https://youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=0veLrwd9CK4
I didn't until I saw this. Apparently, the FTC has implemented the COPPA law on YouTube and lots of content creators are upset about it because of it.

I think I'm starting to get used to it because of recent events like the Net Neutrality repeal and the Article 13 approval.

Neutering the Internet because parents can't do their parental job and politicians are screaming "please think of the children" for the n-th time? Fucking great!

If I have understood correctly, this only effects videos which are aimed towards children to begin with, so that they get only specific ads and such.

By default, videos are marked as not safe for children and are unaffected by this.

Mairo said:
If I have understood correctly, this only effects videos which are aimed towards children to begin with, so that they get only specific ads and such.

By default, videos are marked as not safe for children and are unaffected by this.

I received an email from youtube stating that we'd need to manually set it, I think.
Account-wide or per video.

The law was actually in effect for a while. YouTube thought they could get cute and say "Weeeell, we're not technically targeting children as a market so we're exempt from prohibitions against targeted marketing of ads towards U-13 users," and the FTC recently went "Don't horseshit us, YouTube," and so YouTube, instead of just getting rid of targeted advertising period, they moved the responsibility of enforcement onto their users because the people who run YouTube are shit.

And it should be emphasized that this is about the use of individually targeted advertising towards children under the age of 13, not the actual content of said videos that they see. This isn't censorship, by any stretch of the imagination.

Yeah honestly this is Google's problem, not my problem.

I'd love to just to see them try to sue me or fine me $42,000. I'm sure that will look good on you for basically harassing someone who's severely disadvantaged and suffering from mental health problems.

LoneWolf343 said:
And it should be emphasized that this is about the use of individually targeted advertising towards children under the age of 13, not the actual content of said videos that they see. This isn't censorship, by any stretch of the imagination.

Except when it ties into channels being deemed unsuitable for advertisers due to being aimed at kids they can't advertise to, and so get shadowbanned from searches...

Random said:
I received an email from youtube stating that we'd need to manually set it, I think.
Account-wide or per video.

I got the same email, fully translated to finnish and the message was that you need to set it if your channel has videos aimed towards kids and you can either set individual videos like that so it won't effect anything outside those or whole channel as kid friendly so all of your videos are automatically correct. That also means that by default, your videos are set to be viewed by not-kids, which was default before this and is default now.

Youtube also has youtube kids, so this might help with further seperating content aimed for smaller kids, even if IMO they shouldn't be using platform where anyone can upload content.

Also not to be confused with videos that are age restricted, that's also a thing and requires logging in with 18+ account to view, usually videos which contain extreme adult material like sex toy reviews.

Random said:
Except when it ties into channels being deemed unsuitable for advertisers due to being aimed at kids they can't advertise to, and so get shadowbanned from searches...

Yeah, but that would be on YouTube being idiots.

Kids can't legally make contracts, why should anyone be allowed to advertise towards them directly, and more importantly, individually? If a company wants to run a campaign towards a younger audience they don't need to do that individually aimed, just have it run over the entire pool of kids friendly videos.

In my opinion, more should be done to protect everyone's privacy, not just that of children. It's a start.

NotMeNotYou said:
Kids can't legally make contracts, why should anyone be allowed to advertise towards them directly, and more importantly, individually? If a company wants to run a campaign towards a younger audience they don't need to do that individually aimed, just have it run over the entire pool of kids friendly videos.

Trix are for kids!

The problem is the language the the FTC uses is extremely vague. If you make a lets play video which targets teenagers that could still by their definition be "Kid attractive" by their guidelines.

Having your video marked as "For Kids" will lose you 60-90% of your revenue. It is not feasible to make content such content - which by the way Youtube basically pushed everyone to make "Family Friendly" content in the first adpocalypse wave.

rysyN said:
The problem is the language the the FTC uses is extremely vague. If you make a lets play video which targets teenagers that could still by their definition be "Kid attractive" by their guidelines.

