Sylvia Gonzalez, a former Castle Hills, Texas, city council member, plausibly alleges that she was arrested on a trumped-up charge in retaliation for conduct protected by the First Amendment. So does Priscilla Villarreal, an independent journalist in Laredo, Texas. But in backing up that claim, Gonzalez, whose case will soon be decided by the Supreme Court, faces a problem that Villarreal does not: It is hard to say how often people engage in the conduct that police cited to justify her arrest, which involved putting a petition in her personal folder during a city council meeting. Villarreal, by contrast, was arrested for asking questions, something that journalists across the country do every day.

Last January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit nevertheless ruled, in an opinion by Judge Edith Jones that provoked four sharp dissents authored or joined by seven of her colleagues, that Villarreal's arrest was not "obviously unconstitutional." Thirteen briefs supporting Villarreal's petition for Supreme Court review—submitted by an ideologically diverse mix of groups and individuals, including organizations ranging from the Manhattan Institute to the Constitutional Accountability Center—underline the chilling implications of that astonishing conclusion.

"No right is more fundamental to the practice of journalism than the one the Fifth Circuit declined to recognize: the right to ask public officials for information," a brief submitted by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 21 news organizations notes. They urge the Supreme Court to resolve the "chilling uncertainty" created by the appeals court's decision and "reaffirm the fundamental proposition that '[a] free press cannot be made to rely solely upon the sufferance of government to supply it with information.'"

Villarreal, who is represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, is asking the Supreme Court to uphold that principle, which her arrest blatantly violated. Her alleged crime, the Institute for Justice notes, consisted of "peacefully asking a police officer to corroborate information for two developing stories—a routine due-diligence and newsgathering practice used by journalists across the country." The two stories, which Villarreal posted on her locally popular Facebook page, involved a public suicide and a fatal car crash. Villarreal asked a Laredo police officer to confirm information about those incidents that Villarreal had received from other sources. By doing that, police and prosecutors claimed, Villarreal committed two felonies.

To justify those charges, police cited Section 39.06(c) of the Texas Penal Code, an obscure, rarely invoked law that applies to someone who "solicits or receives from a public servant" information that "has not been made public" with the "intent to obtain a benefit." The claim that Villarreal had violated that law was absurd for several reasons.

First, Section 39.06(c), which deals with "misuse of official information," is part of a chapter addressing "abuse of office." Its roots go back to a 1973 law that applied to "a public servant" who "acquires or aids another to acquire a pecuniary interest in any property, transaction, or enterprise that may be affected by" information that "has not been made public" but to which "he has access in his official capacity." The statute also covered "a public servant" who "speculates or aids another to speculate on the basis of the information." Over the years, legislators broadened the definition of the offense, reclassified it as a felony, and expanded the law beyond government officials. But in light of its history and statutory context, Section 39.06(c) is clearly aimed at curtailing official corruption, not journalism.

Second, the Texas Penal Code defines "benefit" as "anything reasonably regarded as economic gain or advantage." What "economic gain or advantage" did Villarreal allegedly seek to obtain by asking a cop about a suicide and an accident? According to the arrest affidavits, it was an increase in her Facebook traffic. Jones' opinion, which drips with contempt for Villarreal's "journalistic style," notes that she "boasts over one hundred thousand Facebook followers and a well-cultivated reputation, which has engendered publicity in the New York Times, free meals 'from appreciative readers,' 'fees for promoting a local business,' and 'donations for new equipment necessary to her citizen journalism efforts.'" This sweeping definition of "benefit" would apply to any journalist who attracts readers and/or earns money by publishing information that previously "has not been made public."

Third, Section 39.06 defines "information that has not been made public" as "any information to which the public does not generally have access" that is also "prohibited from disclosure" under the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA). The arrest affidavits did not address the latter requirement at all. The 5th Circuit suggested the information that Villarreal obtained was covered by Section 552.108(a)(1) of the TPIA, which says government officials do not have to disclose information when doing so might compromise an ongoing investigation. While law enforcement agencies frequently invoke that vague provision, the information it covers is not "prohibited from disclosure." The TPIA explicitly gives agencies the discretion to release information even when they are not required to do so.

