YouTube channel owners: Is your content directed to children?(ftc.gov)
ftc.gov
YouTube channel owners: Is your content directed to children?
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2019/11/youtube-channel-owners-your-content-directed-children
90 comments
Even worse is that Youtube can and will override your classification if it deems a video to be for children, and it now has automatic bots to do so, along with a lengthy appeals process where you remain without data and exposed to legal risk.
This was requested by the COPPA politicians as a "technology backstop" as they always misunderstand how tech and AI works, and were warned that it would lead to bad side effects like this.
This was requested by the COPPA politicians as a "technology backstop" as they always misunderstand how tech and AI works, and were warned that it would lead to bad side effects like this.
I'm sure at least a few gaming related YouTube creators are wondering how this affects them and if a Twitch presence -- which many of them maintain anyway -- isn't a better alternative. YouTube doesn't have a monopoly in that subculture at least.
Most of the gaming ones I've watched have either moved entirely to twitch or reduced their youtube content to sliced up twitch vods anyway. Since the "apocalypse"/brand safety changes, many of them have said YT isn't really worth it from a rev perspective.
> Either block them...
Can't you already do this by setting the age rating on your videos?
Can't you already do this by setting the age rating on your videos?
That's limited to 18 and older, and it basically flags the video as mature content and removes it from recommendations and disables ads.
I'm really not fond of rules that force you to make black and white decisions on things that are inherently in shades of gray.
I watch a lot of stuff with my 5 year old daughter -- whether on YouTube or elsewhere -- than we both seem to equally enjoy. Recent ones include Star Wars Resistance, The Mandalorian, Spirited Away, From Up on Poppy Hill, The Incredibles 2.
On YouTube we watch "how it's made" videos, as well as a lot of music videos, such as Taylor Swift and Billish Eilish. A lot of stuff probably has a median age of viewers that is right around the cutoff age, 13. But lots of over-18 adults like them too and would watch them completely in the absence of kids.
Are these things "for kids"? I don't see how you would make that determination.
I watch a lot of stuff with my 5 year old daughter -- whether on YouTube or elsewhere -- than we both seem to equally enjoy. Recent ones include Star Wars Resistance, The Mandalorian, Spirited Away, From Up on Poppy Hill, The Incredibles 2.
On YouTube we watch "how it's made" videos, as well as a lot of music videos, such as Taylor Swift and Billish Eilish. A lot of stuff probably has a median age of viewers that is right around the cutoff age, 13. But lots of over-18 adults like them too and would watch them completely in the absence of kids.
Are these things "for kids"? I don't see how you would make that determination.
I got the email from YouTube a week or so ago, and it seemed clear to me that they were not asking "is your content OK for kids to watch?"
They were asking "is your content directed toward kids?" The FTC page confirms that and gives some examples.
To pull an example from memory, I used to watch Blue's Clues with my kids when they were little. Even though I also enjoyed the humor and creativity of the show, and the experience of watching it with them, it was clearly directed toward children.
OTOH, my dogs and cats have a YouTube channel where they show off their playtime adventures. It's completely child-friendly, but it's not specifically directed toward kids, it's just dogs and cats playing around. So I didn't mark the channel or any of the videos as being directed toward children.
I'm not familiar with all the videos you mentioned, but the ones I recognize would seem to be in the same category as my dog and cat videos: not directed toward children.
They were asking "is your content directed toward kids?" The FTC page confirms that and gives some examples.
To pull an example from memory, I used to watch Blue's Clues with my kids when they were little. Even though I also enjoyed the humor and creativity of the show, and the experience of watching it with them, it was clearly directed toward children.
OTOH, my dogs and cats have a YouTube channel where they show off their playtime adventures. It's completely child-friendly, but it's not specifically directed toward kids, it's just dogs and cats playing around. So I didn't mark the channel or any of the videos as being directed toward children.
I'm not familiar with all the videos you mentioned, but the ones I recognize would seem to be in the same category as my dog and cat videos: not directed toward children.
On one hand, yes, that's definitely what the FTC is trying to say. In their complaint against Youtube, all of the channels are completely without a doubt directed towards kids in the normal sense.
But if I'm, like, a Mario speedrunner, when I read that the FTC's indica of child-targeted content include "the use of animated characters" and "enabled settings that made their content appear when users searched for the names of popular toys", I think it's reasonable to be concerned. The FTC should (but I'm hopeful they will!) clarify that "directed towards children" only applies when you're specifically trying to get kids to watch it.
But if I'm, like, a Mario speedrunner, when I read that the FTC's indica of child-targeted content include "the use of animated characters" and "enabled settings that made their content appear when users searched for the names of popular toys", I think it's reasonable to be concerned. The FTC should (but I'm hopeful they will!) clarify that "directed towards children" only applies when you're specifically trying to get kids to watch it.