Having your video marked as "For Kids" will lose you 60-90% of your revenue. It is not feasible to make content such content - which by the way Youtube basically pushed everyone to make "Family Friendly" content in the first adpocalypse wave.

I don't like the sound of that word.

The main concern for content creators seems to be the vagueness of what they can collect ad revenue on without risking getting fined. I've seen some of them throw around a screenshot of the guidelines below, which from Google, seems like it might be from this 2002 document

'Cuz, y'know, only the kiddos play "video/computer games" and use hip language like "cool"

Also, I have no idea what I'm talking about and am thoroughly confused. Is the new legislation giving the FTC the right to fine individual Youtubers, which they did not have before? Does this apply to content creators outside of YouTube?

I don't even have a AdSense account, and blatantly ignored all the "invitations" I got to monetize my channel.

YouTube to me was, and always has been; a site just to share videos. Remember the original slogan? "Broadcast Yourself".

I'm just going to hope since I don't monetize anything and I already hit that setting saying "Nothing I make is targeting kids" that I'll just be left alone. If I do somehow end up getting sued or fined over this, well they can just have fun trying.

CrocoGator said:
The main concern for content creators seems to be the vagueness of what they can collect ad revenue on without risking getting sued. I've seen some of them throw around a screenshot of the guidelines below, which from Google, seems like it might be from this 2002 document

(Sorry for copy-paste from PDF weirdness)

Subject Matter: subject matter that is appealing to children (e.g., kids’ jokes, music, kids’ games,video/computer games, children’s tv shows or stars, cartoon characters, sports, stories,toys, children’s books, fantasy, children’s arts and crafts, pets, products primarilypurchased or consumed by kids like snack food or cereal)Presentation:a.language of the Web site such as language that is simple enough to beunderstandable to children 12 and under; short, colorful descriptions; slang and popculture phrases (e.g., a kids’ site may be identified by such language as “kids only,”“fun,” “free stuff,” “whatever,” “cool,” “duh,” “games,” “Ask your parents....” etc.)b. whether the Web site uses visual content appealing to children (animatedcharacters,bold or fast-moving graphics, or bright and vibrant colors)
Protecting Children's Privacy Under COPPAB-2c.use of host characters (often a character property used offline, on television, inmovies, or comics or books)d. the age of the models portrayed on the Web site (using children as models)e. whether advertising appearing on the Web site is directed to children under 13 (e.g.,ads for products primarily purchased or consumed by kids, or ads that are presentedin such a way that they appear to be directed to children)f.audio content appealing to children (e.g., simple or popular tunes or songs, cartoonvoices, child-like noises and sound effects)

'Cuz, y'know, only the kiddos play "video/computer games" and use hip language like "cool"

Also, I have no idea what I'm talking about and am thoroughly confused. Is the new legislation giving the FTC the right to sue individual Youtubers, which they did not have before? Does this apply to content creators outside of YouTube?

No. Again, this is about YouTube and targeted advertising. If YouTube gathers advertising information on minors, then it is YouTube who has broken the law, not the person who uploaded the video. YouTube's trying to scare people into doing its job for them.

LoneWolf343 said:
No. Again, this is about YouTube and targeted advertising. If YouTube gathers advertising information on minors, then it is YouTube who has broken the law, not the person who uploaded the video. YouTube's trying to scare people into doing its job for them.

https://youtu.be/4WMe1VbGxqg?t=584

CrocoGator said:
https://youtu.be/4WMe1VbGxqg?t=584

09:43
and as the chairman noted not only can
09:47
we sue Google and YouTube for compliance
09:50
with Coppa but also individual channel
09:53
owners and content creators and once
09:55
this order has been fully implemented we
09:58
intend to conduct a sweep of the YouTube
10:01
platform to determine whether there
10:03
remains child directed content on the
10:05
platform with respect to which

Yeah, yeah, yeah, tough talk, huge waste of money since content creators aren't the ones gathering the information.

rysyN said:
The problem is the language the the FTC uses is extremely vague.