The MuckRock Foundation, which "has helped thousands of journalists, professionals, and ordinary citizens request, share, and understand public records," notes that Laredo's reading of Section 39.06(c) would lead to "the absurd result of imposing liability not only on those who seek 'confidential' information, but on those who request information that the government may, but need not, make public." Under that interpretation, anyone who asks for information that is deemed to be covered by a TPIA exception is committing a felony. As a brief from half a dozen journalists (including me) explains, Texas agencies that don't want to disclose information frequently seek support from the state attorney general's office, which in 2015 "issued over 7,000 rulings based on § 552.108(a)(1) alone." Yet the thousands of people whose TPIA requests are rejected each year have never been "arrested or prosecuted for their requests."

Laredo cops investigated Villarreal for months, so they had plenty of time to consider whether their interpretation of Section 39.06(c) was reasonable. So did the prosecutors who signed off on the case. Yet they did not even bother to present a plausible argument that Villarreal's conduct met the elements of this offense, and they were unfazed by the obvious First Amendment problems with criminalizing basic journalism. The charges were ultimately dismissed by a judge who deemed Section 39.06(c) unconstitutionally vague.

These cops and prosecutors—who, like Jones, were irked by Villarreal's "journalistic style"—were determined to pin charges on her without regard to statutory requirements or constitutional constraints. Yet according to the 5th Circuit, they cannot be held accountable for their vindictive lawlessness because it was not "clearly established" that arresting a journalist for practicing journalism was unconstitutional. Since they supposedly had no way of knowing that, they received qualified immunity.

The Supreme Court grafted qualified immunity onto 42 USC 1983, a federal law that authorizes people to sue government officials who violate their constitutional rights. The doctrine is supposedly designed to protect officials from unanticipated liability for "split-second" decisions in situations where they have little opportunity for careful reflection. That rationale, the Americans for Prosperity Foundation notes, does not apply to the sort of "intentional and slow-moving infringement of First Amendment rights" that Villarreal's case exemplifies. The protections offered by Section 1983, the brief says, "come to nothing where state actors may purposefully infringe First Amendment rights and then rely on prolix state law to trigger qualified immunity, claiming they did not know any better."

In this case, that claim is risible. "Villarreal's arrest obviously violated the Constitution," the Institute for Justice notes. "No reasonable government official would think the First Amendment permits criminalizing plain speech or routine journalism."

Contrary to what the 5th Circuit held, the Young America's Foundation and the Manhattan Institute say, it has been "clearly established for over 50 years" that "journalists and citizens" have a First Amendment right to "ask questions of their government officials." The Supreme Court has upheld that right in a line of decisions beginning with Branzburg v. Hayes in 1972. In that case, the Court rejected the idea that "news gathering does not qualify for First Amendment protection," without which "freedom of the press could be eviscerated."

Seven years later in Smith v. Daily Mail, the Court ruled that West Virginia violated the First Amendment when it prohibited newspapers from publishing the names of juvenile offenders without judicial permission. The justices held that the First Amendment protects "routine newspaper reporting techniques" and that the government may not "punish the truthful publication" of "lawfully obtained" information. As dissenting 5th Circuit Judge James E. Graves Jr. noted, the Supreme Court "has made clear that the First Amendment protects the publication of information obtained via 'routine newspaper reporting techniques'—which include asking for the name of a crime victim from government workers not clearly authorized to share such information."

These longstanding precedents are not the only reason the cops who arrested Villarreal should have known better. As the brief I joined points out, police officers across the country are accustomed to fielding questions from reporters, and department policies frequently encourage them to "work in cooperation with the media," as a general order to Washington, D.C., officers puts it. "Based on the TPIA, police department regulations, officer training on responding to press inquiries, and personal experience dealing with reporters," the brief says, "a reasonable officer would know that journalists are permitted to ask police officers the names of accident and suicide victims. A reasonable officer would know that reporters ask for such information every day."

You might think that Villarreal's arrest, which relied on a quirky reading of a little-used law, poses little realistic threat to journalists in Texas or elsewhere. But the briefs supporting Villarreal emphasize that police can always find an excuse to arrest journalists who annoy them. The brief I joined describes a couple of examples: the 2023 arrest of NewsNation reporter Evan Lambert for "trespassing" by covering a governor's press conference in Ohio and the 2020 arrest of radio reporter Josie Huang for "obstructing a peace officer" by using her phone to record an encounter between protesters and Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies.