Your Mario speedrun is the perfect example of why people are worried. The FTC listed criteria that might get your videos be considered as "directed at kids" and a this type of content would tick a lot of those boxes while clearly not being directed at kids.
I'm aware it is about "directed at" vs. "ok for".
Blues Clues is clearly "directed at kids". My point isn't that there aren't things that are black and things that are white, but that there are also things that are gray.
I tried to choose ones that are in the gray area, but if you consider the ones I listed "not directed toward children", surely there are ones whose median audience is slightly younger, that would be considered to be in that gray area.
Since you mentioned it, care to share your dog and cat videos link? :) Here's my not-directed-at-kids playlist that stars a kid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6KuQYE3hDU&list=PLSz9W2tWBY...
Blues Clues is clearly "directed at kids". My point isn't that there aren't things that are black and things that are white, but that there are also things that are gray.
I tried to choose ones that are in the gray area, but if you consider the ones I listed "not directed toward children", surely there are ones whose median audience is slightly younger, that would be considered to be in that gray area.
Since you mentioned it, care to share your dog and cat videos link? :) Here's my not-directed-at-kids playlist that stars a kid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6KuQYE3hDU&list=PLSz9W2tWBY...
There are a few guidelines but the FTC also has a general audience category.
Youtube is ignoring this and forcing a choice because it's easier to implement. They're also ignoring creators that are asking for age-gating with logged-in users only to prevent their video classification from being contested in the future.
Youtube is ignoring this and forcing a choice because it's easier to implement. They're also ignoring creators that are asking for age-gating with logged-in users only to prevent their video classification from being contested in the future.
Additionally, people who are targeting kids will almost definitely classify theirs as kid-safe. This is not going to help anyone. Unless parents are willing to take off these devices from their kids they will discover these videos in 5 video watches.
We really struggle with YouTube - for ex. You can’t block it because Kahn Academy uses YouTube. And quite a lot of kids content is really informative and great content. But I can’t tell you how many times we are watching and it literally spirals out of control. One second you’re watching an official frozen 2 trailer, the next you’re watching some jerk’s fan movie made of clips from the original frozen interspersed with wildly inappropriate dialogue and content from other non kid movies. A better scenario is simply to turn off the device and as a lifelong programmer this conclusion really saddens me.
Maybe this is a bit out there as a solution, but you could set up Streama (1) and set up a directory where the videos get loaded in.
Then you can allow your children to access Streama and they can watch without worry.
(1) https://github.com/streamaserver/streama
Then you can allow your children to access Streama and they can watch without worry.
(1) https://github.com/streamaserver/streama
interesting solution but for now just turning it off seems to be much preferred. We’ve noticed our kids engage their imaginations and are much better behaved the less time they spend online.
We've noticed the same thing about out 9 year old girl. He behavior radically changes for the worst after shes been watching videos of her choosing from youtube.
Why dont they promote the use of user-curated playlists? Kids should be limited to a standard youtube curriculum; they re not for experiments.
Because every company ever (especially software companies) are all about making moneys and employing 1000s of new employees to curate contents isn't very profitable. They will try to automate everything even if it doesn't work because they know this is the future. Until we have perfected the art, we are stuck with this ridiculous misjudgement by the algorithm because its really, really, dumb.
Even if they do hire actual real human, they hire them as cheap labors, not as legitimate jobs (see Facebook)
Even if they do hire actual real human, they hire them as cheap labors, not as legitimate jobs (see Facebook)
> new employees to curate contents isn't very profitable
No i mean user-curated playlists
No i mean user-curated playlists
They can do it, Our g-suite side of YT lets me assign users that can approve videos or channels for the org.
It's useless because once you log into YT you can't make playlists or I think subscribe without making a channel, by default that's first name/last name. even if I could I can't stop them uploading content. So the tiny org proofing tools that are there I can't use anyway.
I swear YT don't even use their own product.
It's useless because once you log into YT you can't make playlists or I think subscribe without making a channel, by default that's first name/last name. even if I could I can't stop them uploading content. So the tiny org proofing tools that are there I can't use anyway.
I swear YT don't even use their own product.
> people who are targeting kids will almost definitely classify theirs as kid-safe.
That's the goal - if this is checked by the creator (for the specific video or for the entire channel), it will have personalized ads disabled for the video plus disable whatever tracking systems Google has for regular watching.
That's the goal - if this is checked by the creator (for the specific video or for the entire channel), it will have personalized ads disabled for the video plus disable whatever tracking systems Google has for regular watching.
[deleted]
you guys remember when old looney tunes and old tom & jerry were appropriate for kids programs? nowadays they are not. a few of them are now on youtube right next to the recent "appropriate" ones. so yes, that line is very blurry...