Source? These discussions always bring up "extremely vague" language, but I'm honestly hesitant to just accept that from a layperson. It would carry more weight coming from a non-partisan legal source who doesn't have something to lose from the law's passage.

CCoyote said:
Source? These discussions always bring up "extremely vague" language, but I'm honestly hesitant to just accept that from a layperson.

Here's the actual law rule:

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=4939e77c77a1a1a08c1cbf905fc4b409&node=16%3A1.0.1.3.36&rgn=div5

Web site or online service directed to children means a commercial Web site or online service, or portion thereof, that is targeted to children.

(1) In determining whether a Web site or online service, or a portion thereof, is directed to children, the Commission will consider its subject matter, visual content, use of animated characters or child-oriented activities and incentives, music or other audio content, age of models], presence of child celebrities or celebrities who appeal to children, language or other characteristics of the Web site or online service, as well as whether advertising promoting or appearing on the Web site or online service is directed to children.

So, then, what does that mean? If you have an all-ages website or portion of a website, and it contains (safe) drawings of characters and mascots (animated characters, "celebrities" who appeal to children), would that potentially fall under "directed to children" even though the site isn't targeting children specifically? Would any animated or drawn character not doing anything questionable/adult-oriented count as child-oriented?

What kind of "visual [...] audio content" do they look for? Would, say, all-ages videos about video games (not specifically trying to target children, but being family-friendly while talking about things like Mario, Pokemon, the Witcher, Astral Chain, etc), and is presented by a blue muppet-like character, does that make it "directed to children" despite not targeting them and having plenty of over-13 and over-18 fans?

What counts for these terms, and more importantly, where is the line? How much of this stuff is needed to cross it? It's all left in the air.

LoneWolf343 said:
Yeah, yeah, yeah, tough talk, huge waste of money since content creators aren't the ones gathering the information.

Technically, though, Google/Youtube is doing it on behalf of the content creators. Creator leaves the box unchecked, which tells Youtube to collect data from all viewers (kids and adults alike). Creator benefits from collected data via targeted ads, which yields increased revenue. One can certainly argue this falls under the purview of COPPA's 2013 amendment. Of course, you're also free to argue it doesn't since the creator has no clue about who the video is collecting data from at the time its played... hope you have a good lawyer and the money for a lengthy legal battle to make your case if the FTC decides to go after you (hint: most YT creators don't).

Of course, the bass-ackwards thing here is how Youtube wants to apply this setting to individual videos/channels, rather than user accounts. Videos marked as "For Kids" cuts off targeted ads for adult viewers and won't show up as a related video to adult viewers, and similarly, if a kid watches a "Not For Kids" video, their data is getting collected regardless and they're given related recommendations to other "Not For Kids" videos. The problem is the collection of data from kids, not the collection of data from anyone viewing ostensibly "directed at children" content. This makes Youtube's current "solution" very poor since its going after the wrong thing, and leaving the question of what counts as "For Kids" to each individual creator. A better way would be to not collect data, show end-cards, give recommendations, etc, to accounts that kids use regardless of the videos they watch, leaving the creators out of it.

This isn't a new law, just a reimagined/reinterpretation of one. It is originally a somewhat not very well thought out law meant to protect children (13 and under) from being tricked by randos online into giving out personal 'identifiable' information like their phone number and address etc. It's the reason that a lot of forum software and site signups had a "are you over 13" check on them. It had nothing at all to do with advertising or basic tracking, let alone on-site (across the board) tracking of interests in videos. But it's now been twisted by certain cultish like groups and ideologies into a tool to enforce their extreme personal beliefs without the need for writing/passing new law or any review at all.

