The Roblox Predator Situation is Crazy
PDS Published 08/12/2025
-
YouTuber who engages in increasingly popular (& risky) “To Catch a Predator”-esque content given a cease and desist by the gaming platform Roblox.
The biggest gaming platform out there -- Roblox -- is protecting pedophiles.
That’s what some are saying after the platform banned the YouTuber Schlep due to his To Catch a Predator-style content he was running in the game.
According to him, the company sent him a Cease and Desist a few days ago and claimed he had violated their Terms and Services for:
“Engaging in simulated child endangerment conversations.
Sharing or soliciting personally identifiable information.
And Directing users to move conversations off platform.”
Around the same time, the company tweeted out:
“Roblox has officially declared vigilante groups to be a platform risk, which could result in account termination for those involved.” []
In a follow up video, Schlep said:
“Within the last year, me and my team have gotten six predators arrested within the Roblox community. Almost all of them admitted to doing this before to other Roblox users. Every account I’ve owned since I was six years old have now bean banned off of Roblox. What Roblox did could prevent some predators from facing real life consequences.” [intro-0:47]
He goes on to say that he’s also barred from accessing Roblox from now on.
Schlep also tears into the bullet points in the cease and desist letter, like right here:
“Roblox is claiming that I’m engaging in simulated child endangerment conversations. What?! One of the fundamental basis of predator catching is that you cannot talk sexually to predators. Predators need to talk sexually to you. If you talk sexually to predators right off the get go that’s entrapment. That is literally what entrapment is.
We also always play a naive kid who doesn’t know what they’re doing so they teach us about this stuff. And it’s not even on Roblox. Most of the chat logs are on Discord.” @1:38-2:14
Schlep does recognize that yes: he does try to get people off of the Roblox platform to have the conversations on Discord.
But he mocked the idea that it’s worth a cease and desist letter.
One big gripe he has is that Roblox claims he should have reported these users directly to them… except their systems for doing that seem to be pretty anemic and not clear.
So much so that someone made credible threats to attack the Las Vegas Sphere and users had to go directly to the FBI.
And the real kicker for Schlep is that the would-be attacker still hasn’t been banned.
Either way though, the entire situation has since blown up into a real PR nightmare for Roblox.
People in the comments of Schlep’s video are openly saying that Roblox is protecting predators.
And major figures in the space have come out to defend Schlep, such as KreekCraft with his 13 million subscribers.
He made a video yesterday covering the situation -- which was kind of a big deal for him because he’s partnered with Roblox and will likely get into some trouble for saying things.
For example, he talks about how the move to ban vigilante groups in general makes sense, as many of these To Catch a Predator type people do illegal things -- like literally beating people -- to “catch” alleged predators.
But he goes on to say:
“The issue; however, Schlep is not like that. Schlep was one of the only people I know to do it the correct way…. Schlep was doing it the right way. He worked with law enforcement, he worked with news agencies, he worked with the proper channels to get these people arrested. He wasn’t the type to go into Walmart, start beating people up and then calling the cops after. I also know that he would report people to law enforcement and do his due diligence.” @7:56-8:34
KreekCraft added that he thinks Roblox did this solely because Schlep was the biggest name doing this, regardless of whether he was doing it in the “right” way or not.
He also goes on to say:
“This guy is hurting Roblox's reputation. Why is he hurting their reputation? Because he’s kinda shining a light on a really big issue in the Roblox space and that’s bad actors in the Roblox space. And Roblox looking bad hurts their public reception, it hurts their stock, it hurts their bottom line, it hurts their financial. So they get rid of the guy.” @9:35
And that’s not where his criticism ends, he also talks about Roblox having a plethora of games that are clearly inappropriate and nothing is done to take them down. [broll @11:58]
Other figures in space have also come to Schlep’s defense.