Why do you think they're not appropriate anymore? Not necessarily disagreeing, just curious about the opinion. There's animated violence, lots of racial stereotypes, unsafe house behaviour, etc. Is it just an overall combination of them that you think is not appropriate, or something specific?
Standards for what is socially considered appropriate for children has changed over time, at least in American society. For example, in one of the DVD re-releases of the late 1960s-early 1970s seasons of Sesame Street, a children's television program that airs on PBS, there is a disclaimer that says that these re-released episodes are intended for adults and not for children due to the changed social norms. And these changes have nothing to do with racism or cartoon violence; these changes have to do with other norms such as children talking to strangers.
This YouTube video has a segment of an interview that discusses this further:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Vow6p7uKVw
This YouTube video has a segment of an interview that discusses this further:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Vow6p7uKVw
Dude I'm gonna need a link to your dog & cat playtime adventure channel
How did youtube manage to convince the ftc that their practice of illegally surveilling minors is somehow the fault of youtube users? Doesn't every youtube user provide their age when they make an account? Shouldn't youtube have some kind of predicate like "if child doNotTrack"?
I think google might be committing libel here. Claiming their users violate coppa when their users can't even control who google does or does not spy on.
I think google might be committing libel here. Claiming their users violate coppa when their users can't even control who google does or does not spy on.
Youtube doesn't allow you to create an account if you select an age that would make you a child. But you don't need an account to watch youtube.
Not just a account, youtube requires a age of 13+ (in US) to be used at all as far as I know. This normally would have safely removed any legal problems as a parent allowing the child (<13) to use youtube (on their account, without account) would be a violation of the AGB's like a parent allowing a child to play a 18+ game can't sue the game for being violent or similar (i.e. it's parental negligence).
The problem as far as I have heard was that youtube realized that there are a lot of to young (<13y) people on youtube and that they can be targeted advertised (implicitly, in a way which just "happens to" target kids "accidentally"), and then they where so stupid as to advertise that when getting in contact with advertisers. So in a certain way they screwed them self over, or more precise they screwed part of the content creators over.
The problem with the FTC requiring content producers for youtube (13+) to label videos as "for kids" is that with the FTC rules a lot of videos which are not meant for kids and are never supposed to be delivered to kids now fall under this label and lose targeted advertisement money, which can be there major income.
E.g. there are a bunch of channels doing LEGO reviews for _adults_ (because surprise there are a lot of young adults which started to like LEGO again, parents and also that cray people thinking it's a good money investment). Now because they do LEGO reviews they will have to label this as a kids thing, even through the amount of kids on their channels is less then 2%.... Or basically any easy to understand since video gets practically demonetized, because it's naturally interesting for 12y olds and has nice animations etc. This videos are fine to be seen by kids, but the producers would prefer kids to be excluded as they need to earn money to at least cover production cost.
Also because officially there are not <13y old kids on YT it means YT can't just "not track" the kids but everyone else.
Also we should not forget that there is YT for kids, so if you produce (good) content targeted at kids this is where you should go.
So it's a pretty messed up situation. If you now consider who has very large influence over the FTC and who either hates the modern internet which made people stop watching classical cable, or would like to additional bill YT (more?) etc. it's doesn't seem likely to resolve in a reasonable way, at last I would be surprised. But then I have been surprised before so let's hope it ends not to bad.
The problem as far as I have heard was that youtube realized that there are a lot of to young (<13y) people on youtube and that they can be targeted advertised (implicitly, in a way which just "happens to" target kids "accidentally"), and then they where so stupid as to advertise that when getting in contact with advertisers. So in a certain way they screwed them self over, or more precise they screwed part of the content creators over.
The problem with the FTC requiring content producers for youtube (13+) to label videos as "for kids" is that with the FTC rules a lot of videos which are not meant for kids and are never supposed to be delivered to kids now fall under this label and lose targeted advertisement money, which can be there major income.
E.g. there are a bunch of channels doing LEGO reviews for _adults_ (because surprise there are a lot of young adults which started to like LEGO again, parents and also that cray people thinking it's a good money investment). Now because they do LEGO reviews they will have to label this as a kids thing, even through the amount of kids on their channels is less then 2%.... Or basically any easy to understand since video gets practically demonetized, because it's naturally interesting for 12y olds and has nice animations etc. This videos are fine to be seen by kids, but the producers would prefer kids to be excluded as they need to earn money to at least cover production cost.
Also because officially there are not <13y old kids on YT it means YT can't just "not track" the kids but everyone else.
Also we should not forget that there is YT for kids, so if you produce (good) content targeted at kids this is where you should go.
