@@Yipper64 To my knowledge, there is no software that can identify anti-whatever content with a meaningful level of accuracy and just not show it. If there was, China wouldn't need nearly so strict a firewall.
@Timothy McLean it's about continuing the same bad behaviour while saying it's the fault of creators when they get caught for it. If youtube provides all the tools and can prove it then they can just say "Well it's not us, they just didn't follow the instructions to prevent this from happening."
@Lucas Zhu The video shows correctly there is no problem with COPPA. The FTC was aware of the problems. UA-cam makes it look like they were not. It is UA-cam creating chaos
This is extremely insidious and disgusting. The moment I heard about this case I immediately thought about how UA-cam could easily stop targeting children with ads.
It's too much of a financial loss to lose that. They don't have to give up on all of the targeted ads on children. All they had to do was make a first time log in that says "We use information such as age, watch history, gender, and various other things to make Curated Ads for your benefit. You, or your parents, must consent to this, otherwise you cannot use our site. For more information, check out *link to moneysense*"
I don't understand how after all this, because people want to support and stay on youtube. I have to be honest, if youtube ceases to exist, I don't know if I'll be happy or sad. happy because google has tired me, it unloads the responsibilities to the users that however it treats like sl*ves, taking huge amounts of money from us all (percentages on the advertising, percentages on the donation, etc), and now in order to earn still money, it puts in danger the own users, making them risk the fine. The only thing that will make me sad will be to think of all the people who support themselves thanks to youtube. I strongly hope that this is the end of youtube and that we find a better platform, decentralized and where users have the power (like LBRY)if possible.
@@ebbandfloatzel That would actually be very logical. Isn't it weird how any normal person can think of a simple and reasonable solution, but the FTC and UA-cam can't.
@@Amber_Phoenix the problem is that the consent must be from the parents, not from the child. youtube has no way of knowing if the parent has accepted the contract, unless youtube forces the registration with a credit card, etc.
@@aurorareali7125 even still, how many people actuall y read the wall of legalese text that pops up when agreeing to the terms of service, and how many parents would sign up to UA-cam for their own use, then let their kid use their logon?
I love how the UA-cam game is now "be advertiser friendly or be demonotized but not too friendly or else you're now kid friendly and now you're suuuuper demonotized."
You gotta be adult. But in a boring way! None of that horror-reviewing, true-crime-, LGBT-, and/or mental health-discussing, throwing-around-the-C-word kind of stuff.
First of all UA-cam is now over and secondly of course it's not gonna work out it's now a mess everyone will get too frustrated and leave UA-cam I know this cause it's just too many rules..no one can be perfect it's not possible
demonetized, all controls and options eliminated, all means for it to be seen removed with the exception of going directly to your channel. oh and it cant be in a play list and we will not tell you subscribers it exits. infact. more people will likely see it if you put it unlisted, turned off targeted ads and tweeted a link to it...
@@AlisaForestHillsBrigades One issue with that idea is that UA-cam has always been a mess, especially for the big channels with multiple operators that they target. Folding Ideas' VidMe video went over that a bit, I think it made the point pretty clear.
What really gets me is that UA-cam has spent the past few years discouraging creators from producing anything but all-ages content through the threat of demonitization. Now that same content might put them at risk, if the lack of swearing and adult humor allow it to be construed as specifically for children.
Scott Watrous yep, making way for all the late night tv host UA-cam channels, all the Will Smith-like channels taking over the platform. Channels who they’d never actually go after with this compliance.
They like add money, but they don't like liability and they don't like paying for actual humans to do site moderation. So they tend to put as much they can under their algorithms control and build said algorithms to prioritize getting add money.
Google doesn’t really like UA-cam. It’s a money sink. Even with all the ads, it’s insanely expensive to host the massive amount of content that is available on UA-cam. I don’t know where they’re at now but industry experts reckon that UA-cam has made a loss every year leading up to 2019.
@@sovietcanuckistanian but the number of videos uploaded to the site hourly makes it nigh impossible for a set of humans to monitor the videos without bottlenecking the upload rate. So there is really no good solution to this problem.
This is probably one of the only proper, researched, level-headed videos on the topic on all of UA-cam. 👍 But even then, it only tangentially stated that this is specifically protecting the _privacy_ of children rather than their innocence. This isn't about protecting children from nasty content that could traumatize them, it's _only_ about data-collection. I have yet to see any videos pointing out that distinction. :-\ Also, Google believes in having _all_ the informations, but only giving out a bit. 😒
Ron Nickels Ron Nickels it’s hard to find a comparable site and get a majority to migrate. Like twitch and mixer maybe UA-cam competition needs a popular spokesperson to spearhead the move. But I don’t see it happening anytime soon sad to say.
@@HeatherHolt This act affects all websites..Twitch and Mixer both so there is no running from it. I am personally afraid that my content so far hasn't been labelled for kids (since it isn't for them)and will be taken down
You are the first person that has pointed out the reality that UA-cam wants to be able to keep tracking data above all else and wants to shift onus of compliance to creators just to cover their own butts.
As a content creator, I am deeply grateful for this video. There has been so much conflicting information flying around about this topic, and having Dan to cut through the noise with a succinct explanation is a godsend.
Thank you for this video. I was under the misconception (like UA-cam wanted) that there was a problem with the FTC's law, rather than how UA-cam decided to maliciously implement it. Don't know how UA-cam managed to dupe me so good. I feel played. As an animation channel, how UA-cam impliments this COPPA thing will spell disaster for myself and the rest of the animation community, and that frustration needs to be redirected to where it belongs: UA-cam.
This is a routine feature of American industry: any kind of financial or enviornmental regulation or labor protection is always retaliated against with a deliberately dysfunctional implementation designed to make the lives of workers and consumers miserable thereby discrediting the very concept of regulations and protections.
December 31st, 2019 11:59pm should have been a moment of celebration, but there I was, in a darkened living room, lit only by my PC monitor as I removed 24 animation based music videos from my non-monetized channel. Only days before, the copyright owners of AC/DC's "Who Made Who" had cleared my video for worldwide display. The bad news for the video was the choice of a dancing, prancing Buzz Lightyear. The other 23 removed videos featured either Just Dance green screen animated dancers or psychedelia oriented animated GIFs. It was difficult enough to forget about the couple of hundred hours that went into producing the videos. But what really got my worry warts itching was the threat of huge fines from a right-wing government out to control the message & the messengers, fanned by corner-stone financial sources important to the political party in power and fronted by the FTC's boiler room monitoring staff, out to prove their worth and out for the easy kill.
@@runecowman I recommend LBRY. decentralized(p2p), direct exchange of money between user and creator, without percentages taken by third parties. there is both the application for linux / windows / mac / android / IOS and the web version. I don't think it makes sense to opt for a youtube clone (centralized, no power to the users, a company decides for you). maybe it will be difficult at the beginning, but over time these new platforms will grow and surpass youtube. opt for a UA-cam clone is easier at the beginning, but over time we will find ourselves in the same current situation.
@@aurorareali7125 And P2P models like that are destined to run into the RIAA using DMCA to shut it down. That is always been the death of decentralized video models
I was waiting for this one specifically because when UA-cam starts messing up and everyone is confused/scared you can never really tell who's got the right story
“When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” A law that effectively summarises why UA-cam’s automated crap does not work. Additionally, people at Google should have been taken to jail for this shit; that is the only language they will understand.
6:59 That is a perfect explanation for UA-cam's mindset on pretty much everything nowadays, I gotta quote that. The FTC is barely to blame for all the problems going on here, as we all should've damn well expected.
God they really went for the worst way to fix this, youtube can actually push youtube kids. Then make stricter rules for people who are actually aiming for kids. Keeping the check if it is for kids then for those who do check it, then that content would be analyzed. Or you know, not target kids.
In your first sentence, does "they" refer to the FTC? Because it sounds to me like the FTC is basically in the right here. As quoted in the video, they said youtube's algorithmic solution was trash, for the exact same reasons Dan also said they're trash.
Can we place something like: "This video is not for kids, or of persons 13 years and under. Your data will be collected by youtube. By continuing to view this video, you or your guardian explicitly give permission for youtube to collect data. The creator of this video is not liable for any information or data that might be collected from you."