Youtube is the first to get hit by this but it wont be the last. This (and the $100+ million fine) was merely an example to make a point. And let's make this clear, youtube's "crime" was tracking video interests of everyone across the site, while "knowing" that children were among the users. And how did they know that? (legally speaking OC) Because there was "child targeted" content on the site. That's it, and all it takes for triggering a whole new set of nebulous legal responsibilities. Because of the way the rules were reinterpreted, it makes tracking and advertising (targeted and arguably not) extremely dangerous on a mixed content site now. So Youtube said fuck it and went scorched earth, disabling all ads on "child targeted" content.

But sadly, that's not the end of the story or the worst of the problem. Because in addition to a somewhat (extremely) vague list of criteria for what counts as "child targeted". The special interest cultists trying to dictate things have seriously pushed an expanded concept of what needs to be "protected" to include not just "child targeted" content, but "child attracting" content as well. Which is basically ANYTHING one could plausibly argue that children under 13 might be interested by, that doesn't logically (i.e. legally) rule them out as viewers/readers/players. So basically the only thing safe is porn... and then there is still a question of that since there are so many other types of cultish nitwits trying to make a point about access to porn.. with these new rules basically potentially being based off of effect (viewership) not intent. (targeted or even broad demographic)

A "child attracting" rule would be the end of all commercial teen and young adult targeted media, as well as both anime, games and comics advertising and ability to be advertised. (i.e. the former being what killed sat morning cartoons) OC that ^ happens likely with just the basic "child targeted" rules.. With a criteria list which includes "video games," "cartoons" and "cartoon characters" (the last being mentioned on more than one listed item) Along with everything being likely interpreted by the usual "cartoons and video games are for children" type nitwits. So anime will clearly be a "cartoon" and games will clearly be child targeted by default. i.e. without a big challenge/legal challenge. (or, what media/tech wont EVER risk.. full stop) And this doesn't even begin to get into the question of science type content, or stuff aimed at mostly older people (teens-adults) but without mature or iffy content. It *may* still be legal to have non targeted advertisements with such content, but no big company ever would take the risk.

So now we are left in a state where no big tech/media company will risk anything at all even close to being iffy. (And rightfully so as this new law is little more than a setup. So there isn't really a safe way to surely never violate it) There's a good chance that nearly anything could fall under the new rules, and the only groups that will be able to fight, are big tech and big media.. Who both face legal risk for even attempting to do so.

Oh and one final, last little detail about this.. The new rules also allow the FTC to fine content makers themselves ~$40,000 for failing to click that box labeling their content "child targeted/attracting" (thus turning off all advertising), even if youtube itself fails to automatically do it after upload and scanning. (as part of their agreement with the FTC)

One more step in controlling and locking down the net, as well as turning it into an interactive cable/phone service..

End rant! sorry..

Mairo said:
I got the same email, fully translated to finnish and the message was that you need to set it if your channel has videos aimed towards kids and you can either set individual videos like that so it won't effect anything outside those or whole channel as kid friendly so all of your videos are automatically correct. That also means that by default, your videos are set to be viewed by not-kids, which was default before this and is default now.

The issue is that if the FTC decides that a video you haven't marked "for kids" is "appealing to children", you're in trouble. The new youtube setting isn't directly connected to the law (which hasn't actually come into effect yet), it's them covering their ass and pushing liability onto the uploaders.

I still think the entire internet is really weird about advertising though. It's the only way most sites can draw funding, but web surfing without an adblocker is irresponsible because almost nobody screens their ads for malicious scripts. (On that note I'll always be glad e621 only allows basic banners with no extra scripting)

Watsit said:
So, then, what does that mean?

Honestly, the rule reads pretty straightforward to me. Furthermore, this is a policy from the Executive Branch, not a law. That means it can be changed much more easily. It can be challenged both in the Legislative Branch and in the Judicial Branch. Congress can write a law that supercedes it, and the courts can declare the action unconstitutional or excessively vague.

Honestly, privacy is important, and it matters more than a business's profits. I think it's a good thing that anyone is doing anything to regulate an industry that has been heretofore allowed to run amok and do whatever they want with our data, with practically no controls whatsoever.