So it's a pretty messed up situation. If you now consider who has very large influence over the FTC and who either hates the modern internet which made people stop watching classical cable, or would like to additional bill YT (more?) etc. it's doesn't seem likely to resolve in a reasonable way, at last I would be surprised. But then I have been surprised before so let's hope it ends not to bad.
Via Family Link[0] you can create a Google account for your child that's younger than 13, I bet this in particular does comply with COPPA.
0: https://support.google.com/families/answer/7101025?hl=en
0: https://support.google.com/families/answer/7101025?hl=en
Hm, good question. COPPA is pretty old so I'm wondering if "digital consensus by creating the account" is good enough or if you would had to send some more formal document (letter, fax with signature).
> Hm, good question. COPPA is pretty old so I'm wondering if "digital consensus by creating the account" is good enough or if you would had to send some more formal document (letter, fax with signature).
I would doubt the need for a physical artifact—I mean, even the IRS accepts digital returns.
I would doubt the need for a physical artifact—I mean, even the IRS accepts digital returns.
If you are watching youtube without an account then you are not posting comments. (The FTC article gives a specific example of a child posting a comment as being a disclosure of personal information.) Where is any tracking or collection of data whatsoever controlled by the channel host in cases of people viewing without an account?
If the child DOES post a comment, then that means they lied to YouTube about their age when signing up for an account. Why is this a channel host's legal responsibility, and what possible measures could be implemented to avoid it other than requiring an identity disclosing internet drivers license to be presented before each use of the internet.
If the child DOES post a comment, then that means they lied to YouTube about their age when signing up for an account. Why is this a channel host's legal responsibility, and what possible measures could be implemented to avoid it other than requiring an identity disclosing internet drivers license to be presented before each use of the internet.
Personally, I think anyone younger than 18 is a child and I tend to use minor and child interchangeably.
[deleted]
I haven't done much research on this topic yet. But it's my understanding that, to sum up:
1. It's easier not to target children.
2. This is more of a nuisance for established channels, as they have to edit every video and mark whether it's directed to children or not.
That's if I'm not wrong. I mean, I've mainly gotten my information from this one video so far: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwDrHOe43E
I'm only a new creator so it's not really going to be much for me to worry about, and I can't think of a single reason why anyone under the age of 13 would want to watch my content anyway. It's about as boring adult topic stuff (building a business and corporate life rantings) as you can get.
1. It's easier not to target children.
2. This is more of a nuisance for established channels, as they have to edit every video and mark whether it's directed to children or not.
That's if I'm not wrong. I mean, I've mainly gotten my information from this one video so far: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwDrHOe43E
I'm only a new creator so it's not really going to be much for me to worry about, and I can't think of a single reason why anyone under the age of 13 would want to watch my content anyway. It's about as boring adult topic stuff (building a business and corporate life rantings) as you can get.
The main worry creators have is that the FTC is the final decider whether your content is for kids or not. They say that things such as animated characters and flashy graphics can put your video in the "for kids" category regardless what you indicate the video as.
I think even more, the worry is that the YouTube algorithms are the initial deciders, and they tend to have high false-positive rates that it is then your responsibility as a creator to overturn.
Note: the way YouTube has set this up, it is the creator's legal responsibility to mark their videos appropriately, but YouTube will also be running an algorithm to automatically flag videos as a best effort approach.
Note: the way YouTube has set this up, it is the creator's legal responsibility to mark their videos appropriately, but YouTube will also be running an algorithm to automatically flag videos as a best effort approach.
Did no one see Fritz the Cat?
How Youtube is handling this is a major failure. Even if creators say their videos aren't for kids, they can still be contested, overruled and fined.
A proper solution is to create an age-gate for videos with categories of kids only, older-only, and general audience (which is allowed by the FTC). Also stop tracking tracking anonymous users.
This would allow creators to categorize content without losing all monetization and features, or risking legal action. That would be more expensive to implement though so it's not happening.
A proper solution is to create an age-gate for videos with categories of kids only, older-only, and general audience (which is allowed by the FTC). Also stop tracking tracking anonymous users.
This would allow creators to categorize content without losing all monetization and features, or risking legal action. That would be more expensive to implement though so it's not happening.
[deleted]
Can borderline channels just say “fuck” at some point in the middle of the video.
I was under the impression no one is supposed to be swearing according to the TOS (at least for minimized channels.)
The whole social dynamic here is IMO pretty confusing. Google is kind of an ass to the content creators but they don’t leave. Everyone says it’s about discoverability but video podcasts are discoverable, nicer to creators and literally push your content to your subscribers devices. Not to mention most devices ship with a video podcast app as part of the OS now.
I think it’s more of a sort of digital Stockholm syndrome, kind of like how MacOS users enjoy working around defects youtubers enjoy dodging censorship.
