11–20 of 91 posts
> 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'
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.
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 doe…
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…
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.
Can borderline channels just say “fuck” at some point in the middle of the video.
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.
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…
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.
Upshot is that YouTube is pretending that they can't make good segmenting tools.
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!
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…
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?