"Retaliatory arrests have become an increasingly common occurrence," the Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP) notes. "This trend is a byproduct of the ever-growing size of modern criminal codes." Thanks to those proliferating prohibitions, Justice Neil Gorsuch has observed, "almost anyone can be arrested for something." A cop "who may be inclined to punish a disfavored speaker—such as a journalist, as here—can therefore readily find a minor offense they committed and use that to justify an arrest," LEAP says. If police are emboldened to harass journalists this way, it warns, retaliatory arrests will become even more common.

That threat is especially acute for reporters who do not have the backing of a professional news outlet. Independent journalists Avi Adelman and Steven Monacelli, who "have been arrested or detained by police officers while reporting on law enforcement's public performance of their duties," note that increasingly strict police control of information may force a reporter to rely on the sort of "backchannel source" that Jones condemned Villarreal for using. "If using alternative sources exposes journalists to the risk of official retribution," Adelman and Monacelli warn, "journalists will become little more than conduits for government public relations copy."

Jones dismissed the idea that Villarreal is "a martyr for the sake of journalism." She seems to think independent reporters like Villarreal don't qualify as "real" journalists because they don't follow the rules that "mainstream, legitimate media outlets" do. In addition to criticizing Villarreal's use of a "backchannel source," a standard journalistic practice, Jones faulted her for "capitaliz[ing] on others' tragedies to propel her reputation and career," which is an apt, if cynical, description of what professional reporters routinely do. These criticisms make you wonder if Jones has ever watched the local news or noticed that "mainstream, legitimate media outlets" often carry stories that cite anonymous government sources.

Contrary to Jones' take, the critics who are urging the Supreme Court to overrule the decision she wrote include "mainstream, legitimate media outlets" such as ABC, NBC, The Atlantic, The Boston Globe, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. It is possible they know a little bit more about how journalism works than Jones does.

The post These Strange Bedfellows Want SCOTUS To Remind the 5th Circuit That Journalism Is Not a Crime appeared first on Reason.com.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been imprisoned in London for five years, while Texas journalist Priscilla Villarreal was only briefly detained at the Webb County Jail. But both were arrested for publishing information that government officials wanted to conceal.

Assange and Villarreal argue that criminalizing such conduct violates the First Amendment. In both cases, the merits of that claim have been obscured by the constitutionally irrelevant question of who qualifies as a "real" journalist.

Assange, an Australian citizen, is fighting extradition to the United States based on a federal indictment that charges him with violating the Espionage Act by obtaining and publishing classified documents that former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning leaked in 2010. He has already spent about as much time behind bars as federal prosecutors say he would be likely to serve if convicted.

President Joe Biden says he is "considering" the Australian government's request to drop the case against Assange. But mollifying a U.S. ally is not the only reason to reconsider this prosecution, which poses a grave threat to freedom of the press by treating common journalistic practices as crimes.

All but one of the 17 charges against Assange relate to obtaining or disclosing "national defense information," which is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Yet all the news organizations that published stories based on the confidential State Department cables and military files that Manning leaked are guilty of the same crimes.

More generally, obtaining and publishing classified information is the bread and butter of reporters who cover national security. John Demers, then head of the Justice Department's National Security Division, implicitly acknowledged that reality in 2019, when he assured reporters they needn't worry about the precedent set by this case because Assange is "no journalist."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit took a similarly dim view of Villarreal in January, when it dismissed her lawsuit against the Laredo prosecutors and police officers who engineered her 2017 arrest. They claimed she had violated Section 39.06(c) of the Texas Penal Code, an obscure law that makes it a felony to solicit or obtain nonpublic information from a government official with "intent to obtain a benefit."

The cops said Villarreal committed that crime by asking Laredo police officer Barbara Goodman to confirm information about a public suicide and a fatal car crash. As interpreted by the Laredo Police Department, Section 39.06(c) sweeps even more broadly than the Espionage Act, making a felon out of any reporter who seeks information that is deemed exempt from disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act.