I have some suggestions for youtube: General Reminder, you have to be 13 years or older to make an account Ergo only teens, adults, and seniors can have one -First, make comments, notifications, likes. ALL require an account to be signed in to even view regardless of video rating. This would protect our children from seeing inappropriate comments without a parent or older sibling being signed in. -Second. Add some account settings to control what the VIEWER can see/ interact with. i.e DISABLED Comments, Notifications, Likes. JUST Comments. and ALL Enabled. This would allow parents to protect their child from inappropriate comments and their childrens data being collected, while also allowing adults to still comment/read comments on toys for possible unmentioned defects such as toxins or choking hazards. Or even to enjoy fan made content or kid content themselves, since the data could only be collected with it enabled by the adult. Of course the DISABLED feature would be enabled by default. Maybe even make enabling it harder, like requiring a long randomly generated security key that is sent to the parent's email to be manually typed in not copy and pasted. -Third, leave it up to the Viewers Discretion whether a video is kid friendly or not. Since Bots can miss flag It happened with tumblr where you can STILL find porn despite the bots, something could seem kid friendly but contain profanity or inappropriate content. Or the content creator could mislabel it on accident or because they KNOW it's not just for kids. WHICH youtube could still be sued over by the FTC for "failing to abide by COPPA". My idea is, Add a new button before the like thumbs up icon to flag a video as kid friendly. Then have the bots just count how many times it was toggled on, and ONCE it reaches a certain number BAM video flagged as kid friendly. Then to override the flag, the creator would only have to provide proof that video isn't for kids or just for kids. Even a simple statement or swear word in the video would do. Then once it's flag is removed, the threshold number for the video is DOUBLED to make it harder to abuse Much easier and less prone to mistakes from the bots. -Forth. Allow kid friendly videos to be added to playlists, since some parents would like to make a playlist for their child for them to view while they are busy or away. This way to avoid an inappropriate video from being shown by mistake If you agree, PLEASE let the UA-cam, FTC and COPPA officials know about my suggestions and please share. Coppa may be right, but UA-cam isn't handling it properly.
I have some suggestions for youtube: General Reminder, you have to be 13 years or older to make an account Ergo only teens, adults, and seniors can have one -First, make comments, notifications, likes. ALL require an account to be signed in to even view regardless of video rating. This would protect our children from seeing inappropriate comments without a parent or older sibling being signed in. -Second. Add some account settings to control what the VIEWER can see/ interact with. i.e DISABLED Comments, Notifications, Likes. JUST Comments. and ALL Enabled. This would allow parents to protect their child from inappropriate comments and their childrens data being collected, while also allowing adults to still comment/read comments on toys for possible unmentioned defects such as toxins or choking hazards. Or even to enjoy fan made content or kid content themselves, since the data could only be collected with it enabled by the adult. Of course the DISABLED feature would be enabled by default. Maybe even make enabling it harder, like requiring a long randomly generated security key that is sent to the parent's email to be manually typed in not copy and pasted. -Third, leave it up to the Viewers Discretion whether a video is kid friendly or not. Since Bots can miss flag It happened with tumblr where you can STILL find porn despite the bots, something could seem kid friendly but contain profanity or inappropriate content. Or the content creator could mislabel it on accident or because they KNOW it's not just for kids. WHICH youtube could still be sued over by the FTC for "failing to abide by COPPA". My idea is, Add a new button before the like thumbs up icon to flag a video as kid friendly. Then have the bots just count how many times it was toggled on, and ONCE it reaches a certain number BAM video flagged as kid friendly. Then to override the flag, the creator would only have to provide proof that video isn't for kids or just for kids. Even a simple statement or swear word in the video would do. Then once it's flag is removed, the threshold number for the video is DOUBLED to make it harder to abuse Much easier and less prone to mistakes from the bots. -Forth. Allow kid friendly videos to be added to playlists, since some parents would like to make a playlist for their child for them to view while they are busy or away. This way to avoid an inappropriate video from being shown by mistake If you agree, PLEASE let the UA-cam, FTC and COPPA officials know about my suggestions and please share. Coppa may be right, but UA-cam isn't handling it properly.
@@electrobob992 you should make your comment on the ftc website. They are taking comments until dec 9th. Idk how to include direct links into cmts but if you find the vid nerdecrafter where she talks about coppa and has link to ftc website where you can copy and past your comment
Mod 1: I dunno, Boss. This is really dry, is mostly a guy looking at the camera without overt-the-top graphics, and uses words like "granular" and "commission", are we sure this video is for kids? Mod 2: He said the words "Hasbro" and "Disney" and showed 3 seconds of that superheroes linedancing animation, how much more explicit does he need to be for you to get it?
3 months? Try literally right now since people are already deleting their channels out of fear that something worse than losing their entire channels could possibly happen to them.
Dollightful is one of my favorite UA-cam channels (if not my favorite, since I get so excited when she uploads!) and I love that many of these COPPA explanation videos are using her as an example of family friendly, NOT FOR KIDS doll customizing. She does some gnarly transformative stuff with those dolls, man. Even I’d need my Dad’s help and I’m well into adulthood! Yet she could be penalized just for her choice of medium and colorful tendencies. Messed. Up.
I've spent the past couple of days looking at many different videos speaking on this issue. Yours is by far the best one, followed by a social media lawyer whose name slipped my mind. Thanks!
I knew this would happen as soon as the UA-cam Kids app came out. I knew there was no way to ensure the content was child appropriate unless actual humans were monitoring it and there was no way that would happen. It was inevitable they'd get in trouble. Thank you for answering the question I've been having, why can't UA-cam just turn off ads for kids. I guess the answer is obvious though.
You'd be surprised at how many times I've seen real-estate videos get flagged as "kids content." Real-estate videos! Auto and motorcycle repair videos are also increasingly getting flagged as for kids. It's driving me nuts.
i actually came to a similar conclusion on my own given the evidence, and like you, i am confused as to why the FTC is going after individual youtubers rather than google adsense, and i can only assume that the people that complained to the FTC only complained about youtube and weren't familiar with google adsense. In conclusion: don't trust youtube complain to the FTC about targeting youtubers and go after google adsense instead
Who are the UA-camrs which the ftc has gone after? I haven't heard of any actual cases of this, just vague fears of what could happen (as discussed in this video)
@@smickles not specific youtubers; youtubers in general. And they haven't actually done it yet; they said that they _would_ do it. The exact quote from one of it's representatives was "not only can we sue google and youtube, but also individual channels and youtubers". Naturally, they would more than likely sue only the worst offenders (i would imagine the ones that get people the most upset), but i feel that would still be crossing a line since youtubers don't actually have much of a say in who's information gets collected and subsequently sold. In addition, since he didn't mention specifically Google AdSense and I can't find anything about the FTC sueing them yet, it feels really up in the air about whether they will do so at all; but then again i am uncertain of the connection between Google AdSense and youtube (it might be that youtube collects the information, then immediately passes it off to AdSense to be processed and sold. if this is the case, then the grounds they have to sue might not be there at all (though I haven't done enough research into that and am not a lawyer so i can't say for sure either way, but considering they can sue youtubers i would presume that they would))
So in other words, UA-cam forces compliance (and repercussions) upon its content creators -- the life blood of its very business -- and yet gets to continue skimming revenue off mis-targeted ads along with collecting and analyzing said mis-targeted data to further its ad business model. Typical corporate profit-friendly manipulation for rules compliance.
See, the issue with a hypothetical UA-camr union, even if it were only applied in the US, is that not every place has the same laws regarding union protections. I live in North Carolina, where we have a ton of so-called "right to work" laws that effectively neuter any collective bargaining power unions could potentially have, so a union of internet contractors (which is the closest thing to what you could legally classify UA-camrs as) would run into a TON of logistical issues as far as how to effectively implement it.
I honestly think a shorter, more clicky video would be good for this. Or at least rename this one to "UA-cam lied about COPPA" to get it trending. I mean, I didn't see your title and realize at all that it was going to contradict every other video I've seen. I only came because I knew you would have the scoop and I could trust you, while not so much anyone else. But this video needs to get to the people who normally don't watch your vids. Plus I like the irony of using clickbait to exploit the algorithm for good instead of evil.
With several of the creators I watch going off about this COPPA development, I was starting to get very worried about what the future of UA-cam might be. I’m still worried, but this is almost reassuring because it feels less like creators are being targeted by the FTC for creating content that shares broad definitions with children’s content and more like UA-cam’s general automated fuckups.
This is hands down the best video I've seen about the whole COPPA situation on UA-cam. Its clear, straight-forward, and takes the situation seriously, but does not engage in fear-mongering. Great stuff man!
I saw a mashup of WAP and Take Me to Church flagged as children’s content once. I think that’s proof enough that something in this system is still deeply flawed.
No. You are here because UA-cam remains the best place to distribute videos to lots of people, because it's basically the only video website frequently visited by lots of people.
Excellent video! Covers everything I've been thinking and more with eloquence and detail. UA-cam absolutely has the power to remove information collection from users deemed under 13.
It's also a pain in the ass to navigate, it doesn't really work well for keeping up with subscriptions, and it arbitrarily blocks videos from channels that should have no problem being shown to kids. My daughters use it, and despite being under 13 I routinely find myself considering letting them use the regular app, because the Kids app is so janky.
