made a post about it here on this comment section page. Refer to their comment.
I totally get this. My support is for the sentiment Microsoft is expressing. As with so many things online without the actual commitment of real people who are culturally connected (e.g. Daniel and Scott for HN), it will likely go south.
They'll report for no reason, that's the point of trolling.
> And the chat logs (which MS will now have) will back then up?
I have not played Minecraft, but I'd be surprised if the server admins of any game of such scale acted on logs.
Also, I wouldn't want my kids to be logged on a corporate server.
> And why are you inviting trolls to play with your 6 year old?
Are the rooms invite only? Then what's the point of Microsoft's draconian measures here? I thought the point was to censor public servers, but again, I haven't played this much.
In any case, this situation already looks like defeat for an online community.
I think my broader point is that I appreciate Microsoft saying they want Minecraft to be a profanity -free zone. There are plenty in the "online community" that seem to be quite happy being G-rated. My 9-yeae old has watched about 100 hours of YouTube from "Pixlriffs" and its been wonderful despite random zombie attacks or whatnot.
As an aside, have you looked into putting a whitelist on your server? It could provide a lot of peace of mind, especially when you're trying to keep it to just your kids and friends.
Public servers with hundreds of players and little to no barrier to entry - they'll be full of "trolls". All the 6 y/o has to do is join one, which takes about 5 seconds.
Yes.
> And the chat logs (which MS will now have) will back then up?
Why do you think anyone will check the chat logs? That's too expensive at MS scale, it's an automatic ban. Only admins of private servers actually check the chat logs :)
> And why are you inviting trolls to play with your 6 year old?
There are thousands of public player run servers. Some are quite fun. Whatever your idea of fun is, there should be at least a hundred that match.
> (We're somewhat new to Minecraft, so I may be missing something here.)
You're missing all the communities that were built before MS tried to turn it into software as a service to justify their billion spent on Minecraft.
Good intentions among corporatized and safety oriented developers will certainly prevent another such golden age and maybe already has - considering the recent state of gaming.
---
A tangential, but related, issue I've observed is that there seem to be an increasing number of measures being carried out in society that, in effect, drive widespread self censorship. Any interesting conversation, regardless of how otherwise sanitary, may be likely to motivate somebody to want to "report" others. See any thread on, for instance, dark matter. An esoteric scientific concept, yet one where emotions run wild.
The only choice, in scenarios where reporting is likely to lead to penalties that are intolerable, is to simply not say anything at all that might cause even a single ripple in the water. And that is, in effect, not especially different than life in all of these unfree societies we were supposed to have learned from. The fact that we now seem to be becoming one of those societies, even if by a more novel path, is becoming increasingly apparent.
No marketplace with coins, no microtransactions, no mining my child’s PII before you allow to play a game I bought, no online login screen, no platform or “community” of any kind (not even if it’s “for kids”, Roblox is an example of what kind of people it becomes a magnet for), no unknown corporate moderators for my family server, nothing but a fun game.
(And because dedicated developers who actually listen to player feedback must be paid appropriately, definitely take my money for every new major update.)
Minecraft used to be a great example of such a game, until it got bought by Microsoft.
Java edition still qualifies. Not sure for how much longer.
If the free-to-play microtransaction-supported model is more financially appealing than allowing customers own a product, then anything that allows to enjoy and extend the game without Microsoft overseeing it and getting a cut (like open-source Java versions of the client and the server) is a liability. Chat reporting is to me clear evidence of Microsoft trying to justify further lock-up and ongoing subscription model. Next they will say because OSS allows bypassing or cheating the reporting they must close the source and limit mod API.
I would be fine if Microsoft continued to release the game as a separate, adult-rated but unlocked product for gamers who care (and charged for major updates, they will absolutely pay), while separately providing a locked platform stuffed with coins, marketplaces, walled garden for mods, corporate moderators, safety guarantees and whatever else for those who want an easy solution safe for children without adult oversight.
Not exactly on topic but what you say is funny. Minecraft Java has never been open source. Mods are done by decompiling the official jar, applying patches and recompiling back. I'm sure it's not explicitly allowed by whatever legalese surrounds MC.