Gliding over the alarming implications of making it a crime for reporters to ask questions, the 5th Circuit dismissed the idea that Villarreal is "a martyr for the sake of journalism." The majority opinion by Judge Edith Jones dripped with contempt for Villarreal, an independent, uncredentialed journalist who posts her unfiltered reports on Facebook instead of publishing vetted and edited stories in a "mainstream, legitimate" news outlet.

Seemingly oblivious to what quotidian news reporting across the country entails, Jones faulted Villarreal for relying on a "backchannel source" and for "capitaliz[ing] on others' tragedies to propel her reputation and career." But like the judgment that Assange is "no journalist," such criticism fundamentally misconstrues freedom of the press, which applies to anyone who engages in mass communication.

The 5th Circuit's decision provoked four dissents authored or joined by seven judges, and it is not hard to see why. "If the First Amendment means anything," Judge James C. Ho wrote, "surely it means that citizens have the right to question or criticize public officials without fear of imprisonment."

In a petition it filed on Villarreal's behalf last week, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression urges the U.S. Supreme Court to vindicate that right. "Villarreal went to jail for basic journalism," it notes. "Whatever one may make of Villarreal's journalistic ethics, they are of no constitutional significance."

© Copyright 2024 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

The post Journalism Is Not a Crime, Even When It Offends the Government appeared first on Reason.com.

• For the first time, Roblox is making it easier for anyone to create in Marketplace.
• Marketplace is a powerful place for creators and brands to connect with their audience.
• We’re expanding Marketplace to be more personal and to foster more self-expression.
• We’re developing new tools and systems to ensure that Marketplace is safe and that creators’ and brands’ IP is protected. 

At Roblox, we’re building an immersive platform for connection and communication where 71.5 million users* come every day to entertain themselves, hang out with friends, and have fun. 

Nearly everything users discover on Roblox is made by our global community of creators. And our job is to help creators make the experiences, avatars, clothing, and accessories our users will enjoy.

Since 2019 we’ve allowed, through application only, a small and growing number of people to create 3D virtual items in Marketplace, one of the key destinations on Roblox for users to shop and express themselves through their avatars. 

Today, we’re making it easier for anyone to create in Marketplace. This will be a powerful step forward for creators and brands to market a diverse collection of avatars, clothing, and accessories, and to connect with their audience.  

One of the biggest benefits of this is the surge of great new content that we expect will soon be available there. Millions of users already visit Marketplace every day, and in December, 2023, nearly 71 percent of them spent time editing their avatar. And people have bought billions of items there, including nearly 1.6 billion digital fashion items during the first nine months of 2023. Brands are also getting in on the action: in 2023, our brand partners sold about 27 million items on Roblox.

adidas is bringing its iconic sport and lifestyle brand to Roblox

A great example is adidas. The brand has collaborated with Roblox creators like Rush_X and CoffeeNerdz on a diverse catalog of hundreds of items, including rare, sold-out Limiteds like its Neckpiece. adidas is bringing its iconic sport and lifestyle product to Roblox and plans to experiment with a shopping experience where users can create their own adidas virtual items and outfits.

In Marketplace, some creators have found success by diversifying the variety of things people can buy. A great example is Lirn, an original Marketplace creator, who wanted to fill a gap in gaming for authentic Black hairstyles. A self-taught creator, she’s collaborated with brands like Gucci, and created items like her HeadScarf, Bantu Knots, Pigtails Locs, Box Braids, and others. Roblox users have bought millions of her items. 

By opening up creation on our platform, we’re now able to welcome more creators like Lirn. Moving forward, here are the three areas we’re focusing on to achieve this:

• Making creation easier for anyone
• Evolving Marketplace to foster more self-expression
• Laying the foundations of a healthy Marketplace 

Making Creation Easier for Anyone

Making it easier for anyone to create and sell 3D virtual items in Marketplace and/or in experiences is just the start. We’re also working to inspire professional creators to build successful businesses on our platform by developing new ways to make creation on Roblox easier, regardless of their experience level. 

For example, our new Avatar Auto Setup tool leverages AI to quickly and automatically convert 3D models into avatars people can use on Roblox right away. Using this tool, which is launching broadly in the coming month, can reduce the time it takes to create an avatar from days to minutes.

