Here's why he does this: there is a belief (which is supported by data) that videos under 5 minutes are not promoted. So he does the stuff in the first 5 minutes, then goes on for another 5 minutes that you don't want to watch (some people do). You watch the first 5 minutes and go to a different video. He gets his view and the ad revenue; UA-cam gets their ad revenue, you're happy, they are happy, everyone wins!
You got me good - I burst out laughing like I rarely do. Good thing I had just swallowed the bite (I'm having supper right now), otherwise ther'd be some cleaning to do now xD
Agreed. He's brushing this issue under the rug. It all comes down to some bureaucrat in the FTC labeling your video as made for children. What recourse do you have at that point?
Yes you are correct YOUR page will not be affected. There are thousands sites here that produce wholesome children content. Those producers are going to be demonitized.. The sky IS falling for them.
go read ftc updated notes on the website they answer these questions... again they go over gaming videos and animation,they said they know some of that can be either adult oriented or general audience oriented and it doesnt apply, even kids in videos, just cause their is kids in videos doesnt make it specifically for kids, they even said there are many factor they have to put together if it is kids. when they say language they arent talking about swearing, they are saying their you have to dumb down your language for your audience, are specifically targetting kids.amd is kids your only demographic. From what i see they are trying to put the youtubers that knew for a while now that they are for kids to go finally acknowledge they are. SO yes thought who KNOW AND KNEW for a while that their content was for a under 13 audience to make sure they comply, those who are unsure, mostly like dont have to unless they were targeting kids in their videos, but even then you have to look at the demographics of who is actually watching so this effects alot less people. I mean when we can be mad at this for those people, but it not like they didnt know for awhile they need to be on youtube kids.
@@JoshuaTerence38 My point is that there are thousands of excellent children's channels on this platform who's content creation cannot survive with the low monitization of being tagged "kid targeted" on this platform, or by having to move to the much less profitable "UA-cam Kids" platform. Those creators and their content will just disappear, and children will be worse off for it..
To preface this, I'm neither a legal expert nor have I researched this topic a lot. I'll just be trying to address your point about UA-camrs "trying to scare you" for views because I think it's unfair. I think that most of these content creators making videos on the topic are genuinely scared and here's why. "UA-camrs", as a group, are worried because a large amount of them belong to either vlogging, gaming, animation or certain hobbyist communities. In this video, you read an animator's comment and were a bit dismissive towards their concerns. If you took the time to compare the FTC's list to THEIR content instead of yours, you would notice that many of the bullet points can be marked as present. This animator's content may not be intended for children, but, as far as we know, it will be categorized as "kids content" by FTC's rules. The same rings true for most of the creators I outlined at the top of this paragraph. The problem here is that something can appeal to both children AND adults. Under COPPA, again *as far as we know*, if your content appeals to the former then it doesn't matter if it also appeals to the latter, it's still going to be marked as "kids content". THAT is why so many content creators are worried and making videos about this. Do I know if all that I have written above is 100% accurate? Hell no. It wouldn't be surprising if it was though and that's enough to scare you silly if your livelihood depends on UA-cam income.
Problem, as I understand it, is that there's huge amounts of content creators with those channels oriented towards adults but they are labelled as directed at children due to gaming content or whatever. And some have chosen the tab which says it is NOT directed towards children yet youtube can, and on some occasions have done, manually change it to kid-directed.
@@JoshuaTerence38 what I understood about it, there is middle ground for mixed audience within viewers. No problem. But in this case youtube as a platform does not give that option. Only either or another, no middle ground. Therefore no lawsuits but it will kill all the revenue of content creators who make money from their videos, and the rest scatter due misinformation and fear.