This all goes for the one true Minecraft version, Java. Bedrock... they can keep it.
There are even mods that provide some sort of API and plugin system for other mods to use :)
There is nothing letting the group of adults easily opt out of the system.
Someone is mischievous and decides to report someone else? Permanently banned. Someone has a falling out and decides to try to piss off their friend by reporting them? Permanently banned. Someone thinks they're funny and report as a joke? Permanently banned.
Not to mention that Microsoft has repeatedly failed to actually implement this correctly so far. I wonder if all the people who have gotten banned by this will ever get unbanned.
If you want Minecraft to be a game for kids, why don't you parent your kids? Minecraft is not your daycare. Minecraft is a portal to the internet (the world), if you wouldn't trust your kid to go on an international trip on their own without any supervision then stop letting them get on the internet without supervision.
Want your kids to play with friends? Pester Microsoft for an easy way to set up a server that YOU can control and manage and they can connect to (I believe realms already did this).
I promise you that Microsoft's changes won't keep your kids safe, they won't prevent them from dealing with adults in Minecraft, they won't prevent them from being exposed to ideas which you might see as too adult for them to thoroughly understand.
You have fallen into the PR trap that Microsoft created. They WANT you to feel like your kids are safe and WANT you to feel like they're making responsible decisions. This doesn't actually create a safe environment, and more likely is just a way to stimulate more sales by permanently banning accounts for a game which parents just can't help to buy their kids copies of.
Adults tend to generally prefer to play with other adults, and they might also use profanity on adult-only private servers. Unfortunately adults can also be just as petty as kids and may report other adults just to get back at them for something or other. plus we know any moderation system run by a megacorp will inevitably result in some percentage of completely random bans.
Okay. Enjoy. Mojang's policies don't ban for that.
If that impairs angry 13 year olds’ ability to cuss around kids - nobody cares.
I've been trying to keep the kids off the internet, but Minecraft somehow created some bulls--t backdoor social media account for my kindergartner without prompting (let alone asking for consent before making it public!). On top of that, microsoft can trivially tie it to my github and linkedin.
Seriously, WTF were they thinking?!?
** Microsoft ** somehow created.
No one created any account besides the one required to download Minecraft before the acquisition.
Those are different disaster than tying the profiles to Microsoft accounts.
It definitely makes it harder to make friends in the games, but it also completely eliminates any and all potential for toxicity and other miscreant behavior. As a result, I'd have no problem letting my hypothetical children play these games online even at a young age.
This solution is obviously untenable for a cooperative and creative game like Minecraft, so it seems Microsoft is stuck in a real hard place here.
Have people found creative ways to communicate, or solicit/"bootstrap" further communications?
If you can send someone a bit, you have enough to send them your endpoint at another service to communicate. In a multiplayer game, where presumably you can see the decisions of other players, the prerequisites are met.
(I am by no means a gamer, but have witnessed how creative young humans can be at defeating the restraints imposed upon them --- and also how they can quickly learn such things from others.)
Not so much bootstrap other communications... but I remember how many penis emblems I encountered on Mario Kart DS despite Nintendo banning them very rapidly.
Nintendo hasn't done a draw-your-own-emblem since, I don't think.
In Splatoon you can "post" [1] which displays this image above your character in the lobby and the main hub of the game. Most of the time people will draw using the in-game interface and the touch screen/buttons on the switch, other times people use a well known exploit to recreate images from your computer in the game using a specific type of controller [2].
After the post is created, it typically gets published to some social media account you have linked to your Nintendo account.
These posts are usually jokes, memes, or some silly throwaway pop culture line or reference but more often than not you see individuals promoting their own discord servers, twitter accounts, twitch accounts, and other social media platforms. Unfortunately you also get a few individuals who will post about LGBT related stuff, often with a sexual angle to it. No issues posting that on Twitter but I feel it's inappropriate for what is essentially a game for children.
The good news is you can report these posts to Nintendo, the bad news is I have no idea if they are moderated or not.
[1] https://thenerdstash.com/how-to-draw-art-posts-in-splatoon-3...