Thank you for this video - it really needed to be said. I thought the FTC was being ridiculous, but then I read the examples they listed in the lawsuit and realized it was pretty clear cut.
Regarding the issue of recommendations, how does the algorithm go forward recommending videos for child viewers if metrics that typically determine viewership are limited to videos that are not for children? Will children be more likely to be recommended adult content due to these measures?
I'd imagine content marked as "for kids" would get put in some kind of special playlist made by youtube('s algorithms because let's face it youtube is averse to having humans work on content sorting/flagging) but this is an interesting question that needs a more concrete answer from youtube itself.
I suspect that they aren't allowed to collect individualized data, but they could still collect anonymized data about how many viewers from one video go watch another video. Hence why that last line wasn't crossed out at 6:07. I mean how can they know if people are "watching multiple videos" if they can't collect any data at all?
I always wondered: why can't channels (say, channels above a certain size, to prevent abuse) allocate themselves as "not for kids, i promise" such that when a video is flagged from them as such it is automatically sent for human review. This would achieve UA-cam's technological backstop, while also preventing adult-focused content that discusses children's media (and similar such channels) from being utterly fucked by this system.
That's work for a human and UA-cam is spending too much money on design changes to hire actual staff. /Joke UA-cam may be making profits for all we know of their disclosed financials, but the popular conception is that it's losing money on the day and if that's true they definitely wouldn't want to waste their money on even basic human moderation when they get anywhere from roughly 100-500 hours of video uploaded a minute. That and it's a tech company and all their models exist on using algorithms and tech to replace humans if at all possible and UA-cam needs to present stability in its technocratic systems abilities to do the job well
You don't have to. Go into your Google account, and you can disable Ad Personalization. myaccount.google.com/data-and-personalization It doesn't stop ads though. It only stops *targeted ads*.
@@AceMcCrank I do not get it then. Surely, it is better to either have children accounts that allow you to register your age if you are under 13 or have "child mode" on parent's accounts and have a seperate password for getting out of the child mode and disable the personalized ads in those cases, right? What is the problem with that?
@@taylorford1689 This is actually close to what I considered for a solution. Parent account can create "child" accounts for their children to watch on. That account is now NOT being tracked, and can only get G-rated ads, and cannot comment on videos, nor are any particular videos recommended on UA-cam or using the UA-cam Kids app (UA-cam App would default over if the signed in user is under 13). As per the agreement between the FTC and UA-cam, Children's content would have to be marked by the content creators, and ONLY videos marked as targeted for under 13 would be allowed to be shown for the UA-cam Kids app or an under 13 account on PC. Repeated violations of letting your kid use your ADULT account to make comments or watch videos could get your account terminated if reported and found to be true. In my vision, Kid's accounts would not need any identifying information. You could even give these accounts aliases if you wanted to. There would be a tool where a parent can upgrade a Kid's account to a Teen account which would then need to have its information updated. Passwords at every step. Switch back to parent's account? Password. Upgrade to Teen account? Password. UA-cam's current system they are implementing is overstepping and is going to cripple creators until UA-cam becomes just another Netflix; no user-created content will exist anymore in favor of the corporate agenda in the name of freedom of profitability for Google.
I've been worried, given the automatic flagging of things associated with kids (not to mention lots of fans of kids' media making things for other fans in the spirit of the canon, picturing those fans as fellow adults, and being upset that their work is marked as for children). This is a very good take on the issue.
Seems to be a classic example of (trying to) socialize the costs (in this case putting the burden of compliance on the channels owners) while privatizing the profit (keep collecting all the data)
This is another example of where UA-cam and Google should be using real people. Yes, you can have an automated system to weed out "potential" target channels. But after that point, you should have REAL human beings checking the list of channels for accuracy. Anything less is a complete disregard and alienation of the workers who put this content out there and make UA-cam/Google their money. It should be treated in the same class as employee discrimination. They are discriminating on content creators covering specific topics just by virtue of the topic being talked about without regard to context and/or accountability of the employer (in this case Google). Oh, and Folding Ideas' points are 100% correct as well. There is nothing stopping Google from just stopping ads towards 12 and under. There is no reason that teenagers or children should be advertised to AT ALL anyways.
Bots aren't always the best for recognizing content. Back when they were disabling comments on videos featuring "minors" (which they applied only randomly, and mostly to smaller channels), I had my comments disabled on my _*vintage doll*_videos. Literally, a bot thinks a piece of plastic is a living, breathing child! This does not bode well for the future.
COPPA: "OK youtube, some of your stuff is targetting kids, kids watch it and you gather data" YT: "OK, here is the fine... EVERYONE listen to me, now you have to mark videos that are targeting kids, or algorithm will do it for you." Creators: "Cool, and what will we get when such video is marked correctly?" YT: "Video will be effectively dead. No recommendations, you can't engage with it other than watch it, 10% revenue, nearly unsearchable." Creators: "OK... but we can now make more mature stuff on platform?" YT: "No, faul language will flag your video, and anything half as suggestive as any music video will bring you down."
We need big channels like this one to pick a new video hosting site to migrate to. Pull the trigger. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm ready to bail on this dumpster fire.
I am ashamed to admit I watched a lot of the "help save our channels" videos and submit a comment to the FTC discussing the hyperbole between for/not for kids content and holding content creators liable. The fact that this is a UA-cam problem makes so much more sense. Spreading the word that this video exists to help educate people. Fingers crossed people see it...
...this is the single most comprehensive video I've seen about this and it has almost no traction- QUICK SHARE THIS WITH UA-camRS AND THE FTC! THE WORLD MUST KNOW THE TRUTH!
You sir, have provided by far the best video on this matter. To sum it up nicely, UA-cam is protecting their own interests at the expense of the vast majority of channel owners, by passing the blame and burden of COPPA compliance to them. They also give half-assed measures in "helping" with compliance. FTC is naive to think that UA-cam is now suddenly doing the right thing.
UA-cam and FTC are finally clarifying the terms of COPPA. To recap, bright colors are not indicative of content that is deemed to be made for kids and FTC is aware of animation that's appropriate for general audience or mainly for adults. The main determining factor is if your content has been featured by websites or blogs that target children and if you yourself are 100% sure you didn't target children in the first place. It also seems that video games or video game characters from Minecraft, Roblox and Nintendo aren't indicative of child-friendly content if the nature of your UA-cam video is focused on a different or more mature direction, art should be fine in such case since it applies to a general audience. Just because a child can find your content interesting doesn't mean you have to label your video "made for kids". Lastly, the penalty of 42 grand varies considering many factors including the channel's income, how much the video has earned in ad revenue and the severity of the situation. Source: www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2019/11/youtube-channel-owners-your-content-directed-children? #ftc #youtube #youtuber #hope
Technically, since youtube account holders are restricted to age 13 and up, arguably the PII data collected when a child uses youtube under a parent or sibling's account is the account holder's PII, not the child's PII...
UA-cam: Hey kids, we have UA-cam Kids. Also UA-cam: But, don't watch UA-cam Kids...it's a dead platform. Kids: UA-cam is a dead platform all together, get with the times.
Shit like that is the sole reason why I find some ideas behind EU changes (regarding last years article 13 and all that stuff) good as while it is broken to some extent, one of the aim is to put back the burden on YT rather then have creators get hit all the time. This shit really has to change, YT is no more a host than any news website working on freelance contracts, they may host someone else's content but they aren't just a host like a bare server, they control way too much of it without even giving their users the tools they would need to correct all of it to be remotely called a simple host!
So you are saying Joe Blow 30 year old Minecraft UA-camr Won't be dragged kicking and screaming in front of the FTC and forced to pay a massive $40,000 fine all because they marked their videos as not for kids. That really really good to hear if that's true.
Thank you for laying it out so cleanly, and thank you for reminding us once again that corporations cannot be trusted and will only do things if it improves their profit margins.
Important to note is that any video uploaded from an IP-adress in a country other than those under FTC and COPPA jurisdiction is basically safe from the 42 000 $ fine. The FTC would have to politely ask your country's authorities to hand you over to them in order for them to punish you. American laws can't reach an act committed outside of the country.
This is old but Darr Mann still does not mark his channel for kids when his content is clearly targeting children. He should be fined for violating COPPA.
Serious question. If my stuff is not monetised on YT, am I still in danger of getting fined? I mean, they just have my email, not my home address and bank account... do they?
It's important to acknowledge the difference between "Child-directed" and "Child-appropriate". Child appropriate isn't specifically for kids and thus probably shouldn't be actively recommended to them by the algorithm, but doesn't contain anything "adult" they shouldn't be exposed to either. In other words, doesn't hurt anything if they see it, but they don't really benefit from seeing it either. Content creators should be prompted with 3 options upon uploading a new video: Child-directed, child appropriate, and strictly 13+ only. Content creators should be allowed some control in how they're represented (or omitted from) the algorithms. Not automatic, only possible to violate by willful mislabeling.