Obviously your channel is not aimed at children or any person the age of 13 or under. The angst displayed by many UA-camrs is because many of them make their living on UA-cam full time and either they have child directed content or they are aimed at Adults but present in a clownish or cartoonish way to help differentiate their channel. In addition there are topics that appeal to all ages or where parents engage in hobbies with their children. The most prevalent example is crafts where the target is home makers often using tools like CNC machines, lathes, sewing machines, modeling knives, 3D printers, toxic paints etc... but making stuff where the end user might be a kid such as greeting cards, dolls house furniture, dolls cloths, models, RC models, painting and drawing, cosplay, etc.... Others are adults with adult themed channels but using child toys such as Lego or action figures. COPPA in effect could demonetise these channels by either UA-cam automatically changing their adult designation to child or suspending their channel using their AI algorithms or the FTC doing a "sweep" as they have said they will and "shooting fish in a barrel" - their chilling phrase, fining the channel owner upto $42,000. The channel owner wouldn't known until suddenly they stopped getting cheques from google, their views and subscriptions plummeted and they couldn't pay this months rent on their apartment and/or they got a fine from the FTC. If as you suggest they mark their channel for Kids then they will lose 80% of their revenue making their channel unviable in many cases. It is a real fear not because they perhaps couldn't afford the fine or survive without the revenue from adds but because they couldn't afford to go to court and fight to reverse the decision. Lawyers are just too expensive for most UA-camrs. I am struck as well that a bunch of ageing adults in the FTC can absolutely define a child as being 13 or under and an adult being 14 and over. I know many Kids with more adult in them than most adults and I know of adults who behave like five year olds. I think You know who I am talking about. Curiously the law seems to choose ages without consistency, here for COPPA purposes an adult is 14+ but to drive a car, drink alcohol, watch pawn(sp), smoke, get married or join the Army it's different ages and probably different in different US states. I am surprised that no under 14 year olds watch your channel, I would have thought the seeds of a future law degree at Harvard must be set at a very young age. Perhaps you could encourage more youngsters into a career in law ?
Not to mention the bots on UA-cam are not a robot voice that sounds like your 50 year old mother. They are set up to err on the side of UA-cam. Don't worry though if they screw up they will be manually screening any video that gets more than a 1000 views in the first week and if they are able to determine that there really isn't a problem then they will be happy to send you an emai...... Maybe not because they lose any connection with you when they cut the channel. Send a letter perhaps? What's your address? They don't have it anymore. They stopped sending checks months ago. Oh well.You're just one of those whiny creators anyway. They don't need to worry. Look at Pewdie Pie and Chuckie2009. They are doing just fine. Sneelock has left the platform.
@Michael Defibaugh The simpler UA-cam can maintain thevrelationship the better for them. A flat percentage and only having two catagories of creator means simple math and no wiggle room.
your comment is perfectly hitting the nail on the head. I would add that it is not really Coppa threatening the channels but the machine learning google are proposing to use which is the thing that is likely to affect the channels as it is directly targeting child content aspects from background music, words used, colour palette and the background dressing of a set. So regardless of whether or not you are targeting a child audience google is targeting those factors. The other factor that is disturbing is that there will be apparently no way to get the decision lifted. So yes I agree Coppa is not an issue however, the process that google intends to apply to ensure that channels are obeying the FTC guidelines is very problematic. Personally, I think that the contract that you sign to use UA-cam should make the user responsible for whether or not children are viewing content that may be unsuitable or gathering personal data rather than place the burden on creators as at the end of the day you personally have no control over who watches your channel. (i apologise for any spelling or grammatical errors I am dyslexic and they can sneek past me)
it's a tricky problem ... if youtube is able to see who is under 14 for targetted adds then they can block them from viewing and direct them to youtube kids automatically. only overrideable by parent. there are other ways to crack this nut. i can't spell to save my life... as you can see no spell check on this device.
To be fair, people reacting this way is understandable. When you see fines as high as 42,000 Dollars being thrown around and you've got Andrew Smith from the FTC saying "Content Creators are always at risk of being fined", it's no wonder people are going to panic and threaten to leave.
Thanks for the video Steve. Nice to hear someone go over the specifics without claiming the sky is falling. Also thanks for letting me get my daily required Chicken Little reference in.
Is there any way to revisit this issue as it pertains to video game content creators? Many of the concerns that have them worried are the ones you specifically do not have to worry about. Let's say for example that you represent a content creator who's sole income comes from YT, and while your client's game is rated E for everyone, there are animated characters that clearly could be appealing to children. You have empirical evidence that 95% of your client's audience is in the 13+ range, but undeniably there are some children that play this game and watch your client's 300+ videos. I believe this scenario represents most of the people "freaking" out about COPPA, and for good reason. Their content while not intended for children may appeal to children and if marked as "For adults" in order to sustain their income revenue stream may be subject to review from FTC and result in the fine for willfully misrepresenting the target audience, at any occurrence this would bankrupt any smaller content creator just barely getting by on YT. Would be interested in your take on this scenario. I came to your channel because your view turned me around on a topic a few months ago, but think in this topic you too narrowly limited your discussion to how it applies to your channel and while admittedly that is your understandable first concern, I feel the title in this video could more accurately be titled "COPPA is Not the End of the World for Legal discussion YTers". Love to hear your thoughts.