Our new Avatar Auto Setup tool quickly converts 3D models into avatars**

And soon, we’ll offer templates allowing creators and brands to build customizable shopping experiences dedicated to the buying and selling of avatar items. For example, Dress to Impress is a space that celebrates diversity and inclusivity, and where users can dress up as themselves and then walk a runway or vote on others’ looks. 

There’s a growing number of experiences like this, and we’ll begin by surfacing them in Marketplace, which will help connect the creators and brands who make them with the broader audience there.

Evolving Marketplace to Foster More Self-Expression

We want Marketplace to be a more inspiring, personalized, and social shopping experience than ever before. In the coming year, we’ll expand what’s available there beyond individual items and focus on developing an avatar-first shopping experience. This will create more personalized and diverse content and unlock social shopping. It will also provide new ways for creators and brands to share their collections and connect with their audience.

Avatar-first shopping experience

Buy entire outfits or mix-and-match before you buy.**

Since its inception, Marketplace has been dedicated to selling individual avatar items. Now, the Marketplace shopping experience is evolving. Users will be able to find inspiration from styled avatars and outfits and buy an entire outfit’s items, or just some of it. Shopping in Marketplace will soon be similar to the physical world. When users look for a specific item, they’ll be able to see how everything they discover would look in their existing wardrobe or what they might wear it with. 

That’s important because we know that when users shop in Marketplace, they want to complete their avatar’s look with multiple items. In fact, users buy more than one item 60% of the time.

In addition, Roblox users can search for outfits. That means creators and brands can express their full creative vision by selling entire looks and avatars rather than just single items. And creators will be able to collaborate and sell outfits made of items by different people.

More Personalized and Diverse Avatar Content

We know that many people on Roblox want to express their individual personalities and identities. To do that, shopping needs to be personalized and it should be easy to move between discovery and avatar customization. That’s why we’re developing new tools that make all that possible. 

For example, AI has become a crucial technology across our entire platform, powering things like creation and safety. Soon, it will provide individual shoppers with diverse and personalized items rather than showing everyone the same list. Someone might see collections or outfits from creators or brands that fit their style or outfits that are popular with their friends. They might also see trending shopping experiences, or seasonal collections (like for Halloween or Christmas).

A More Social Marketplace Will Unlock Users’ Creativity

Digital fashion is increasingly a source of inspiration, and we believe the next wave of fashion designers will emerge on our platform. We want to support their efforts, and we’re proud to see digital designs created on Roblox recreated in the physical world. For example, at RDC 2023, we showcased physical replicas of two Parsons School of Design students’ Roblox creations. 

At RDC 2023, we showcased physical replicas of two Parsons School of Design students’ Roblox creations.

Going forward, we’ll make it easier for users to discover and follow new creators and brands and always stay up to date on their latest offerings. In turn, creators and brands will have new ways to connect with their audience and showcase their creations.

Many people see their avatars as intrinsically social — a way to connect with friends. We want to help them share their newest avatar outfits. Many users and creators are already doing that by posting screenshots or videos on external social or messaging platforms.

WhoseTrade, who created 20 items which sold more than 100,000 times (and dozens more with at least 50,000 sales), is an exceptional example. He collaborated with the electronic music brand Monstercat on a rare Limited that sold for 1 million Robux, as well as with Nivea. Like others, he’s significantly grown his social channels by posting his creations.

Soon, users will be able to share their latest avatar creations or newly-purchased items on Roblox. We think this will unlock more creativity for many users. It will also help them become curators and influencers while boosting creators’ exposure.

Laying the Foundations of A Healthy Marketplace

We’ve developed new methods to help creators and brands find success. Those include tools to defend their IP, maximize their earning potential, and simplify managing competitive pricing. 

Protecting Creativity

We recently launched Rights Manager, which helps creators, developers, and brands manage their content and IP on Roblox, and increases transparency around filing removal requests. 

We’ve also introduced a publishing advance system that inspires creators to focus on their highest-potential creations rather than generic items that distract buyers. 

At the same time, to ensure accountability and deter bad actors, creators wanting to build on Roblox must verify their identity through our ID verification process. This allows us to enforce our Marketplace policies and deter violators from returning to the platform.