UA-cam has a lot of capability in place to make sensible changes that make the platform compliant in ways that won't cause confusion, much like the idea you posited about age definitions, but the point of this video is that youtube is more concerned with creating confusion than solving the problem. As one other commenter summarized it, the point is to possibly create enough pushback against COPPA to modify the law in such a way that preserves UA-cam's ability to collect lucrative child viewing information. Or it really is just UA-cam incompetence again, but it's hard to see that as the case when the fixes for compliance don't seem that hard to implement.
@@d3v1lsummoner I get the impression that the FTC are virtue-signalling, This isn't about advertising to children, television has been advertising to children for decades and it's been perfectly legal. This is about how the internet collects data on users for the algorithm to curate. Everyone understands the necessity of this and doesn't really have a problem with it until you swap out some of the words. Collecting info on kids sounds nefarious, taking advantage of the innocent youth or something. The logistics don't seem to matter, it's the assumptive principle. Allegedly, the people making these laws are old dudes who don't even own cell-phones and are trying to dictate laws based on very outdated ideas of how technology works.
@@Elfos64 Well, I specifically mentioned this is about whether UA-cam can continue to collect information on children and didn't make an argument about advertising (though it should be mentioned that being able to sell posibly illegally acquired demographic information to advertisers is kind of the issue here. You might argue that kid's information should be treated the same way as adult info, but this isn't even true for contract law where children cannot be bound to an enforceable contract. Children are not legally considered competent to make such decisions including the decision about what sort of information they can give to companies). While you refer to it as 'virtue signalling' I think that mischaracterizes the intent. The FTC responds because activist groups are probably beating their drum, and as is the case with these federal agencies, their job is to respond to the concerns of whomever is yelling the loudest. Yes, I agree that the FTC guidelines are incompetently and vaguely written and made in response to probably ill-informed or short-sighted interest groups, but UA-cam has made this choice to fight for its ability to collect information through inconveniencing its users as opposed to caving to FTC pressure and giving it's users an easy fix that would cost them money and information. Or at least that's my hot take and the take of the video.
@@d3v1lsummoner I'd like to again call attention to when this was a non-issue with television ads. I'm sure that had some kind of statistic data on their audience, the ads would be effectively useless otherwise. If it wasn't an issue with television, it really shouldn't be much more an issue with the internet. I think we can agree this is an issue about people not getting the internet.
@@Elfos64 There is absolutely nothing comparable between the sort of demographic and personal taste information that Google (and other social media sites) is capable of collecting from video views and the primitive form of household based data collection people got from tv advertising in the past. The problem here is that Google is capable of collecting specific information about individual children including location, personal taste, active time, level of engagement in addition to logging their posts. And beyond that this information is further tied with google's ability to track cookies across multiple sites and platforms so they can often see where someone goes after watching a video or what sorts of links or ads they engage with. Again the sticky issue here is children are not legally competent and it's fair to argue that businesses cannot legally exploit their naivete at the cost of the privacy of themselves and their family. Granted, part of the problem is poor internet education for children and parents who aren't properly supervising their child's internet usage, but it's important to recognize that there is a difference between now and the past. And again, this isn't about whether you can advertise to kids or not, it's about what are the legal and ethical standards by which we allow children to give personal information and for companies to aggregate that information. And there is a reasonable argument to be had on that, but between UA-cam's obfuscation and the FTC's vagueness, we are likely to see a conflict.
I'm impressed by how UA-cam has weaponized it's history of infamously bad communication.
Never in my life thought seame street commit crimes here on UA-cam
Yeah but they are so incompetent that their dumb bot sent this video out to a ton of people so now we all know it.
@@Yipper64 To my knowledge, there is no software that can identify anti-whatever content with a meaningful level of accuracy and just not show it. If there was, China wouldn't need nearly so strict a firewall.
@Timothy McLean it's about continuing the same bad behaviour while saying it's the fault of creators when they get caught for it. If youtube provides all the tools and can prove it then they can just say "Well it's not us, they just didn't follow the instructions to prevent this from happening."
@Lucas Zhu The video shows correctly there is no problem with COPPA. The FTC was aware of the problems. UA-cam makes it look like they were not. It is UA-cam creating chaos
The new scariest five words you'll ever hear: "Introducing UA-cam's new automated system".
MattheJ1 worse than “ENEMY AC-130 ABOVE”
MattheJ1 Lol now I have to delete the one video I have on my channel very irrelevant channel.
*visibly terrified*
I'm from the future, it's scary AF 😣
Christ...
This is extremely insidious and disgusting.
The moment I heard about this case I immediately thought about how UA-cam could easily stop targeting children with ads.
It's too much of a financial loss to lose that. They don't have to give up on all of the targeted ads on children.
All they had to do was make a first time log in that says "We use information such as age, watch history, gender, and various other things to make Curated Ads for your benefit. You, or your parents, must consent to this, otherwise you cannot use our site. For more information, check out *link to moneysense*"
I don't understand how after all this, because people want to support and stay on youtube. I have to be honest, if youtube ceases to exist, I don't know if I'll be happy or sad. happy because google has tired me, it unloads the responsibilities to the users that however it treats like sl*ves, taking huge amounts of money from us all (percentages on the advertising, percentages on the donation, etc), and now in order to earn still money, it puts in danger the own users, making them risk the fine. The only thing that will make me sad will be to think of all the people who support themselves thanks to youtube.
I strongly hope that this is the end of youtube and that we find a better platform, decentralized and where users have the power (like LBRY)if possible.
@@ebbandfloatzel
That would actually be very logical.
Isn't it weird how any normal person can think of a simple and reasonable solution, but the FTC and UA-cam can't.
@@Amber_Phoenix the problem is that the consent must be from the parents, not from the child. youtube has no way of knowing if the parent has accepted the contract, unless youtube forces the registration with a credit card, etc.
@@aurorareali7125 even still, how many people actuall y read the wall of legalese text that pops up when agreeing to the terms of service, and how many parents would sign up to UA-cam for their own use, then let their kid use their logon?
I love how the UA-cam game is now "be advertiser friendly or be demonotized but not too friendly or else you're now kid friendly and now you're suuuuper demonotized."
You gotta be adult. But in a boring way! None of that horror-reviewing, true-crime-, LGBT-, and/or mental health-discussing, throwing-around-the-C-word kind of stuff.
First of all UA-cam is now over and secondly of course it's not gonna work out it's now a mess everyone will get too frustrated and leave UA-cam I know this cause it's just too many rules..no one can be perfect it's not possible
demonetized, all controls and options eliminated, all means for it to be seen removed with the exception of going directly to your channel. oh and it cant be in a play list and we will not tell you subscribers it exits. infact. more people will likely see it if you put it unlisted, turned off targeted ads and tweeted a link to it...
“onision is fine tho. just harass and stalk your exes and other youtubers and you’re gucci.”
@@AlisaForestHillsBrigades One issue with that idea is that UA-cam has always been a mess, especially for the big channels with multiple operators that they target. Folding Ideas' VidMe video went over that a bit, I think it made the point pretty clear.
What really gets me is that UA-cam has spent the past few years discouraging creators from producing anything but all-ages content through the threat of demonitization. Now that same content might put them at risk, if the lack of swearing and adult humor allow it to be construed as specifically for children.
Reilly it’s a real conundrum
Sounds like they're just trying to get the riff-raff off UA-cam so they can focus on only giving money to the big channels.
Is it a catch-22?
That's a great point.
Scott Watrous yep, making way for all the late night tv host UA-cam channels, all the Will Smith-like channels taking over the platform. Channels who they’d never actually go after with this compliance.
Everyone: The algorithm is the problem, not the creators
UA-cam: *More algorithm? Well if you insist*
All these efforts let me think that UA-cam actually doesn't like UA-cam.
They like add money, but they don't like liability and they don't like paying for actual humans to do site moderation. So they tend to put as much they can under their algorithms control and build said algorithms to prioritize getting add money.
Of course not. UA-cam likes money. End of sentence
Google doesn’t really like UA-cam. It’s a money sink. Even with all the ads, it’s insanely expensive to host the massive amount of content that is available on UA-cam. I don’t know where they’re at now but industry experts reckon that UA-cam has made a loss every year leading up to 2019.
Robby Rob supposedly UA-cam doesn’t even make Google any profit, so I think UA-cam like is the red headed step child of the Alphabet company family.
@@sovietcanuckistanian but the number of videos uploaded to the site hourly makes it nigh impossible for a set of humans to monitor the videos without bottlenecking the upload rate. So there is really no good solution to this problem.