For example, Jidion (Jid-eon) -- who makes videos with Schlep -- said:
“The reason that they’re doing this is because Roblox PR is at an all time low where pretty much people think that the CEO is on the Epstein list (allegedly, allegedly). And I mean it’s absolutely disgusting what they’re doing here. Instead of opening a line to make it easier for Schlep to report these guys -- and I’ll tell you this right away. Every time we get an arrest on a dude he reports them right away. When these dudes bail out he’ll literally see them go back online playing games and stuff and he’s already reported them. He’ll tweet them the arrest report and he’ll tweet that they already reported them. The only time they ban a person is whenever the video drops. So we’re doing it through the process you guys want and reporting them, but you don’t do anything until the video drops?” @2:31-3:30
And even outside of the community we saw people like Asmongold and MoistCritikal all pretty much saying the same thing:
PART II
For its part the company has tried to pushback on some of the claims in its initial tweet that banned vigilante groups.
Right, it specifically outlined that it DOES work with law enforcement to try and protect players.
In the post they wrote:
“We maintain direct communication channels with organizations, such as the FBI and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), for immediate escalation of serious threats that we identify. We proactively report potentially harmful content to NCMEC, which is the designated reporting entity for the public and electronic service providers regarding instances of suspected child sexual exploitation. In 2024, we submitted 24,522 reports to NCMEC.” []
However, since all the videos have come out bashing the company it’s been pretty silent about the situation, until today when it finally gave a statement to PCMag, with a rep saying:
“It’s important to speak with the right sources to really understand how vigilante individuals and groups operate (e.g., violating policies around sharing [personally identifiable information], engaging in sexual conversations, lying about their ages, etc.), all while having a profit motive to evade detection instead of providing companies like ours with all the information to take the necessary action.” []
So they never really address the allegations that they ignore reports and if anything make it seem like Schlep is engaging in activity to entrap people.
To that, Schlep responded:
“We send you EVERYTHING. We create you youtube videos showcasing the chatlogs, we send you the GOOGLE DRIVES we give to the COPS.
You never made a line with me, and in MULTIPLE INSTANCES you ONLY ban ARRESTED predators after I release a massive video on it. []
The whole roblox community sees how flawed this argument is, it’s because EVERYONE has seen anecdotally THAT REPORTS VERY RARELY WORK….. if your stance on safety is really true WHY ARE THERE BATHROOM SHOWER GAMES FOR CHILDREN.“ []
And even PCMag recognized that there were entire spaces within the game that were pretty open to engaging with minors.[]
What’s wild though is that despite all this backlash online and from the community, it doesn’t seem like their stock has been hit too hard.
Right, over the past 5 days it’s up 2%.
Which granted, is a slower rate of growth than the company has seen all year, but it’s still up.
And even over the last day as this stuff has all blown up it’s barely dented the stock price.
So it remains to be seen what will happen, but what do you think?
Obviously Roblox doesn’t want to risk their platform being involved with vigilante activity that could result in its own crimes.
But was banning Schlep too far?
-
Washington Post uncovers Pentagon plans to create a National Guard “reaction force” to respond to civil unrest anywhere in the country, even as trial begins over Trump admin’s deployment of National Guard to deal with LA protests
The White House is reviewing a plan to form a National Guard mission for responding to civil unrest anywhere in the country.
At least, that’s according to internal Pentagon documents reviewed by The Washington Post – which reportedly say that this so-called “Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force” could be sent to American cities facing protests in as little as one hour.
And more specifically, the proposal calls for 600 troops to be stationed between military bases in Alabama and Arizona. []
With these troops not just coming from those two states but from Army and Air Force National Guard units in over a dozen. []
And notably, according to the Pentagon’s own projections, if this plan were to be adopted, it could end up costing hundreds of millions of dollars to keep military aircraft and aircrews ready around-the-clock.
Though, notably, transporting troops via commercial airlines is also reportedly being considered and would be far less expensive. []
But with that, according to the documents, the 2027 fiscal year is the earliest this program could be created and funded through the Pentagon’s traditional budgetary process.