[2] https://github.com/WyseNynja/Splatoon-2-Drawing/blob/master/...
It’s amazing how from the launch of the game that quick chat has pretty much only been used sarcastically.
Somebody that's tilted is going to be annoyed by a message that's mocking them regardless how innocuous the words are in the message.
> Well played!
> Well played!
(There is a mandatory delay after sending two canned messages.)
Some of us play video games online for the competition, and because human opponents are much more unpredictable and fun than programmed bots.
You have the option to install your own chat moderation tools, client-sided, there is not need to force every to "be nice" just because there _might_ be children playing.
If this was just for their own Realm Servers, that would be fine, it is their server, they host it. But why does Microsoft suddenly feel the need to moderate MY server? (public, but only used by friends of mine)
All the big public servers, such as Hypixel, have had their own moderators and they do a fantastic job.
> I don't see anything in their process that suggest that a group of adults playing with their friends are at risk of having their chat audited in the absence of a complaint? The thing is that we have NO IDEA how much it takes to be banned. - Will an actual human look at the reports? Doubtful. - When a ban is to be issued, who will decide when to do that? Some guy who has to follow a script that reads "3 profanities, max" and click the boot button?
The Minecraft community is one of the largest gaming communities, and I have seen very little controversial about it. I do not see the need for Microsoft to suddenly step in and decide to moderate it.
Kind of a losing battle anyway. Not quite sure why we care about profanity at 10 years old when we do not care about the same profanity from the same person 10 years later.
A good system would cater for everyone adequately.
Having a closed set of realms servers can opt in with more stringent moderation might be a good idea, but forcing it globally is just entirely stupid; there are things inappropriate for kids that are just fine for teenager audience, and adults play the game too.
If I was in your spot I'd honestly either set up, or rent them a private minecraft server, then they can invite their friends there and you have full control on what is happening with it.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't see anything in their process that suggests that a group of adults playing with their friends are at risk of having their chat audited in the absence of a complaint?
Just need one person taking a piss. And it pretty much means no server with strangers is safe as you could be reported by anyone for anything completely benign in context of the server
And how much harm did this cause? Because I saw the same, but I don't see it having any real negative effect.
Because most of them, overwhelming majority actually, are easily able to not swear. They do swear when among peers only, but cutting it off when needed is really not an issue for them.
https://www.cbr.com/minecraft-players-outraged-mojang-monito...
I don't think it's a bad thing, either. People who buy proprietary software know what the deal is, and anyone who didn't know what the deal was knows now. It's not your game, you've just got a temporary license to it. Kind of the consumer's fault beyond anything.
It's fundamental to the model of proprietary software.
It's not theirs. It's the company's, and the company can do what they want with it.
There's no reason refunds should be offered, as the consumers got what they paid for: A license to software, with certain conditions for termination and conditions allowing the company to alter the terms of the arrangement.
It's like saying that a person should be able to get a refund on an ice cream cone that melts: The deterioration is part of the standard deal, and you know it's coming.
How is buying a copy of software which runs on my own computer different from buying a physical machine that runs on my electricity?
If this were using a company's servers, then fine. More power to them. In fact, that's a very fair way to do business. You're stepping in their own backyard and so they get to set the rules of the "house".
But when I run the software in my own machine, using my own processing power, while not using any online services that belong to them, how is it different than just buying a physical thing?
Your cone example is misleading because the melting is a natural consequence of the object existing at room temperature.
Software stays the same unless someone updates it. The copy of the software that I own (emphasis on "copy") does not naturally go through anything besides what the user does to it. If I disconnect from the internet, nobody can touch it.
Microsoft should have the full right to deny service to anyone, I don't think anyone here disputes that. But Minecraft is not a service, it is a good.
You go to the video store, you get a VHS tape. You don't own the media on the tape. You can use the tape.
That is the deal for proprietary software. That's what you agreed to with your purchase. You consented to the model. You agreed to the terms of the license.
There's nothing misleading about software licensing. You buy a license, that the company and you agree before you spend money on it, that the company can change at any time. There's nothing unconscionable about that. You knowingly went into the deal, and so you should have to deal with the consequences of it.