The FTC should multiply the payment required by UA-cam tenfold for their malicious compliance. This is a bad faith effort, through and through.
Shut up i will not lett UA-cam do this
Agree, $170m is a drop in the bucket for Google.
Clickbait title: UA-cam sells broken glass to kids and YOU have to clean it up!
missing a question mark
That isn't how clickbait works. Clickbait implies that it is a misleading statement.
@@DriscolDevil no lol clickbait is baiting a click not misleading
That’s not even clickbait, that’s literally all this is
@@akroblodon9449 No, clickbait is misleading for clicks. Trying to draw viewers is just how marketing works in general.
This is probably one of the only proper, researched, level-headed videos on the topic on all of UA-cam. 👍 But even then, it only tangentially stated that this is specifically protecting the _privacy_ of children rather than their innocence. This isn't about protecting children from nasty content that could traumatize them, it's _only_ about data-collection. I have yet to see any videos pointing out that distinction. :-\ Also, Google believes in having _all_ the informations, but only giving out a bit. 😒
Thank you for helping setting the record straight and reaffirming that UA-cam is a garbage website
Emily Daenzer yet, here we are... 😣
He already did a video on how UA-cam is garbage, but no one is going anywhere.
Try 3Speak and d.tube.
Ron Nickels Ron Nickels it’s hard to find a comparable site and get a majority to migrate. Like twitch and mixer maybe UA-cam competition needs a popular spokesperson to spearhead the move. But I don’t see it happening anytime soon sad to say.
@@HeatherHolt This act affects all websites..Twitch and Mixer both so there is no running from it. I am personally afraid that my content so far hasn't been labelled for kids (since it isn't for them)and will be taken down
You are the first person that has pointed out the reality that UA-cam wants to be able to keep tracking data above all else and wants to shift onus of compliance to creators just to cover their own butts.
Rachel B shift onus. Cover anus
What went through my head when this hit my feed: "FINALLY... someone who will talk about the thing by actually explaining the thing."
This does feel like a bad movie, so no surprise you decided to make a video on the topic.
Dude the big joel video and now here, are we going to see you on the hbomberguy video ?
@@Lrripper I am yet to watch it. What an excellent Thursday!
This has to be a bad movie, I mean there's literally a person called Commissioner Slaughter.
Careful with your channel, most great generals began their career as children and early teens.
Kings and Generals your channels is fine no one gives a f about history
UA-cam to Creators: Here, pay my fines for me.
Creators: Send infinite Waluigis from Isabelle.
I WILL NEVER PAY!!!!!
As a content creator, I am deeply grateful for this video. There has been so much conflicting information flying around about this topic, and having Dan to cut through the noise with a succinct explanation is a godsend.
Thank you for this video. I was under the misconception (like UA-cam wanted) that there was a problem with the FTC's law, rather than how UA-cam decided to maliciously implement it. Don't know how UA-cam managed to dupe me so good. I feel played. As an animation channel, how UA-cam impliments this COPPA thing will spell disaster for myself and the rest of the animation community, and that frustration needs to be redirected to where it belongs: UA-cam.
This is a routine feature of American industry: any kind of financial or enviornmental regulation or labor protection is always retaliated against with a deliberately dysfunctional implementation designed to make the lives of workers and consumers miserable thereby discrediting the very concept of regulations and protections.
December 31st, 2019 11:59pm should have been a moment of celebration, but there I was, in a darkened living room, lit only by my PC monitor as I removed 24 animation based music videos from my non-monetized channel. Only days before, the copyright owners of AC/DC's "Who Made Who" had cleared my video for worldwide display. The bad news for the video was the choice of a dancing, prancing Buzz Lightyear. The other 23 removed videos featured either Just Dance green screen animated dancers or psychedelia oriented animated GIFs. It was difficult enough to forget about the couple of hundred hours that went into producing the videos. But what really got my worry warts itching was the threat of huge fines from a right-wing government out to control the message & the messengers, fanned by corner-stone financial sources important to the political party in power and fronted by the FTC's boiler room monitoring staff, out to prove their worth and out for the easy kill.
UA-cam is one of the worst monopolies of the internet age.
Google in general is creepy and unsettling as fuck when you start to think about it.
@@Donnerbalken28 I wish their company mottow hadn't been changed and that it was actually stived for
Does anyone have a halfway decent alternative? besides pornhub?
@@runecowman I recommend LBRY.
decentralized(p2p), direct exchange of money between user and creator, without percentages taken by third parties.
there is both the application for linux / windows / mac / android / IOS and the web version.
I don't think it makes sense to opt for a youtube clone (centralized, no power to the users, a company decides for you).
maybe it will be difficult at the beginning, but over time these new platforms will grow and surpass youtube.
opt for a UA-cam clone is easier at the beginning, but over time we will find ourselves in the same current situation.
@@aurorareali7125 And P2P models like that are destined to run into the RIAA using DMCA to shut it down. That is always been the death of decentralized video models
Who's ready for a class action lawsuit against UA-cam?
@Fatelyne : Seriously. They took 8chan from us, we should take UA-cam from them.
What money did you lose from youtube, what damages were done warranting a payout? Dont say stupid shit
Says the person still using their platform.
Keep celebrating that you are going to blow your own foot off.
@Fatelyne then stop using it.
@@kafkabigmon Look at the idiots you are talking to, they think they are owed money for everything.
I was waiting for this one specifically because when UA-cam starts messing up and everyone is confused/scared you can never really tell who's got the right story
“When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”
A law that effectively summarises why UA-cam’s automated crap does not work. Additionally, people at Google should have been taken to jail for this shit; that is the only language they will understand.
So it’s like Tumblr’s algorithm for mature contents, but in reverse.
Never trust a robot, EVER!
This video is like sequel/spin-off to the video "Weird Kids' Videos and Gaming the Algorithm
"
Spiderman vs Elsa
Whoever Wins, We Lose
My favorite part of this was the couple of days (weeks?) when almost every Panty and Stocking clip on youtube was marked as “for kids”.
6:59 That is a perfect explanation for UA-cam's mindset on pretty much everything nowadays, I gotta quote that. The FTC is barely to blame for all the problems going on here, as we all should've damn well expected.
God they really went for the worst way to fix this, youtube can actually push youtube kids. Then make stricter rules for people who are actually aiming for kids. Keeping the check if it is for kids then for those who do check it, then that content would be analyzed. Or you know, not target kids.
or they could have literally dumped all their non-compliant data and remade the system so that it never happens again within reason, but here we are
In your first sentence, does "they" refer to the FTC? Because it sounds to me like the FTC is basically in the right here. As quoted in the video, they said youtube's algorithmic solution was trash, for the exact same reasons Dan also said they're trash.
@@Dorian_sapiens I'd assumed "they" referred to youtube but upon re-reading it does seem to refer to the ftc instead.
Dorian sapiens I do mean UA-cam, however I see how it can be seen as the FTC. Although the FTC also should update what they see as child content
@@cookie_keko OK, now I see what you mean, and I agree! Thanks for clarifying.
Can we place something like:
"This video is not for kids, or of persons 13 years and under. Your data will be collected by youtube. By continuing to view this video, you or your guardian explicitly give permission for youtube to collect data.
The creator of this video is not liable for any information or data that might be collected from you."
Yeah the smarter and saner option
That makes way more sense. Only UA-cam the company should be fined
Kids can’t legally consent to that.
Eh, there's strict liability. I don't think this would work.
Ali the Heep +
Problem: "You collect too much personal data"
Solution: Collect less personal data
UA-cam&FTC solution: Destroy content instead
I have some suggestions for youtube:
General Reminder, you have to be 13 years or older to make an account Ergo only teens, adults, and seniors can have one
-First, make comments, notifications, likes. ALL require an account to be signed in to even view regardless of video rating. This would protect our children from seeing inappropriate comments without a parent or older sibling being signed in.
-Second. Add some account settings to control what the VIEWER can see/ interact with. i.e DISABLED Comments, Notifications, Likes. JUST Comments. and ALL Enabled.
This would allow parents to protect their child from inappropriate
comments and their childrens data being collected, while also allowing
adults to still comment/read comments on toys for possible unmentioned
defects such as toxins or choking hazards. Or even to enjoy fan made
content or kid content themselves, since the data could only be
collected with it enabled by the adult. Of course the DISABLED feature
would be enabled by default. Maybe even make enabling it harder, like
requiring a long randomly generated security key that is sent to the
parent's email to be manually typed in not copy and pasted.
