YouTube channel owners: Is your content directed to children?
1–10 of 91 posts
Re: YouTube channel owners: Is your content directed to children?
#2> 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'
Re: YouTube channel owners: Is your content directed to children?
#3I'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.
Re: YouTube channel owners: Is your content directed to children?
#4Can borderline channels just say “fuck” at some point in the middle of the video.
Re: YouTube channel owners: Is your content directed to children?
#5I'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…
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.
Re: YouTube channel owners: Is your content directed to children?
#6The 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.
Re: YouTube channel owners: Is your content directed to children?
#7Can borderline channels just say “fuck” at some point in the middle of the video.
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.
Re: YouTube channel owners: Is your content directed to children?
#8I'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.
Re: YouTube channel owners: Is your content directed to children?
#9How 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.
Re: YouTube channel owners: Is your content directed to children?
#10> 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'
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.