It’s unclear, however, whether it could get started sooner by way of some other funding source.[]
But either way, to be very clear, what we’re talking about is not normal.
Right, it's true that most National Guard commands have fast-response teams to respond to emergencies, including civil unrest, in their home states.
And notably, the National Guard actually tested out a version of this plan in 2020, readying 600 troops in Arizona and Alabama in case of possible election-related political violence.
But of course, those fears turned out to be warranted when Trump supporters attacked the capital on January 6th (BROLL: 7:43-7:53).
Now, on the other hand, there’s no clear reason for it.
With an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College claiming this “is really strange because essentially nothing is happening” – and going on to say:
“Crime is going down. We don’t have major protests or civil disturbances. There is no significant resistance from states” to federal immigration policies.
“There is very little evidence anything big is likely to happen soon.” []
And on top of that, she says, the proposal risks diverting National Guard resources that may be needed to respond to natural disasters or other emergencies. []
Now, with all that said, again, this is just a plan that’s being considered.
And in fact, it’s not even clear yet whether the proposal has been shared yet with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
But it is pretty clear that this is exactly the type of plan Hegseth – and Trump – might be interested in.
Right, they literally just authorized the deployment of 800 National Guard troops to DC – also sending in hundreds of federal agents and taking control of the police department – all on the basis of falsehoods about crime in the city.
And about that you have people like one former professor in the U.S. Army War College telling the Wall Street Journal:
“The most benign interpretation is that this is an attempt to gain a public-relations victory by claiming credit for the already historically low crime rates in D.C.”
“The worst-case interpretation is that it is a test run for more legally dubious uses of military forces in other American cities.” []
Although with that, I will say, when does it stop being a test run and start being the real thing?
Right, I mean, Trump has already dispatched thousands of troops to the southern border – expanding the military’s role there again late last month.
And then, of course, he sent thousands of National Guard as well as active-duty Marines to LA back in June in response to protests –
And that was despite the objections of California governor Gavin Newsom – which actually led to Newsom suing the Trump administration.
And coincidentally, that trial? It’s happening now.
Right, it kicked off yesterday, with the judge saying:
“The factual question, which the court must address, is whether the military was used to enforce domestic law, and if so, whether there continues to be a threat that will be done again.” []
And with that, some of the most notable testimony so far has come from Major General Scott Sherman, who commanded Guard troops in LA.
Notably, he said he never heard the term "rebellion" used to describe the situation there – even though Trump's executive order calling up the Guard argued the protests constituted “a form of rebellion” []
And he also said that a DHS official questioned his "loyalty" to his country for objecting to the request for military assistance with an immigration enforcement operation at MacArthur Park. []
Right, that operation involved horse-mounted officers, military vehicles, and even a helicopter in what was seen more as a show of force than a real immigration enforcement effort (BROLL: 0:59-1:06).
But with that, you also had lawyers for California focusing on operations in which National Guard troops joined federal agents to raid marijuana farms more than 100 miles away.
So we’ll have to see how this trial goes, because a ruling against Trump could reinforce the limits on his ability to deploy the military in the country.
But until then, I gotta pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts on all this?
-
Trump nominates BLS head script
Meet the man who Donald Trump just picked to collect data on jobs and inflation for the entire country.
[Clip, 00:53 - 01:09] Caption: “So Inflation has slowed dramatically. In fact, what’s really amazing is the rate of price increases that we’re seeing in Trump’s second term is actually lower than the long-run average that we saw from 2009 through 2020, let alone the rates that we saw under Biden.”
His name is E.J. Antoni [Pronounce 00:03]], and he’s a real big fan of Trump. [Continue B roll]
Right, officially, he was an author on Project 2025; now he’s the chief economist at the right-wing Heritage Foundation.