The whole social dynamic here is IMO pretty confusing. Google is kind of an ass to the content creators but they don’t leave. Everyone says it’s about discoverability but video podcasts are discoverable, nicer to creators and literally push your content to your subscribers devices. Not to mention most devices ship with a video podcast app as part of the OS now.
I think it’s more of a sort of digital Stockholm syndrome, kind of like how MacOS users enjoy working around defects youtubers enjoy dodging censorship.
> Google is kind of an ass to the content creators but they don’t leave.
> I think it’s more of a sort of digital Stockholm syndrome, kind of like how MacOS users enjoy working around defects youtubers enjoy dodging censorship.
I think it's more that the issues here are blown ridiculously out of proportion and show an obnoxious level of entitlement to advertiser dollars. Calling it censorship is a good example. Everything beyond the basic ability to upload videos and share links (getting recommended, getting advertiser money, etc.) is something that prior to youtube would require serious negotiation with publishers and lawyers. Small time creators never even had a seat at that table.
The reason creators don't leave is because it's beggars trying to choose and that doesn't work.
> I think it’s more of a sort of digital Stockholm syndrome, kind of like how MacOS users enjoy working around defects youtubers enjoy dodging censorship.
I think it's more that the issues here are blown ridiculously out of proportion and show an obnoxious level of entitlement to advertiser dollars. Calling it censorship is a good example. Everything beyond the basic ability to upload videos and share links (getting recommended, getting advertiser money, etc.) is something that prior to youtube would require serious negotiation with publishers and lawyers. Small time creators never even had a seat at that table.
The reason creators don't leave is because it's beggars trying to choose and that doesn't work.
It's almost certainly a network effect/chicken and egg problem. Everyone has YouTube, so putting your videos up only on another platform is sure to break the bank. You could try to really push your audience to another platform, but generally a large portion of your audience isn't interested enough to download a new app or go to a different website to watch just your videos. There would have to be an extreme mass exodus with nearly every prominent creator switching to a new service for most people to make the effort of getting a new app and creating another account.
There is also the problem of any YT competitor needing an extreme amount of money to invest without any promise of return for a long while. Google has invested 20+ years into digital advertising, so unless they use Google ads themselves they end up needing to roll their own ad platform. PR, managing the content creators put on your platform, etc. are also huge mountains to climb, which is why YT continues to struggle to "appease their creators".
There is also the problem of any YT competitor needing an extreme amount of money to invest without any promise of return for a long while. Google has invested 20+ years into digital advertising, so unless they use Google ads themselves they end up needing to roll their own ad platform. PR, managing the content creators put on your platform, etc. are also huge mountains to climb, which is why YT continues to struggle to "appease their creators".
>but video podcasts are discoverable
No they're not. Does the average person know what you're even talking about here? Because I don't know and a service that's unknown is not discoverable.
No they're not. Does the average person know what you're even talking about here? Because I don't know and a service that's unknown is not discoverable.
I think there's a difference between discoverable content on a service and the service itself being discoverable. Podcasts (video or audio) are relatively easy to find once you're actually into that. But I very rarely hear anyone mentioning video podcasts at all.
> Podcasts (video or audio) are relatively easy to find once you're actually into that.
I'm on the consumer end of this. Basically every Youtube channel I'm subscribed to is effectively a video podcast, with new "episodes" every so often, from a few times a week to once a month.
I would love not to have to look to Youtube to find new feeds to subscribe to (in some cases literally subscribe, Youtube has RSS!). However, I don't have the slightest idea where I would begin looking for video podcasts. Maybe an RSS aggregator? But not everyone uses RSS... Any suggestions?
I'm on the consumer end of this. Basically every Youtube channel I'm subscribed to is effectively a video podcast, with new "episodes" every so often, from a few times a week to once a month.
I would love not to have to look to Youtube to find new feeds to subscribe to (in some cases literally subscribe, Youtube has RSS!). However, I don't have the slightest idea where I would begin looking for video podcasts. Maybe an RSS aggregator? But not everyone uses RSS... Any suggestions?
You might have been joking but yes that type of question is being asked because a child friendly channel, if so classified, may see huge revenue cuts depending on how the regulations finally fall out.
> The Rule allows for civil penalties of up to $42,530 per violation
> FTC considers a number of factors in determining the appropriate amount
> the operator paid a total civil penalty of $35,000
I'll take 'Captured Agency for $100, Alex'
> FTC considers a number of factors in determining the appropriate amount
> the operator paid a total civil penalty of $35,000
I'll take 'Captured Agency for $100, Alex'
Is that honestly what you derived from "While Google and YouTube paid $170 million, in another COPPA case settled this year, the operator paid a total civil penalty of $35,000."?