-Third, leave it up to the Viewers Discretion whether a video is kid
friendly or not. Since Bots can miss flag It happened with tumblr where
you can STILL find porn despite the bots, something could seem kid
friendly but contain profanity or inappropriate content. Or the content
creator could mislabel it on accident or because they KNOW it's not just
for kids. WHICH youtube could still be sued over by the FTC for
"failing to abide by COPPA". My idea is, Add a new button before the like thumbs up icon to flag a video as kid friendly. Then have the bots just count how many times it was toggled on, and ONCE it reaches a certain number BAM video flagged as kid friendly. Then to override the flag, the creator would only have to provide proof that video isn't for kids or just for kids. Even a simple statement or swear word in the video would do. Then once it's flag is removed, the threshold number for the video is DOUBLED to make it harder to abuse Much easier and less prone to mistakes from the bots.
-Forth. Allow kid friendly videos to be added to playlists, since some
parents would like to make a playlist for their child for them to view
while they are busy or away. This way to avoid an inappropriate video from being shown by mistake
If you agree, PLEASE let the UA-cam, FTC and COPPA officials know about my suggestions and please share.
Coppa may be right, but UA-cam isn't handling it properly.
I have some suggestions for youtube:
General Reminder, you have to be 13 years or older to make an account Ergo only teens, adults, and seniors can have one
-First, make comments, notifications, likes. ALL require an account to be signed in to even view regardless of video rating. This would protect our children from seeing inappropriate comments without a parent or older sibling being signed in.
-Second. Add some account settings to control what the VIEWER can see/ interact with. i.e DISABLED Comments, Notifications, Likes. JUST Comments. and ALL Enabled.
This would allow parents to protect their child from inappropriate
comments and their childrens data being collected, while also allowing
adults to still comment/read comments on toys for possible unmentioned
defects such as toxins or choking hazards. Or even to enjoy fan made
content or kid content themselves, since the data could only be
collected with it enabled by the adult. Of course the DISABLED feature
would be enabled by default. Maybe even make enabling it harder, like
requiring a long randomly generated security key that is sent to the
parent's email to be manually typed in not copy and pasted.
-Third, leave it up to the Viewers Discretion whether a video is kid
friendly or not. Since Bots can miss flag It happened with tumblr where
you can STILL find porn despite the bots, something could seem kid
friendly but contain profanity or inappropriate content. Or the content
creator could mislabel it on accident or because they KNOW it's not just
for kids. WHICH youtube could still be sued over by the FTC for
"failing to abide by COPPA". My idea is, Add a new button before the like thumbs up icon to flag a video as kid friendly. Then have the bots just count how many times it was toggled on, and ONCE it reaches a certain number BAM video flagged as kid friendly. Then to override the flag, the creator would only have to provide proof that video isn't for kids or just for kids. Even a simple statement or swear word in the video would do. Then once it's flag is removed, the threshold number for the video is DOUBLED to make it harder to abuse Much easier and less prone to mistakes from the bots.
-Forth. Allow kid friendly videos to be added to playlists, since some
parents would like to make a playlist for their child for them to view
while they are busy or away. This way to avoid an inappropriate video from being shown by mistake
If you agree, PLEASE let the UA-cam, FTC and COPPA officials know about my suggestions and please share.
Coppa may be right, but UA-cam isn't handling it properly.
@@electrobob992 you should make your comment on the ftc website. They are taking comments until dec 9th. Idk how to include direct links into cmts but if you find the vid nerdecrafter where she talks about coppa and has link to ftc website where you can copy and past your comment
I mean, if you don't have any content, you can't collect personal data anymore, right?
Mod 1: I dunno, Boss. This is really dry, is mostly a guy looking at the camera without overt-the-top graphics, and uses words like "granular" and "commission", are we sure this video is for kids?
Mod 2: He said the words "Hasbro" and "Disney" and showed 3 seconds of that superheroes linedancing animation, how much more explicit does he need to be for you to get it?
Can we get this in trending so we know why youtube has an apocalypse in like 3 months?
In order to do that, all of us would have to share if to get it trending
3 months? Try literally right now since people are already deleting their channels out of fear that something worse than losing their entire channels could possibly happen to them.
@@mjbridges People I know from other sites. Not anyone I actually watch.
Theres literally a Commisioner Slaughter working on this, god rest our souls
Dollightful is one of my favorite UA-cam channels (if not my favorite, since I get so excited when she uploads!) and I love that many of these COPPA explanation videos are using her as an example of family friendly, NOT FOR KIDS doll customizing. She does some gnarly transformative stuff with those dolls, man. Even I’d need my Dad’s help and I’m well into adulthood! Yet she could be penalized just for her choice of medium and colorful tendencies. Messed. Up.
Danielle C god, the whole 'colour' thing is just frustrating. Colours. Only for kids. No adult likes colour. Only beige.
watson483 1984 Orwell Grey only
watson483 Every adult is a business man in a Gray tweed suit. There is no outlier.
"Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter"
Rebecca Slaughter
SLAUGHTER
That's the most metal naume ever
Rebecca Sugar's evil twin
I've spent the past couple of days looking at many different videos speaking on this issue. Yours is by far the best one, followed by a social media lawyer whose name slipped my mind.
Thanks!
I knew this would happen as soon as the UA-cam Kids app came out. I knew there was no way to ensure the content was child appropriate unless actual humans were monitoring it and there was no way that would happen. It was inevitable they'd get in trouble.
Thank you for answering the question I've been having, why can't UA-cam just turn off ads for kids. I guess the answer is obvious though.
You'd be surprised at how many times I've seen real-estate videos get flagged as "kids content." Real-estate videos! Auto and motorcycle repair videos are also increasingly getting flagged as for kids. It's driving me nuts.
i actually came to a similar conclusion on my own given the evidence, and like you, i am confused as to why the FTC is going after individual youtubers rather than google adsense, and i can only assume that the people that complained to the FTC only complained about youtube and weren't familiar with google adsense.
In conclusion:
don't trust youtube
complain to the FTC about targeting youtubers and go after google adsense instead
BetterThanYouXuD That’s interesting idea I will look into it
Who are the UA-camrs which the ftc has gone after? I haven't heard of any actual cases of this, just vague fears of what could happen (as discussed in this video)
@@smickles not specific youtubers; youtubers in general. And they haven't actually done it yet; they said that they _would_ do it. The exact quote from one of it's representatives was "not only can we sue google and youtube, but also individual channels and youtubers". Naturally, they would more than likely sue only the worst offenders (i would imagine the ones that get people the most upset), but i feel that would still be crossing a line since youtubers don't actually have much of a say in who's information gets collected and subsequently sold. In addition, since he didn't mention specifically Google AdSense and I can't find anything about the FTC sueing them yet, it feels really up in the air about whether they will do so at all; but then again i am uncertain of the connection between Google AdSense and youtube (it might be that youtube collects the information, then immediately passes it off to AdSense to be processed and sold. if this is the case, then the grounds they have to sue might not be there at all (though I haven't done enough research into that and am not a lawyer so i can't say for sure either way, but considering they can sue youtubers i would presume that they would))
This is just a backdoor to subtle censorship. For now it's child directed content but who knows what it will be in the next decade or so ?
Probably because they decided it in a settlement and not in an actual trial.
fun fact: the donald duck cartoon "der furhers face" is marked as YT kids
This is the calmest, no-nonsense smackdown I've ever watched.
So in other words, UA-cam forces compliance (and repercussions) upon its content creators -- the life blood of its very business -- and yet gets to continue skimming revenue off mis-targeted ads along with collecting and analyzing said mis-targeted data to further its ad business model. Typical corporate profit-friendly manipulation for rules compliance.
there really needs to be a youtuber union
YA9 We have one! It’s called FairTube; the channel Jeorg Sprave hosts FairTube info videos.
You can only join a Union as an employee, if independent creators Unionize it's called a Trust, which is highly illegal.
I'm pretty sure it's not "highly illegal" to collectively bargain just because you technically don't have an employer.
See, the issue with a hypothetical UA-camr union, even if it were only applied in the US, is that not every place has the same laws regarding union protections.
I live in North Carolina, where we have a ton of so-called "right to work" laws that effectively neuter any collective bargaining power unions could potentially have, so a union of internet contractors (which is the closest thing to what you could legally classify UA-camrs as) would run into a TON of logistical issues as far as how to effectively implement it.
I honestly think a shorter, more clicky video would be good for this. Or at least rename this one to "UA-cam lied about COPPA" to get it trending.
I mean, I didn't see your title and realize at all that it was going to contradict every other video I've seen. I only came because I knew you would have the scoop and I could trust you, while not so much anyone else.
But this video needs to get to the people who normally don't watch your vids.
Plus I like the irony of using clickbait to exploit the algorithm for good instead of evil.