And as of yesterday evening, he’s the next nominee to head the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Which is an odd role for someone like him, because BLS commissioners are usually nonpartisan technocrats, and he’s a fierce ideologue. [Image]
But of course just under two weeks ago, Trump fired the previous commissioner, Erika McEntarfer [Pronounce 00:12], after she released job market data he really didn’t like. [Screenshot, 00:11]
Right, because every month, the BLS announces how many jobs were created or lost the previous month, and as late-arriving, more accurate data come in, it also revises past estimates.
So this time, McEntarfer revised the May and June numbers down by 258,000 jobs. [Quote, find “258,000”]
Meaning that in reality, May only added 19,000 jobs, June added just 14,000, and July added 73,000, according to that month’s initial estimate, so that could get lowered too. [Quote, find “19,000”]
All of which are just horrendous numbers, even worse than what was expected.
So Trump called them “rigged,” fired her, and eventually settled on Antoni.
Which may or may not have something to do with Steve Bannon singing his praises for the past week.
Anyway, Antoni’s an obvious pick for Trump because not only is he a big critic of the BLS, he’s also harshly criticized the economy under Biden and championed it under Trump.
With him ironically pointing to downward job data revisions under Biden as evidence that the economy was a house of cards back then.
[Clip, 02:27 - 02:34, 02:40 - 02:46] Caption: “It’s making us question, is the economy even really expanding at this point? Are we in a recession? Are we near or entering a recession? And there’s only one time when we had a revision that was this big, and it was in the Global Financial Crisis.”
And recently, he’s spun the poor job growth under Trump as a sign that employment is shifting “away from the unproductive public sector to the productive private sector.” [Quote]
Saying that “many so-called blockbuster jobs reports under Biden were just government hiring sprees—at taxpayer expense, of course.” [Quote]
And adding that the jobs that are being created now are going to “native-born Americans,” unlike under Biden. [Quote]
Then, dismissing the “so-called experts,” he even claimed last month, before the most recent revision, that the May and April jobs numbers were revised upward.
Concluding, “That’s in stark contrast to what happened under the Biden administration, when jobs numbers were routinely revised down after overly optimistic estimates.” [Quote]
Part 2:
With that echoing some of the more conspiratorial claims made by Trump and others that the revisions are evidence the Democrats manipulated the data.
[Clip, 02:05 - 02:17] Caption: “Election Day, look what happened two or three days before with massive, wonderful job numbers, trying to get him elected or her elected, trying to get whoever the hell was running.”
So in his announcement of the nomination yesterday, Trump said, “Our Economy is booming, and E.J. will ensure that the Numbers released are HONEST and ACCURATE.” [Post]
But many critics have interpreted that to mean that Antoni, unlike the imaginary Democrat conspiracy, will actually manipulate the data to make Trump look good.
And if that happens, it won’t just be a political problem; it’ll affect the economy as well.
Right, because the BLS’ monthly reports are relied upon by economists, investors, business leaders, policy makers, and perhaps most importantly, the Federal Reserve, to make decisions.
Also, by the way, Antoni hates Gerome Powell, the Fed chair.
Right, he’s accused him of breaking the law, driving up inflation, creating a stock market bubble, and crushing businesses by keeping interest rates “artificially low” for too long and then raising them sharply.
All of which is why Antoni said Trump would be “justified” in firing Powell.
Anyway, you can see the real-time impact of these reports on stock, bond and currency markets around the globe.
So if people lose trust in them, that could create even more economic uncertainty, as if the tariffs haven’t done enough of that already.
Which is why even some fellow conservatives are speaking out against Antoni’s nomination.
With a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, for example, telling The Washington Post:
“He’s utterly unqualified and as partisan as it gets.” [Quote]
And an expert for the right-leaning Tax Foundation as well as the AEI adding:
“There are a lot of competent conservative economists that could do this job. E.J. is not one of them.” [Quote]
And finally, you had a top economist in the Obama administration joining the pile-on:
“I don’t think I have ever publicly criticized any Presidential nominee before. But E.J. Antoni is completely unqualified to be BLS Commissioner. He is an extreme partisan and does not have any relevant expertise.”