I know hacker news encourages us to assume the best intentions when responding to comments, but I'm finding that difficult to do when a $170 million COPPA fine was levied by the same agency in the same year, mentioned in the same sentence as the $35,000 fine that you derived your tidbit from.
I know hacker news encourages us to assume the best intentions when responding to comments, but I'm finding that difficult to do when a $170 million COPPA fine was levied by the same agency in the same year, mentioned in the same sentence as the $35,000 fine that you derived your tidbit from.
$170 million, at the maximum penalty only covers around 4,000 violations. I seriously doubt that Youtube violated this rule only a mere 4,000 times.
I'm confused what private entity wants this? Old media?
YouTube wants this, dont fool yourself
YouTube is trying desperately to purge ALOT of content and creators that are not financially viable
They no longer desire to be "You"Tube, instead they want to be more like NetFlix or Disney+ and carry more mainstream content.
Allowing the government to be the bad guy has been used by large corporations for decades as cover
YouTube is trying desperately to purge ALOT of content and creators that are not financially viable
They no longer desire to be "You"Tube, instead they want to be more like NetFlix or Disney+ and carry more mainstream content.
Allowing the government to be the bad guy has been used by large corporations for decades as cover
This is totally insane! If children like to watch your youtube channel (perhaps it is Algebra tips or information about dinosaurs or black holes) you're required to obtain parental consent? The problem with designating the channel host as the person responsible is they are not the one collecting the information nor do they even have access to most of it. YouTube is the one collecting and using the info.
No where on my YouTube channels am I allowed to see the ip address of anyone who views it. Nor can I track individuals. But YouTube themselves can and do do this.
Also collecting legally binding consent from parents for their kids to watch channels is going to be way more of a breech of personally identifying information than not having that rule. For legally binding consent I'm going to have to verify their actual identity and that they are the legal guardian of the minor watching the channel. And from a practical standpoint I don't even see there is any way at all that doing so is even technically possible given the current YouTube design.
The only way to comply with this is to kill all videos and channels that have any content that might be of interest to children. Die all you homework help and approachable science channels!
No where on my YouTube channels am I allowed to see the ip address of anyone who views it. Nor can I track individuals. But YouTube themselves can and do do this.
Also collecting legally binding consent from parents for their kids to watch channels is going to be way more of a breech of personally identifying information than not having that rule. For legally binding consent I'm going to have to verify their actual identity and that they are the legal guardian of the minor watching the channel. And from a practical standpoint I don't even see there is any way at all that doing so is even technically possible given the current YouTube design.
The only way to comply with this is to kill all videos and channels that have any content that might be of interest to children. Die all you homework help and approachable science channels!
> channel owners
Do youtube users actually "own" their channels or is this just an incorrect wording? What is meant by "own" here?
Do youtube users actually "own" their channels or is this just an incorrect wording? What is meant by "own" here?
It always bugs me when people say "my Facebook" or "my Twitter". I would assume there is the same sort of false ownership thing going on when people say they own the channels.
You don't own anything than just on a good will basis. YouTube can terminate your account at any time, withour prior notice, at their sole discretion. This is said in the ToS in many places.
... so now every YouTube video aimed at the general public has to open with some violence, drug use or sexual content? Just to make it abundantly clear that it's not for children?
The proposed new rules might mean an over 50% cut in revenue to a channel possibly driving the smaller players out. Very interesting side effects of regulations.
And the price of food is higher than the theoretical lower limit because we require FDA and USDA inspections. This prevents some number of Americans from opening "mom-and-pop" grocery stores.
I'll take the regulations, thanks.
I'll take the regulations, thanks.
That's entirely dependent on the regulations. What exactly is being accomplished here with these changes?
This isn't a problem with creators, it's Youtube violating regulations with data collection practices and then continuing to do so by pushing the compliance burden onto the community.
This isn't a problem with creators, it's Youtube violating regulations with data collection practices and then continuing to do so by pushing the compliance burden onto the community.
I subscribe to a video game channel that primarily covers only racing games and hardly swears. Is that considered directed to children? This is such a mess.
Dan Olson/Folding Ideas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuScIN4emyo
Upshot is that YouTube is pretending that they can't make good segmenting tools.
Upshot is that YouTube is pretending that they can't make good segmenting tools.
Nice to know that the actual parents of children are the channel owners of youtube and google.
cool.
cool.
99% of channel owners producing content for children know their market includes children; the other 1% are lying. This gives Youtube's army of annotators better basis to flag the liars. Not just that the content is directed to children, but that they are liars.
That's neither true nor the problem.