Lastly, if you don't like the rule, complaining about it on e621 doesn't accomplish anything. The FCC has a comment period open -- write in and say something. Write your legislative representatives. Vote. Speak up. You may not trust the system, but if that's the case, then get involved and elect someone you do trust.

Same applies to the comments from @MagnusEffect.

https://twitter.com/Chadtronic/status/1197590148239806465
So according to the FTC and lawyers, YouTube should be providing a “mixed” audience options, apparently.

Also, quick question. Do some content creators on YouTube decides to remove some of the videos to satisfy YouTube's new rules?

CCoyote said:
Same applies to the comments from @MagnusEffect.

What did I do now? I feel like every time I post I get misrepresented in responses.
I'm not inherently against the decision to regulate the internet, I just think the way Youtube themselves are reacting to it is fucky. I'm all for regulating the shit out of data collection and targeted advertising on (and off) the internet, but Youtube's basically just gone "Oh uhh, we're going to just keep doing what we were doing before on the 'not for kids' videos, but if we happen to collect data on a video the FTC doesn't want us collecting data on it's not our fault." If Youtube just blanket-disabled their targeted advertising and data collection there wouldn't be a problem. Uploaders would get mad about lower ad revenue, but over the last couple of years a lot of the larger "not for kids" type channels have already been switching to other funding methods anyway.
The side-issue of the FTC/Youtube algorithms being the arbiter of what counts as child-oriented content is more of a secondary concern, and we've yet to see what specific content the FTC will actually get mad about.

In any case I don't have a legislative representative within the US.

I think the worst part of this whole debacle is that the FTC thinks they can fine people $42,000 per video. Are they under the impression that every YouTuber is a billionaire that can afford to shell out 42 grand? What if ten videos get flagged? That's $420,000 which most people don't have. Most people don't have $42,000. People rely on YouTube as a source of income. They need that money to pay their bills. They need that money to buy food for themselves or their family. It's disgusting that these people don't care how these new rules affect people. If they did, they wouldn't be doing this.

JoeX said:
I think the worst part of this whole debacle is that the FTC thinks they can fine people $42,000 per video.

Everybody seems to forget the "up to" part. I don't think we know what the actual amount would be. But your point still stands.

2. What are the penalties for violating the Rule?

A court can hold operators who violate the Rule liable for civil penalties of up to $42,530 per violation. The amount of civil penalties a court assesses may turn on a number of factors, including the egregiousness of the violations, whether the operator has previously violated the Rule, the number of children involved, the amount and type of personal information collected, how the information was used, whether it was shared with third parties, and the size of the company. Information about the FTC’s COPPA enforcement actions, including the amounts of civil penalties obtained, can be found by clicking on the Case Highlights link in the FTC’s Business Center.

(Source, which I have not actually read through: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/complying-coppa-frequently-asked-questions)

To @MagnusEffect first, I apologize for the misunderstanding. You didn't do anything at all. I just felt like the things I had said addressed a number of your points, as well as the person I was originally responding to. Sorry about that! However, if you don't live in the USA, does COPPA impact you?

To others, so many of the comments being made here come from a complete lack of understanding about how COPPA works, how government works, and how business works.

The person who needs "that money to pay their bills" isn't likely to be charged $42,000 by the FTC. It's a basic tenet of law that the punishment has to fit the crime.

That said, the rights of some random YouTube content maker to profit off AdSense loads do not and should not supercede the rights of a minor to have their privacy protected until they're old enough to make decisions for themselves. It's absurd to think otherwise.

Furthermore, the content maker doesn't appear to be the person collecting the data anyway. Wouldn't that be Google, YouTube, AdSense, et al? If you aren't the one collecting the minors' data, I don't think the FTC is even interested in you.