With several of the creators I watch going off about this COPPA development, I was starting to get very worried about what the future of UA-cam might be. I’m still worried, but this is almost reassuring because it feels less like creators are being targeted by the FTC for creating content that shares broad definitions with children’s content and more like UA-cam’s general automated fuckups.
"a UA-cam channel is an operator."
already a bullcrap claim, but when did I tell UA-cam to data collect?
You're still one of the best UA-camrs reporting on social/content platforms and their evolution!
This is hands down the best video I've seen about the whole COPPA situation on UA-cam. Its clear, straight-forward, and takes the situation seriously, but does not engage in fear-mongering. Great stuff man!
Wow
It is almost as if UA-cam shouldn’t have forced its creators to make child friendly content
Oh golly gee gosh darn
You're out here doing the Lord's work as always, thank you
This is the most informative breakdown of this I've seen yet!
*sees dollightful footage*
You have good taste in doll customizers
Holy shit, the only video on this platform that looks at this problem with a clear lens and not shitting on the FTC out of habit.
I saw a mashup of WAP and Take Me to Church flagged as children’s content once. I think that’s proof enough that something in this system is still deeply flawed.
With every new way UA-cam does to screw over content creators, i must ask:
Why are we still here? Just to suffer?
Because, as yet, no one has made a better alternative.
No. You are here because UA-cam remains the best place to distribute videos to lots of people, because it's basically the only video website frequently visited by lots of people.
sadly youtube is the best of the best when it comes to video hosting and distribution, even when it sucks... big f
@@timothymclean you're forgetting p0rnhub
The content I've lost... the revenue I've lost... won't stop hurting
Excellent video!
Covers everything I've been thinking and more with eloquence and detail.
UA-cam absolutely has the power to remove information collection from users deemed under 13.
UA-cam's gotten it's own lootbox controversy I see
Surprise Engagement
Why can’t kids 12 and under just go on kids UA-cam I don’t get it
The kids app only has like toy/educational videos
Nothing interesting to any one above the age of 10
Zipzie Games you’re not wrong
Zipzie Games Either way this shouldn’t be anyone’s problem but their parents. This is the result of bad monitoring by the parents.
It's also a pain in the ass to navigate, it doesn't really work well for keeping up with subscriptions, and it arbitrarily blocks videos from channels that should have no problem being shown to kids. My daughters use it, and despite being under 13 I routinely find myself considering letting them use the regular app, because the Kids app is so janky.
I'm a huge fan of doll repainting videos (as well as a costomizer myself) so thank you for making this
Thank you for this video - it really needed to be said. I thought the FTC was being ridiculous, but then I read the examples they listed in the lawsuit and realized it was pretty clear cut.
I can see why the issue is frightening now.
Also terrible timing given the recent "Commercially Viable" scare.
read the TOS
Easily the clearest & most thought-out response to this whole thing I've seen. Thank you for constantly folding our ideas :)
Regarding the issue of recommendations, how does the algorithm go forward recommending videos for child viewers if metrics that typically determine viewership are limited to videos that are not for children? Will children be more likely to be recommended adult content due to these measures?
I'd imagine content marked as "for kids" would get put in some kind of special playlist made by youtube('s algorithms because let's face it youtube is averse to having humans work on content sorting/flagging) but this is an interesting question that needs a more concrete answer from youtube itself.
Kid: *watches Baby Shark*
The Algorithm: Next up - Deadly SHARK Attacks BABY at Western Australian Beach (DISTURBING FOOTAGE!!!!!)
@@katejay9786 Responsible parent: "That's enough youtube for today, back to kidstube!"
@@katejay9786 Bought to you by Channel Nine Fearmongerin- Channel Nine News!
I suspect that they aren't allowed to collect individualized data, but they could still collect anonymized data about how many viewers from one video go watch another video. Hence why that last line wasn't crossed out at 6:07.
I mean how can they know if people are "watching multiple videos" if they can't collect any data at all?
Thank God finally a resonable video about the COPPA settlement. Thank you, Sir!
I always wondered: why can't channels (say, channels above a certain size, to prevent abuse) allocate themselves as "not for kids, i promise" such that when a video is flagged from them as such it is automatically sent for human review. This would achieve UA-cam's technological backstop, while also preventing adult-focused content that discusses children's media (and similar such channels) from being utterly fucked by this system.
because that would make too much sense
That's work for a human and UA-cam is spending too much money on design changes to hire actual staff. /Joke
UA-cam may be making profits for all we know of their disclosed financials, but the popular conception is that it's losing money on the day and if that's true they definitely wouldn't want to waste their money on even basic human moderation when they get anywhere from roughly 100-500 hours of video uploaded a minute. That and it's a tech company and all their models exist on using algorithms and tech to replace humans if at all possible and UA-cam needs to present stability in its technocratic systems abilities to do the job well
The moment UA-cam gets a Hulu to its Netflix, an Amazon to its Ebay, it will most certainly die a painful horrifying death.
More extreme. Netflix lives. Ebay lives.
UA-cam won't
So youre telling me if UA-cam thinks im a kid they arent going to steal my data and spam me with ads anymore? How can I flag everything as for kids?
You don't have to. Go into your Google account, and you can disable Ad Personalization. myaccount.google.com/data-and-personalization
It doesn't stop ads though. It only stops *targeted ads*.
On an end-user level? Oh, you are missing the point entirely....
@@AceMcCrank I do not get it then. Surely, it is better to either have children accounts that allow you to register your age if you are under 13 or have "child mode" on parent's accounts and have a seperate password for getting out of the child mode and disable the personalized ads in those cases, right? What is the problem with that?
@@taylorford1689 This is actually close to what I considered for a solution. Parent account can create "child" accounts for their children to watch on. That account is now NOT being tracked, and can only get G-rated ads, and cannot comment on videos, nor are any particular videos recommended on UA-cam or using the UA-cam Kids app (UA-cam App would default over if the signed in user is under 13). As per the agreement between the FTC and UA-cam, Children's content would have to be marked by the content creators, and ONLY videos marked as targeted for under 13 would be allowed to be shown for the UA-cam Kids app or an under 13 account on PC. Repeated violations of letting your kid use your ADULT account to make comments or watch videos could get your account terminated if reported and found to be true.
In my vision, Kid's accounts would not need any identifying information. You could even give these accounts aliases if you wanted to. There would be a tool where a parent can upgrade a Kid's account to a Teen account which would then need to have its information updated. Passwords at every step. Switch back to parent's account? Password. Upgrade to Teen account? Password.
UA-cam's current system they are implementing is overstepping and is going to cripple creators until UA-cam becomes just another Netflix; no user-created content will exist anymore in favor of the corporate agenda in the name of freedom of profitability for Google.
... so every video that discussed Elsagate are now labeled "for children", if they showed relevant footage.
Bold move, UA-cam
If UA-camrs all form a union it should be called Younion. Just wanted to share that thought
Ian Statham there already is one
RsDefcon Yah it’s already got a name, FairTube! Not as cool, but it works :)
I've been worried, given the automatic flagging of things associated with kids (not to mention lots of fans of kids' media making things for other fans in the spirit of the canon, picturing those fans as fellow adults, and being upset that their work is marked as for children). This is a very good take on the issue.
Seems to be a classic example of (trying to) socialize the costs (in this case putting the burden of compliance on the channels owners) while privatizing the profit (keep collecting all the data)
This is another example of where UA-cam and Google should be using real people. Yes, you can have an automated system to weed out "potential" target channels. But after that point, you should have REAL human beings checking the list of channels for accuracy. Anything less is a complete disregard and alienation of the workers who put this content out there and make UA-cam/Google their money. It should be treated in the same class as employee discrimination. They are discriminating on content creators covering specific topics just by virtue of the topic being talked about without regard to context and/or accountability of the employer (in this case Google). Oh, and Folding Ideas' points are 100% correct as well. There is nothing stopping Google from just stopping ads towards 12 and under. There is no reason that teenagers or children should be advertised to AT ALL anyways.
Thank you for this. It's everything I wanted to say but didn't have a platform to speak on.
Thank you, I was vaguely aware of Coppa uproar but had no real understanding of the details. This was clear and concise and very well done of you.
Bots aren't always the best for recognizing content. Back when they were disabling comments on videos featuring "minors" (which they applied only randomly, and mostly to smaller channels), I had my comments disabled on my _*vintage doll*_videos. Literally, a bot thinks a piece of plastic is a living, breathing child! This does not bode well for the future.
COPPA: "OK youtube, some of your stuff is targetting kids, kids watch it and you gather data"
YT: "OK, here is the fine... EVERYONE listen to me, now you have to mark videos that are targeting kids, or algorithm will do it for you."
Creators: "Cool, and what will we get when such video is marked correctly?"
YT: "Video will be effectively dead. No recommendations, you can't engage with it other than watch it, 10% revenue, nearly unsearchable."