The issue is people who are not producing content for children and claim it properly but have that categorization overruled by the FTC or Youtube. This then removes their revenue and incurs legal fines. Youtube is also now doing this with automatic bots that have no understanding of context and comes with a long appeals process.
This severely hurts creators who get unfairly and inaccurately caught up in this while having no control over any of the data collection practices of Youtube which started this whole mess.
The issue is people who are not producing content for children and claim it properly but have that categorization overruled by the FTC or Youtube. This then removes their revenue and incurs legal fines. Youtube is also now doing this with automatic bots that have no understanding of context and comes with a long appeals process.
This severely hurts creators who get unfairly and inaccurately caught up in this while having no control over any of the data collection practices of Youtube which started this whole mess.
And if the FTC decides that your Mario speed run is kids friendly, because it has animated characters, flashy graphics, and is related to toys? Speed runs most definitely aren't targeted at kids, but according to FTC rules that could be classified as kid friendly.
This isn't really an area that I'm super familiar with but why wouldn't a Mario speed run be kids friendly? That seems like the type of thing I would have watched when I was 12.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedrun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedrun
THe point isn't being kid-friendly, it's whether it's directed primarily to kids.
If it's deemed to be that way (by the FTC or by Youtube) then it overrules what the creator claims and can eliminate their monetization and open up legal risk and fines.
If it's deemed to be that way (by the FTC or by Youtube) then it overrules what the creator claims and can eliminate their monetization and open up legal risk and fines.
I misspoke. I meant directed at kids. I don't think speedruns are directed at people below the age of 13. It really doesn't seem like the target audience.
[deleted]
I think this mess (because it is a mess) is two fold. On one side FTC mistakenly deems content creators as "operators" of "websites" or "online services". This terminology is very important as it is the legal basis upon which the FTC may go after content creators. On the other side YouTube have managed to deal their penalty by accepting to "police" their content creators (as it can be clearly understood by carefully hearing what the FTC representative said in the press conference) by adding this new "made for kids" checkbox, and at the same time refuses to implement a gate age that would solve this whole mess at the root.
Also, the word "kids" do not exist in the legal parlance of the code nor the Rule set by FTC, they only mention "children" and they provide a definition for them: every person in the 0-12 ages. This is also to clarify some confusion that may arises from the concept of "minor age" and "children" as defined by this law.
So let's first address the FTC assumption that content creators are "websites" or "online services", remembering that what is relevant here is the collection of personal information from children without prior verifiable parent's consent.
So let's make just one rethoric question: do content creators really own their "channels"? Do they are able to verify parent's authorization and provide them the information about the use of the collected information? Do they can even access the collected data? Do they have the ability to make any change on their "website" apart what YouTube allows them to do? Of course no, no, no.
Here the FTC have attempted to charge a responsibility on the content creators' shoulders assuming something they are not. With the pretext content creators benefit bt earning a small, SMALL, share from what YouTube/Google earn exploiting their creativity, art and skills, FTC is mistakenly assuming they are "websites" or "online services" when they actually lack all the relevant power required to do things that could make them compliant (or non-compliant) with the law.
Content creators are just users, or at most suppliers as a storyteller authors would be for a publisher, while YouTube have the ultimate control of how, where, when, and at whom to serve its content (yeah, because you give to YT a worldwide unlimited non-exclusive license of your content when you upload on their platform, so as long as you do not remove your content they hold it in full control).
YouTube already have broken the law by tracking children without parent's consent, as we learned from the Civil Judgment and the attached Exhibits; so let's now suppose you label your content as "for kids", well, what tells you they won't break the law again? They say they turn off many features to avoid to track children, but is that for real? Are you in control to check that through your "website" they won't really collect data from children? Where is your power in doing so?
There is none. And remember the law is about collecting data from children without parental consent, not labeling your videos to be "made for kids". Under the current FTC's assumption you would be deemed liable even if you labeled your videos as "made for kids" if, despite this, YT would collect data from children.
Into this swamp YouTube is swimming to make business as usual by placing persistent identifiers (AKA cookies) to track users while handing over the liability to the content creators, with the complicity of the FTC it seems.
Now, let's have a moment to think about GDPR, is YT compliant with that Regulation too? If you are an EU resident, did you ever seen a notice that inform you what cookies are used, what data are collected, where, and the exact address of who is in charge to ask about your data and to exercise your rights under the provisions of the GDPR?
(It is a genuine question, I did not check.)
Also, the word "kids" do not exist in the legal parlance of the code nor the Rule set by FTC, they only mention "children" and they provide a definition for them: every person in the 0-12 ages. This is also to clarify some confusion that may arises from the concept of "minor age" and "children" as defined by this law.
So let's first address the FTC assumption that content creators are "websites" or "online services", remembering that what is relevant here is the collection of personal information from children without prior verifiable parent's consent.