Now as for Antoni himself, he said last week after the previous commissioner was fired:
“There are better ways to collect, process, and disseminate data—that is the task for the next BLS commissioner, and only consistent delivery of accurate data in a timely manner will rebuild the trust that has been lost over the last several years.” [Post]
But whether he’s sincere or sycophantic will have to be seen.
In the meantime, if he’s confirmed, economists will be scrutinizing BLS data for any hints of political interference.
Whether that’s certain numbers no longer getting released, sudden methodological changes, or anything else.
Links:
https://www.npr.org/2025/08/11/nx-s1-5499537/trump-bls-ej-antoni
Kickstart your passion project with a free trial today: Squarespace & enter offer code “Phil” to get 10% off your first purchase!
-
Trump says he’s weighing whether to reclassify marijuana to be less restrictive, receiving a mix response from his base, including Charlie Kirk
Trump might be about to massively ease federal restrictions on marijuana massively — maybe.
Right, last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump was deciding to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug “after pot companies have poured millions of dollars into Trump’s political groups.”
With the outlet reporting that, earlier this month, Trump expressed his openness to the idea during a $1 million-a-plate fundraiser at his New Jersey golf club featuring industry leaders who encouraged Trump to make the change.
And reportedly, that conversation was part of a broader campaign by cannabis companies to push Trump to continue efforts launched but ultimately not enacted by the Biden administration to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III drug.
Which would ease restrictions as well as allow for the expansion of medical research and tax breaks for some cannabis companies.
With The Journal also reporting that marijuana companies and leaders have, quote:
“contributed millions to the president’s political groups and hired some of the Washington’s top lobbyists and advisers to Trump.”
Right, and during a press conference yesterday, Trump was asked about the report:
REPORTER: “There is reporting that the administration is going to reclassify marijuana. Would that send mixed messages that if marijuana’s okay, drugs are — some drugs are okay, but we’re trying to clean up crime — how do they go hand-in-hand?”
TRUMP: “We’re only looking at that, that’s early. But, you know, somebody reported it, which is fine, we’re looking at it. Some people like it, some people hate it. Some people hate the whole concept of marijuana ‘cause if it does bad for the children, it does bad for the people that’re older than children. But we're looking at reclassification, and we'll make a determination over the next — I would say over the next few weeks, and that determination hopefully will be the right one. It's a very complicated subject base, you know, the subject of marijuana. I’ve heard great things having to do with medical, and I’ve had bad things having to do with just about everything else.” 00:01 - 00:43
Now, of course, Trump is correct that some people oppose marijuana reforms, but the way he’s shaping the narrative here is a bit misleading.
Right, polling has consistently shown that Americans actually overwhelmingly support easing legal restrictions on pot at the federal level — including a majority of Republicans.
In fact, a recent Pew survey found that just 12% of Americans think it should be prohibited across the board.[]
So clearly, it is only a small minority of people who actually oppose relaxing restrictions.
But among that minority is a key demographic — Trump supporters.
Right, when you look online, it is clear that there are some major divisions among the MAGA base here.
On one side, you have a lot of Trump supporters embracing the move, including prominent voices like former Rep. Matt Gaetz, who applauded the possible scheduling change:
“And if President Trump does this, the game is over for Democrats at the ballot box. We could be the party that allows people to safely use marijuana without pretending it's for your glaucoma-ridden cat. It’s populism meets practicality. Suddenly MAGA hats in line at the dispensary. Patriots buying pre-rolls called ‘1776 Freedom Kush.’ Beautiful!” 1:38 - 2:00
But, on the other hand, we’ve also seen other big-name conservatives voicing opposition to the move, like Charlie Kirk, who wrote on X:
“I hope this doesn’t happen. We need to protect public spaces for kids. Everything already smells like weed, which is ridiculous. Let’s make it harder to ruin public spaces, not easier.”[]
So while Trump might be trying to paint this as a broadly divisive topic, you have some saying he’s waffling because of the divisions in his MAGA bubble.