An Economy Responsive to Supply and Demand

Our virtual economy should reflect market conditions, so we’re implementing a new system to ensure prices on Marketplace respond to supply and demand.

Previously, some creators had a difficult time knowing how to price their items and when such prices should be increased or reduced in response to fluctuating market demands.  Guessing at how to price items does not benefit creators or buyers.  

Our new system can help support smarter pricing to better reflect market conditions by automatically setting the lowest price in an item category based on demand. We also give creators controls that let them set rules for how much to charge for their items relative to these dynamic prices. We’re confident this will help make sure creators can earn a fair return while giving consumers more access to items at fair market prices.

Diverse Ways of Expression

We know that the Roblox ecosystem is richer and stronger when we enable varied and diverse ways for people to create and express themselves. We’re excited to build tools and systems that expand our creator community while giving people more opportunity to buy things they’ll love.

____________________________________________________________________________

* As of Q4 2023

** Rendering shown for illustrative purposes only. Actual features and other visual depictions may vary and are subject to change at any time.

The post Making Creation and Expression Easier for Anyone In Marketplace appeared first on Roblox Blog.

Self-expression is a vital part of many people’s experiences in immersive 3D spaces—especially Gen Z, who are growing up building connections in digital worlds. That’s why we’ve put together the 2023 Digital Expression, Fashion & Beauty Trends Report, which explores the full spectrum of self-expression through avatars, including brand considerations, the psychology behind creating an avatar look and the impact of authentic self-expression on people’s physical style, purchasing decisions, and even mental well-being. 

This work builds on the research we did last year that provided valuable early insights on how people express themselves in immersive spaces. Our 2023 report offers new insights that will help creators, brands and industry experts better anticipate and respond to quickly evolving consumer needs.

Here are the top 5 takeaways from the 2023 report*:

1. The importance of digital self-expression continues to grow

In this year’s survey* of over 1,500 members of Gen Z in the U.S. and UK who are active on platforms like Roblox, 56% say styling their avatar is more important to them than styling themselves in the physical world. And for older Gen Z aged 22-26, 64% say that, given a choice, dressing up their avatar would be more important than dressing up in the physical world.

Additionally, 84% of Gen Z respondents say digital fashion is at least somewhat important for them, and  85% think the importance of digital fashion has grown at least some over the past year. More than half (53%) think it’s grown a lot.

These findings echo what we see on our platform: self-expression through digital identity and fashion is an essential part of people’s experience. For example, during the first three quarters of 2023 on Roblox, there were a total of 165 billion avatar updates, up 38% year over year, and people bought nearly 1.6 billion digital fashion items and accessories, up 15% year over year. Plus, millions of Roblox users continue to update their avatars every day.

But the influence of digital style and fashion doesn’t stay in the virtual world. In the survey, 84% report that their physical style is at least somewhat inspired by their avatar’s style, including 54% who say they are very or extremely inspired by what their avatar and other avatars wear.

2. Brand recognition matters for Gen Z in the metaverse

When it comes to metaverse fashion, survey respondents stress that they care about distinct styles and brand recognition: 52% say “stylish digital clothes” is the attribute they pay most attention to when deciding if an avatar is “cool-looking.” And three in four say wearing digital fashions from a recognized brand is at least somewhat important, including 47% of survey respondents who say it’s very or extremely important.

This dynamic can drive purchasing behavior: 84% say that after wearing or trying on a brand’s item in virtual spaces, they’d be at least somewhat likely to consider this brand in the physical world. In fact, 50% say they’d be very or extremely likely to do so.

3. Consumers are open to spending on digital fashion—the more exclusive the better

Meanwhile, designers and brands will be happy to learn that most Gen Z users are also willing to spend on digital fashion: in our survey, 52% say they’re comfortable budgeting up to $10 each month, while another 19% are willing to spend up to $20 monthly and an additional 18% are open to buying $50-$100 of items every month. 

The launch of Limiteds this year highlighted Roblox users’ demand for exclusive and rare items, as evidenced by most Limiteds reselling for more than their original cost.

For example, community members lined up to earn Limiteds via challenges in the Gucci Ancora experience and to buy up items from Roblox-native brands like CHRUSH.