Creators: "OK... but we can now make more mature stuff on platform?"
YT: "No, faul language will flag your video, and anything half as suggestive as any music video will bring you down."
I'm amazed that you were able to say all that in just one breath!
Folding Ideas is the hero we need.
HANDS DOWN best video on what's goin' on with the COPPA situation right now. Great job man!
We need big channels like this one to pick a new video hosting site to migrate to. Pull the trigger. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm ready to bail on this dumpster fire.
I've been ready for years, every gaffe making me more willing
I mean, I guess we can see what Jeorg Sprave and the FairTube union come up with!
They tried that with Vid.me and Folding Ideas did a whole video on it.
I am ashamed to admit I watched a lot of the "help save our channels" videos and submit a comment to the FTC discussing the hyperbole between for/not for kids content and holding content creators liable. The fact that this is a UA-cam problem makes so much more sense. Spreading the word that this video exists to help educate people. Fingers crossed people see it...
I am going to be linking to this video so many times in the coming days and weeks. Thank you for making it, Dan.
...this is the single most comprehensive video I've seen about this and it has almost no traction-
QUICK SHARE THIS WITH UA-camRS AND THE FTC!
THE WORLD MUST KNOW THE TRUTH!
Just one more way for UA-cam to pass the buck to content creators so that they can continue to rake in profits without taking any responsibility.
Almost three years later, and we're still here
Is there anybody out there?
It’s so crazy that we that THIS would be the biggest deal in 2020
You sir, have provided by far the best video on this matter. To sum it up nicely, UA-cam is protecting their own interests at the expense of the vast majority of channel owners, by passing the blame and burden of COPPA compliance to them. They also give half-assed measures in "helping" with compliance. FTC is naive to think that UA-cam is now suddenly doing the right thing.
Very good video explaining the situation from all sides. This should be recommended viewing for everybody on UA-cam and for the FTC.
At this rate we’re heading towards a you tubers Union.
Robert Michaels There is a UA-camr union allied with a European trade union called FairTube!
FairTube . info
@@elvellarambles9151 Americans are unable to unionize this way however under Independent Contractor status
UA-cam and FTC are finally clarifying the terms of COPPA. To recap, bright colors are not indicative of content that is deemed to be made for kids and FTC is aware of animation that's appropriate for general audience or mainly for adults. The main determining factor is if your content has been featured by websites or blogs that target children and if you yourself are 100% sure you didn't target children in the first place. It also seems that video games or video game characters from Minecraft, Roblox and Nintendo aren't indicative of child-friendly content if the nature of your UA-cam video is focused on a different or more mature direction, art should be fine in such case since it applies to a general audience. Just because a child can find your content interesting doesn't mean you have to label your video "made for kids".
Lastly, the penalty of 42 grand varies considering many factors including the channel's income, how much the video has earned in ad revenue and the severity of the situation.
Source:
www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2019/11/youtube-channel-owners-your-content-directed-children?
#ftc #youtube #youtuber #hope
Technically, since youtube account holders are restricted to age 13 and up, arguably the PII data collected when a child uses youtube under a parent or sibling's account is the account holder's PII, not the child's PII...
UA-cam: Hey kids, we have UA-cam Kids.
Also UA-cam: But, don't watch UA-cam Kids...it's a dead platform.
Kids: UA-cam is a dead platform all together, get with the times.
Shit like that is the sole reason why I find some ideas behind EU changes (regarding last years article 13 and all that stuff) good as while it is broken to some extent, one of the aim is to put back the burden on YT rather then have creators get hit all the time.
This shit really has to change, YT is no more a host than any news website working on freelance contracts, they may host someone else's content but they aren't just a host like a bare server, they control way too much of it without even giving their users the tools they would need to correct all of it to be remotely called a simple host!
So you are saying Joe Blow 30 year old Minecraft UA-camr Won't be dragged kicking and screaming in front of the FTC and forced to pay a massive $40,000 fine all because they marked their videos as not for kids. That really really good to hear if that's true.
But sadly UA-cam will fuck that man in the ass
Thank you for laying it out so cleanly, and thank you for reminding us once again that corporations cannot be trusted and will only do things if it improves their profit margins.
Important to note is that any video uploaded from an IP-adress in a country other than those under FTC and COPPA jurisdiction is basically safe from the 42 000 $ fine. The FTC would have to politely ask your country's authorities to hand you over to them in order for them to punish you. American laws can't reach an act committed outside of the country.
COPPA: we are just trying to protect kids!
Kids: *We are Protecting you from us!*
Without a doubt THE BEST video I have seen on this topic. Thank you.
This is old but Darr Mann still does not mark his channel for kids when his content is clearly targeting children. He should be fined for violating COPPA.
Serious question. If my stuff is not monetised on YT, am I still in danger of getting fined? I mean, they just have my email, not my home address and bank account... do they?
It's important to acknowledge the difference between "Child-directed" and "Child-appropriate". Child appropriate isn't specifically for kids and thus probably shouldn't be actively recommended to them by the algorithm, but doesn't contain anything "adult" they shouldn't be exposed to either. In other words, doesn't hurt anything if they see it, but they don't really benefit from seeing it either. Content creators should be prompted with 3 options upon uploading a new video: Child-directed, child appropriate, and strictly 13+ only. Content creators should be allowed some control in how they're represented (or omitted from) the algorithms. Not automatic, only possible to violate by willful mislabeling.
UA-cam has a lot of capability in place to make sensible changes that make the platform compliant in ways that won't cause confusion, much like the idea you posited about age definitions, but the point of this video is that youtube is more concerned with creating confusion than solving the problem. As one other commenter summarized it, the point is to possibly create enough pushback against COPPA to modify the law in such a way that preserves UA-cam's ability to collect lucrative child viewing information. Or it really is just UA-cam incompetence again, but it's hard to see that as the case when the fixes for compliance don't seem that hard to implement.
@@d3v1lsummoner I get the impression that the FTC are virtue-signalling, This isn't about advertising to children, television has been advertising to children for decades and it's been perfectly legal. This is about how the internet collects data on users for the algorithm to curate. Everyone understands the necessity of this and doesn't really have a problem with it until you swap out some of the words. Collecting info on kids sounds nefarious, taking advantage of the innocent youth or something. The logistics don't seem to matter, it's the assumptive principle.
Allegedly, the people making these laws are old dudes who don't even own cell-phones and are trying to dictate laws based on very outdated ideas of how technology works.
@@Elfos64 Well, I specifically mentioned this is about whether UA-cam can continue to collect information on children and didn't make an argument about advertising (though it should be mentioned that being able to sell posibly illegally acquired demographic information to advertisers is kind of the issue here. You might argue that kid's information should be treated the same way as adult info, but this isn't even true for contract law where children cannot be bound to an enforceable contract. Children are not legally considered competent to make such decisions including the decision about what sort of information they can give to companies). While you refer to it as 'virtue signalling' I think that mischaracterizes the intent. The FTC responds because activist groups are probably beating their drum, and as is the case with these federal agencies, their job is to respond to the concerns of whomever is yelling the loudest. Yes, I agree that the FTC guidelines are incompetently and vaguely written and made in response to probably ill-informed or short-sighted interest groups, but UA-cam has made this choice to fight for its ability to collect information through inconveniencing its users as opposed to caving to FTC pressure and giving it's users an easy fix that would cost them money and information. Or at least that's my hot take and the take of the video.
@@d3v1lsummoner I'd like to again call attention to when this was a non-issue with television ads. I'm sure that had some kind of statistic data on their audience, the ads would be effectively useless otherwise. If it wasn't an issue with television, it really shouldn't be much more an issue with the internet. I think we can agree this is an issue about people not getting the internet.
@@Elfos64 There is absolutely nothing comparable between the sort of demographic and personal taste information that Google (and other social media sites) is capable of collecting from video views and the primitive form of household based data collection people got from tv advertising in the past. The problem here is that Google is capable of collecting specific information about individual children including location, personal taste, active time, level of engagement in addition to logging their posts. And beyond that this information is further tied with google's ability to track cookies across multiple sites and platforms so they can often see where someone goes after watching a video or what sorts of links or ads they engage with. Again the sticky issue here is children are not legally competent and it's fair to argue that businesses cannot legally exploit their naivete at the cost of the privacy of themselves and their family. Granted, part of the problem is poor internet education for children and parents who aren't properly supervising their child's internet usage, but it's important to recognize that there is a difference between now and the past. And again, this isn't about whether you can advertise to kids or not, it's about what are the legal and ethical standards by which we allow children to give personal information and for companies to aggregate that information. And there is a reasonable argument to be had on that, but between UA-cam's obfuscation and the FTC's vagueness, we are likely to see a conflict.