So let's make just one rethoric question: do content creators really own their "channels"? Do they are able to verify parent's authorization and provide them the information about the use of the collected information? Do they can even access the collected data? Do they have the ability to make any change on their "website" apart what YouTube allows them to do? Of course no, no, no.
Here the FTC have attempted to charge a responsibility on the content creators' shoulders assuming something they are not. With the pretext content creators benefit bt earning a small, SMALL, share from what YouTube/Google earn exploiting their creativity, art and skills, FTC is mistakenly assuming they are "websites" or "online services" when they actually lack all the relevant power required to do things that could make them compliant (or non-compliant) with the law.
Content creators are just users, or at most suppliers as a storyteller authors would be for a publisher, while YouTube have the ultimate control of how, where, when, and at whom to serve its content (yeah, because you give to YT a worldwide unlimited non-exclusive license of your content when you upload on their platform, so as long as you do not remove your content they hold it in full control).
YouTube already have broken the law by tracking children without parent's consent, as we learned from the Civil Judgment and the attached Exhibits; so let's now suppose you label your content as "for kids", well, what tells you they won't break the law again? They say they turn off many features to avoid to track children, but is that for real? Are you in control to check that through your "website" they won't really collect data from children? Where is your power in doing so?
There is none. And remember the law is about collecting data from children without parental consent, not labeling your videos to be "made for kids". Under the current FTC's assumption you would be deemed liable even if you labeled your videos as "made for kids" if, despite this, YT would collect data from children.
Into this swamp YouTube is swimming to make business as usual by placing persistent identifiers (AKA cookies) to track users while handing over the liability to the content creators, with the complicity of the FTC it seems.
Now, let's have a moment to think about GDPR, is YT compliant with that Regulation too? If you are an EU resident, did you ever seen a notice that inform you what cookies are used, what data are collected, where, and the exact address of who is in charge to ask about your data and to exercise your rights under the provisions of the GDPR?
(It is a genuine question, I did not check.)
[deleted]
Spiderman and Elsa videos just got the vanned
The Mouse strikes again.
I'd like to make a point here that isn't coming up enough in this conversation.
GOOGLE knowingly tracked children, marketed towards them, but somehow the FTC allowed them to transfer liability to their creators.
No creator has ever tracked children, and yet, they are liable for Google's actions?
What options am I left here? I can't make content for children of even talk about anything that might appeal to a child; I can't make adult content or swear, or be dark because advertisers don't like that.
GOOGLE knowingly tracked children, marketed towards them, but somehow the FTC allowed them to transfer liability to their creators.
No creator has ever tracked children, and yet, they are liable for Google's actions?
What options am I left here? I can't make content for children of even talk about anything that might appeal to a child; I can't make adult content or swear, or be dark because advertisers don't like that.
There are options left. You can make videos about:
retirement planning, exercises for pregnant ladies, choosing a wedding cake, using the GI bill, hair transplants, adjusting to menopause, wisdom teeth removal
retirement planning, exercises for pregnant ladies, choosing a wedding cake, using the GI bill, hair transplants, adjusting to menopause, wisdom teeth removal
"GOOGLE knowingly tracked children, marketed towards them, but somehow the FTC allowed them to transfer liability to their creators."
I do not see the the transfer here. Google would still be liable, but able to ban owners who do not properly label their channels. This would protect them of course, but not transfer liability.
The FTC specifically mentioned channel owners tracking users via third parties. I did not know that was possible. I did not see any examples referenced either. As such, channel owners cannot be liable. Correct?
I do not see the the transfer here. Google would still be liable, but able to ban owners who do not properly label their channels. This would protect them of course, but not transfer liability.
The FTC specifically mentioned channel owners tracking users via third parties. I did not know that was possible. I did not see any examples referenced either. As such, channel owners cannot be liable. Correct?
[deleted]
After this I imagine A channel owner intentionally disabling "targeted towards kids" in order to get better CPM via personalized ads would be in violation of COPPA.
It's getting hard to tell where Google ends and the government begins.
Now the creators ask YouTube: please give us an option to have channels that are free of under 13 viewers. It is not my target demographic, and while your own analytics tell me there are a few of those watching, I do not want them here. Either block them or if they show up just comply with COPA and don't track them, OK?
But then YouTube goes: no can do. We either track everyone or no-one, your choice, and BTW n the latter case, we will decimate your revenue. But you are as always free to leave for some other webhost. LOL! Hey, and BTW, if you do indicate that your channel is not directed at kids, you are hereby informed that it is 100% you that is on the line, not us, if the FTC decides otherwise as we do nothing with all that analytics we have to turn away the kids from your doorstep.
So content creators are left up shit creeck without a paddle.