Similarly, a leading electronic music brand, Monstercat, recently teamed up with community creator @WhoseTrade on six single-edition necklaces. Each sold within minutes, including the Ruby Pendant, acquired for 1,000,001 Robux (approximately $10,000), the highest initial Limited sale to date.

4. From head to toe, avatars enable experimentation with expression

While digital fashion is important to Gen Z users, people are also experimenting with other innovative ways of expression through their avatars.

One example of this is avatar makeup, which is already available in some community-created experiences. In addition, numerous brands—like Fenty Beauty, Maybelline, NARS, Givenchy Beauty, NYX, and L’Oreal—are now investing in meeting customers’ interest in it. 

And there’s real opportunity for them. According to our survey, more than a third of all respondents (35%) say it’s important to customize their avatar’s makeup daily or weekly, and the number rises to 51% for self-identifying female respondents. 

People are also increasingly customizing their avatar hair on Roblox. This year alone, users purchased more than 139 million hairstyles, up 20% over the year before, including more than 7.3 million people who bought five or more hairstyles on Roblox.

But self-expression doesn’t end there: Roblox users have increasingly been adopting emotes, and so far this year, 9.8 million Roblox users bought them, up 64% year over year. That’s something that Tommy Hilfiger took note of in introducing emotes into its Roblox digital fashion collection.

Users are also choosing fantastical auras that match their vibe, like a colorful variety available within Paris Hilton’s Slivingland.

And soon, Roblox users will be able to have expressive avatars featuring realistic emotions. That’s likely to be well-received by Gen Z users since 86% of survey respondents say it is at least somewhat important that their avatar is able to express emotions in order to feel fully represented in the metaverse. 

5. Authenticity drives self-expression in immersive spaces and positively impacts well-being

One striking finding from the survey is that most members of Gen Z strive to look good in the metaverse for themselves rather than for others. When choosing their avatar look, 62% say they care a lot that their avatar looks good to them as compared to 37% who say they care a lot that it looks good to others. 

And 40% of Gen Z feel it’s easier to present their authentic selves in the metaverse than in the physical world. Among the reasons cited: more “freedom of expression” and “creative options.” Further, people feel they “can be whoever we want” and that it’s “less judgemental” when they interact with others as avatars in immersive spaces.

In fact, our research showed:

• Twice as many respondents believe they are judged less on their looks in the metaverse than in the physical world, and;
• Respondents were 2.2 times more likely to say that expressing themselves in immersive spaces via their avatar feels better (“more me”) than posting 2D photos from the physical world on social media. 

Finally, respondents cited a positive impact on their mental well-being: 88% say expressing themselves in immersive spaces has likely helped them comfortably express themselves in the physical world. They note it helps build connections with others (29%), boosts confidence (24%), allows for true self-expression (21%), and helps improve mental health in other ways (25%).

A Universal Connector

Authentic self-expression is often described as a universal connector for people: by sharing who we truly are, we can make genuine connections. As Roblox continues building its platform and products for immersive communication and connection, we’re ensuring that people have the broadest set of opportunities to authentically express themselves. We’re excited to continue studying this space because as our research demonstrated, we know that when people have more control over the many elements they can choose to represent themselves in immersive 3D digital spaces, it can lead to positive impacts on their physical-world connections and well-being.

DOWNLOAD THE FULL REPORT HERE

* Methodology: The ‘2023 Digital Expression, Fashion & Beauty Trends’ report includes two complementary sets of data: 

• Behavioral data collected from the Roblox platform from January through September 2023.

• Self-reported survey data collected from 1,545 Gen Z users between the ages of 14 and 26, living in the United States (1027 respondents) and the United Kingdom (518). To obtain these responses, Roblox commissioned a nationally representative survey from Qualtrics fielded September 27-29, 2023. Included stats represent the full respondent sample given sentiment between the two markets (U.S. and UK) was largely similar. The sample has been balanced for gender in both markets using the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey for the U.S. and Office for National Statistics in the UK to reflect the demographic composition of these markets’ population in that age range. In the full report data is referenced as ‘2023 Roblox Self-Expression Survey.’

• For any additional clarifications or questions on the data please contact [email protected].

The post Insights From Our Latest Digital Expression, Fashion & Beauty Trends Report appeared first on Roblox Blog.