With many noting that he has previously expressed support for easing marijuana restrictions, including as recently as this past September, when he said on Truth Social that he was voting in favor of a Florida ballot measure to legalize weed, writing:
“As I have previously stated, I believe it is time to end needless arrests and incarcerations of adults for small amounts of marijuana for personal use. We must also implement smart regulations, while providing access for adults, to safe, tested product.”[]
And even explicitly adding that, if elected, he would “continue to focus on research to unlock the medical uses of marijuana to a Schedule 3 drug,” among other reforms.
But hey, since when have campaign promises mattered to anyone, right?
And so for now, we’ll just have to keep an eye on how this plays out and what Trump ultimately decides — or, maybe more accurately, what a majority of Trump’s base tells him they want.
-
Being stalked raises women’s risk for heart disease, new study finds
New fear for women just dropped: turns out being stalked is bad for your health.
That’s what was revealed in a new study by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
Right, and specifically, the study found that women who experienced stalking or who obtained a restraining order were more likely to develop heart disease.
And we’re talking about a dramatic increase here.
In the 20 years covered by the study, the risk of heart disease was 41% higher in stalking victims and 70% higher in women who had obtained restraining orders.
And specifically, the report says the reason for this increased risk is likely due to the psychological distress caused by stalking or having to take out a restraining order, which is often filed after someone has already experienced violence.
Noting that previous work has documented “an increased likelihood of distress with violence, including stalking,” as well as a relationship between distress and heart disease.
And, very notably here, the researchers explicitly said that these risks were still apparent despite other major factors that they also considered.
This including race, socioeconomic background, family history, activity level, weight, smoking status, alcohol intake, and other medical conditions.
Okay, so these findings are MASSIVELY significant for a few different reasons.
Right, first of all, women experiencing stalking or having to take out restraining orders — that’s super common.
As the Harvard study notes, nearly 1 in every 3 women in America has been stalked at some point in their life.
And while it’s difficult to pin down exact data on restraining orders, one study from 2002 found that, out of the 1.5 million women experiencing intimate partner violence each year, around 20% of them — or 300,000 — take out restraining orders.
But the full figures are likely higher because that study is over two decades old and only accounts for the most common kind of restraining order.
So clearly, we’re talking about something that is very prevalent.
And the fact that these common occurrences have now been linked to heart disease is incredibly alarming because heart disease is the number one cause of death in the United States.
With the CDC estimating that it was responsible for about 1 in every 5 female deaths in 2023.
But despite the incredibly alarming implications here, this Harvard report is a landmark study and the first of its kind.
Right, as the report itself notes, while previous research has linked violence as a risk factor for heart disease, most of that work has focused exclusively on physical violence — but, by contrast:
“some of the most common forms of violence women experience, including stalking, have received little attention in the cardiovascular literature.”
With the researchers adding that, to their knowledge, there have been no studies on the connection between stalking and heart disease at all.
So, as a result, you have experts who lead this study arguing that their work shows that being stalked and filing restraining orders are acts of violence that need to be considered in heart disease evaluation and prevention, with one senior author explaining:
“Our study highlights that these preventable, common, non-contact forms of violence against women are health hazards and need to be considered as such, just like we consider smoking or poor diet.”
Adding that more attention needs to be given to the experience of violence in health care settings, and providers “need to improve screening for stalking and other forms of violence and provide resources for women to protect themselves.”
And, beyond that, the researchers and others in the field also say that this study shows the need for more work in this area.
But some experts have said that these kinds of studies are being jeopardized by the Trump administration.
Noting that the Harvard report was partly funded by the National Institutes of Health, but the administration recently canceled funding for the NIH as well as numerous research efforts that are specifically focused on women’s health.
But that’s where I’m going to leave this one for now, and with that, I’d really love to know what your thoughts are here — especially if you have had the horrible experience of being stalked or filing a restraining order.