Finally, COPPA isn't even new. According to the link from @CrocoGator, the law (and it is a law, it turns out -- I was wrong in my last post) was passed in 1998 and amended in 2012. The FTC started enforcing the law as amended in 2013. Why are we talking about it six years later like it's new? Even if Google is trying to change how they handle the law with their content creators, it's not like no one could have known this was coming if it really mattered to them.

The bottom line is, if you're running a business, you have to stay on top of things like this. That's why most business owners have lawyers. If you're trying to make money as a content creator, well, there are laws. There are laws that affect literally everything else you do, too, like buying things (sales tax), driving (speed limits and licenses), and where you live (building codes). We use laws to draw boundaries so that people (in this case minors) don't get abused. That's part of life.

I saw a great tweet about this from the Internet Historian

Basically: you shouldn't worry about it, unless you're collecting data on children

Honestly, it feels like so-called new media, especially Youtube, is deforming our collective unconscious. I can't quite put it into words, but the internet seems to be going awry the past few years.

In the case of videos for children, I'm reminded of all that creepy bootleg crap with Elsa, Spiderman and anything else which is popular at the time. It's not just harmless knock-offs like old Video Brinquedo stuff, it's some seriously unhinged, nonsensical shit, occasionally well into creepy territory. It's absolutely nothing to us, but the thought of kids wasting untold hours with that broken stuff honestly disturbs me. It's like children raised on that stuff would grow up to be unable to pass a Turing test. Which makes sense, because a lot of that bizarre content is made by AI, which is yet another once-anodyne thing which is growing to be a serious issue. Mobile games have the same thing, too. Something is going awfully wrong and I can't quite tell what.

OneMoreAnonymous said:
Honestly, it feels like so-called new media, especially Youtube, is deforming our collective unconscious. I can't quite put it into words, but the internet seems to be going awry the past few years.

In the case of videos for children, I'm reminded of all that creepy bootleg crap with Elsa, Spiderman and anything else which is popular at the time. It's not just harmless knock-offs like old Video Brinquedo stuff, it's some seriously unhinged, nonsensical shit, occasionally well into creepy territory. It's absolutely nothing to us, but the thought of kids wasting untold hours with that broken stuff honestly disturbs me. It's like children raised on that stuff would grow up to be unable to pass a Turing test. Which makes sense, because a lot of that bizarre content is made by AI, which is yet another once-anodyne thing which is growing to be a serious issue. Mobile games have the same thing, too. Something is going awfully wrong and I can't quite tell what.

This sounds very much like a conspiracy theory.

cerberusmod_3 said:
This sounds very much like a conspiracy theory.

That's what THEY want you to think.

I don't think it's a conspiracy theory, necessarily, but rather an observation of changes in human behavior.

I've worked heavily with the public for the last 16 years, so I've had a lot of opportunity to watch behavior change over time. The correlation I've observed is between the advent of smartphones, an increase in distraction and stress, a decrease in attention spans, and a sharp rise in instances of uncivil behavior.

To be sure, correlation does not prove causation. However, there is some objective backing to this. Plenty of scientific studies have been done demonstrating the relationship between addiction-level smartphone usage and depression, for instance. There are the attention span studies telling us the human attention span is now eight seconds long, shorter than the nine-second attention span of a goldfish. And even if you're skeptical of the original study from Microsoft's marketing team, how many people do you think will look just at this post alone, call "TL;DR" and skip it? People are multitasking constantly, which we know doesn't work but does cause plenty of stress, and we know that when people are stressed, they act out. They do things and say things they wouldn't normally do or say when they're calm. When stress becomes constant and heavy, it brings out the ugly in us and makes people uncivil.

Again, to be clear, I'm not sitting here as the old man shaking his DynaTAC at all of you and yelling about those damned kids and their new-fangled technology. What I am trying to do is figure out why fewer and fewer people use basic manners when they walk up to me at work.

I'm not sure how any of this directly relates to the conversation about COPPA, honestly, but the discussion seemed to be running off on a tangent about conspiracy theories, and I thought it might be helpful to point that out?