Governments need to stop babysitting people who make stupid decisions unless it's genuinely urgent; markets don't work when consumers can yell at legislators and judges enough to invalidate the mechanisms of them. It's getting a bit ridiculous.
Should have grabbed a copy of software with a better license. Better luck next time.
I feel like you are confusing copyright law with contract law.
I can purchase Minecraft without agreeing to any EULA. It only appears after you download the launcher.
Here are the two types of unconscionability:
The basic test applied for unconscionability is “whether, in light of the general background and the needs of a particular case, the clauses involved are so one-sided as to be unconscionable under the circumstances existing at the time of the making of the contract”.
Substantive unconscionability looks to the actual terms of the
agreement, while procedural unconscionability focuses on the manner
in which the contract was negotiated and the circumstances of the parties at the time of formation. Procedural unconscionability may be shown by either an inequality in bargaining power or unfair surprise. This may be evidenced by terms that are unreasonably favourable to one party, terms hidden in the contract, or where one party has substantially lower education levels. Substantive unconscionability may be shown by an overly harsh allocation of risks or unjustifiable costs or a great price disparity. Where a court finds that a contract or clause is unconscionable at the time it was made, it can refuse to enforce the contract or limit the application of that clause to avoid an unconscionable result.
It is not the EULA that allows me to use the software. The software can be naturally executed and used. The EULA then comes around and coerces me to agree to it if I want to get past an install screen. While the actual software is already in my posession, which is the only thing copyright law regulates. Copying and redistribution.
ProCD said it was way back in ‘96. It’s still good law isn’t it?
As to unconscionability, the subject matter is relevant. In other words, there aren’t any video game cases in the unconscionability section of the typical contracts textbook.
You're buying a licence. So the "buy" button is not fraudulent.
But that truth impacts sales as people want ownership without companies being able to rug pull. We want to be able to load up Minecraft in 30y regardless of whether Microsoft decided they're done with it.
Also, what "wider US society" are you talking about? Most people who use software don't ever read any terms or EULAs, let alone know the implications. And the shenanigans that they bring to the table would be laughed out of the room in any physical setting (in fact they already have been laughed out of the courtroom, see the first sale doctrine)
"Here's a machine. You're responsible for keeping it. You must use it with your own electricity and resources. But you don't own it, it's more like a lease. Oh but we advertise it as a purchase and call it that in every public display we make of it, except in our hundred-page legal terms document, which (we know) nobody reads."
Yeah, definitely not unconscionable.
You opened with "I don't think it's a bad thing"
> Once sales start dying and a minimum time has passed, I will release the game source code as some kind of open source. I'm not very happy with the draconian nature of (L)GPL, nor do I believe the other licenses have much merit other than to boost the egos of the original authors, so I might just possibly release it all as public domain.
This did not happen yet, Minecraft is still selling really well.
I'm disheartened also by the fact it'll never become open source, but the statement was never legally-binding and never part of the terms that a purchase of Minecraft (in alpha, at that) entailed.
Bollocks it is. The deal is you buy the software, it says "for sale" or "buy $app" [0]. I will never give my informed consent for unilateral pushing of changes to software I purchase.
Under UK law pushing a change without informed consent would appear to be unauthorised access under the Computer Misuse Act, and if features are changed is a reason for a refund under the Consumer Rights Act.
If the ice-cream melts because a company broke into your home and turns off your freezer then damn straight you should get a refund (Consumer Rights Act) and they should be criminally punished for B&E (Computer Misuse Act).
[0] https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/store/minecraft-java-bedrock... "buy Minecraft"
You're acting as if Microsoft developed this game. They didn't. I bet most people posting here bought it at the time the license "made lawyers very nervous" according to Notch himself (even after he said that, he only changed the license very slightly).
I'm not pro-Microsoft, but it's really on the consumers, here, if they didn't know what they got themselves into.
A decision made by a bunch of suits; a standard of behavior informed by corporate office spaces, ultimately vetted by the private moral prescriptions of a few HR officers and shareholders.
The children need to know that a negative outlook has no place in the world. Have a positive attitude, play by the rules, and you can have a lot of fun. Start trouble and we'll excise you like the cancer you are.
I understand why Microsoft is doing it and I even agree in part with Microsoft's measures in some ways. Aside from the direct protection of kids, they're also probably trying to be pre-emptive... forestalling the day or already complying with the day when the government says they have to do this sort of thing.
What I disagree with is that it's all or nothing. Public servers that wish to not participate should be allowed to not to. Sure have the client give a warning that you're logging into the wild west, even have it give a warning every time you log into the same server. But don't force all servers to do it. Microsoft also has parent controls which allow me to determine if my kid can use his account on any public server (by default nope)... finesse that a bit to let me choose only Microsoft moderated public servers. Even maybe give me the ability to whitelist servers for my kid's account. And then let everyone else that doesn't want to comply with Microsoft's vision of civility online to enter those servers that don't comply at their discretion, risk, or peril.
This would achieve the goals that your after (and me too for my kid) while not forcing society down the path of conformity.
At the end of the day individual servers are completely separate worlds that you cannot moderate as a whole due to differences in rules, expectations of their members and culture. You cannot moderate all of that by throwing a blanket rule system over it. Even the unofficial global ban system before this, mcbans.com, had a system to allow servers to only honor bans from specific other servers who they aligned with.
As for children I recommend keeping a mildly distant eye on what servers they visit, and this doesn't just apply to minecraft. As a kid I had a rule with my dad to consult him first about any terms of service I wanted to accept (for example for forums), so he could make sure it was safe. This worked until I became a teen and specifically started seeking out the bad things about the internet, but at that point no public ban system is going to help.
Even with Microsoft's watchful eye, it still won't solve all the problems. Roblox was already poorly moderated. Club Penguin was meant to be well moderated with all sorts of mechanisms to ensure child safety but it was still used as a hangout for all sorts of adults as well.
Realistically there's no solution that will 100% solve the stranger danger that comes with access to the Internet. The only way is for parents to take on the responsibility - have children play on a server that only them and their friends have access to. Any Internet server that randoms can join will always come with a risk and it's up to parents to quantify that risk.
That sounds like "why want the right to privacy if you have nothing illegal to hide".
Do you guarantee that if your kids end up on an adult server (yes, there are 18+ private servers) you will just get them off there instead of complaining that the chat is full of adult conversation and getting the entire community banned? Considering you want Microsoft to "protect your kids" i strongly doubt it.
And yes, the 18+ server I play on is access restricted, but you can get in (but not build) to evaluate if the server suits your play style before applying. You may get in in the middle of a discussion laced with politics and sex because THIS IS AN ADULT SERVER.
Also, complaints can be malicious. Do you really think MS is willing to put in the resources to evaluate a complaint properly?
You don't just start banning adults for typing swear words into a keyboard.
By all means, set up a kind of method where public servers that are child safe/friendly (e.g. opt in to MS moderation) are advertised as such. But do not mess with my stuff without my permission.
This is the online equivalent of a homophobe complaining that two men holding hands in the park will turn their children gay.
On kid-specific servers that might be an apt analogy, but adult-owned, adult-populated servers shouldn’t have to worry about malicious trolls ruining their experience with a ban.
I bought Minecraft in 2011. Every few years since then, I would get friends back together, host a new server, and catch up while playing. I bought the software, I host the server, I ban people if need be, and how dare Microsoft treat it as their walled garden.
Why does this keep happening to all games i like?
I know minecraft might be an extreme example because it has simple graphics and no violence but it happens even on VR Military Shooters.
No. just be a decent parent and don't assume that the internet is a free daycare.
Sorry, i just hate this "its a game tho it's obviously meant for kids" attitude
I'm sorry, but I can't imagine being this upset at children. If I'm at a bar and I see a kid walk in, yes I will act differently because they are in earshot. It doesn't matter that the child is in an adult space.
"Well I was here first" is such an immature dismissal of acknowledging how your community is changing.
Folks from the US need to stop imposing their backwards values on the rest of us.
If I paid for a license for Minecraft Java edition, why can't my friends and I play and communicate as we see fit?
The genuinely, the original situation does not sound like involving violence.
That aside, dedicated servers.