You just made an airtight case that *your* channel can never be tagged as directed toward children. You've made *no* case that many other channels not intended by their creators to be directed toward children, can't be so tagged. The danger here, is that you, the content creator, do not have the final say about that; the FTC bureaucrats do. Can all of them be counted on, never to make a capricious ruling? On how many million videos that fall under this rule? I am not a content creator on YT or elsewhere ... at present. So maybe I don't "have a dog in this fight." But I am a content consumer on YT, and I have to say I'm more than a little concerned about this. Maybe I do "have a dog in this fight." In any case, thanks for a real lawyer's perspective on the topic - subject, of course, to your disclaimer. I could even say, thanks for your COPPA plea. Fred
I suspect that most of the fear stems from YT's intent to use an algorithm to decide which ones are actually for kids, but not marked as such. Given prior examples of YT's poor use of algorithmic detection methods, concern is not unfounded.
Thanks for the rational explanation! I’m watching other UA-camrs panic and they’re ready to shut down their channels. I will go check out the FTC site.
Steve, your channel is not at risk, directly. I am not a content creator but instead I am a content consumer that has enjoyed UA-cam until now. The risk to me (not that the sky is falling on this) has to do with a lot of family friendly, general audience content that has developed on UA-cam that my family and I enjoy along with many others that could be construed as directed at kids under 13. Many of those content creators in that category may decide it is not worth the risk, cost, time and trouble and leave UA-cam. In that case I start looking for a new media outlet as UA-cam becomes no longer appealing. I know after the dust settles on this everybody will be just fine. But things like this have a way of reshaping internet culture.
Thanks for being calm during the storm Steve. You made me look at my analytics. 25-44 year olds is all I got. A bit narrow. I need more of the old fogie factor.
What about content aimed at BOTH adults and children? Thousands of kids go to model aircraft and model train shows where they can watch people using knives and other potentially dangerous tools. The content appeals to both age groups. How should it be marked?
I disagree with your statement that youtube is a company so just go somewhere else. Yes youtube is a company but they have a monopoly worth of the market share and benefit from the same protections as a utility company. If you dont like your electric bill you cant just jump to another one. Sure you could try and go solar but its not the same DTE has you in Detroit and UA-cam has you in relevant online video land.
UA-cam knuckles under and just how far behind are the rest of them. A horde of lawyers smells blood in the water and just like the asbestos and talcum powder fiasco they will be digging through every possible avenue for getting a piece of the money. Steve might be the only honest man left in the profession. Or not.
Sounds like UA-cam needs to be regulated like the utility companies are regulated. Maybe we should ask the FTC to step in to protect young naive kids from being taken advantage of by UA-cam and advertisers.
@@MikeHeath Mom and Dad wouldn't let us watch late night TV. It was their opinion, it wasn't good for us. If we turn our kids loose with the ability to access anything they want, but complain that the government doesn't protect them, we are giving up our rights as parents because we are to lazy to be good ones.
@@OldSneelock Clearly the sarcasm in my comment was lost. Everyone is screaming that the sky is falling because the FTC created a law to protect young naive kids from being taken advantage of and now it's being enforced. Obviously, responsible parents are closely involved with how their kids use the Internet and don't government hand holding.
Steve, your channel clearly doesnt fall under COPPA. However, there are many large channels that are not aimed at children, but tick multiple check boxes that do apply. They are the ones that are extremely worried about how COPPA will affect their livelihood.
In this case you are wrong Steve. It’s the folks that put up content that can be construed to be for children, so topics like plastic model kids, Star Wars, train sets, model planes. Basically there’s always the boy in a man, so although we “grow up” a substantial number still as a hobby as an adult make complex plastic model kits, or a huge train set, or a millennium falcon quarter scale model. These are not aimed at children but adults, and there’s millions of them and thousands of content creators, and COPPA will because these creators can’t 100% say these aren’t aimed at children and aren’t skilled in law or have the finances to fight any case, will just stop producing content.
Do I make videos targeted at children..? Answer, an emphatic "No". If it were that easy then I wouldn't be writing this. However, I write children's musicals and therfore have children in the videos I use to promote the music to adults, in the hope they might buy the score and perform it themselves.. The guidlines say (paraphrasing) "if the video contains children, then it's made for children", even though the videos arn't. I'm not some youtube conspiritory/click-bait nut, I'm just a normal guy, who write music that kids like, who can't run the risk of some federation lawyer somewhere trying to make a quick buck or name for himself from what would be a soft target. This COPPA thing is a nightmare for people like me.
The essential COPPA problem is that there is a huge gray area. For example, there are channels that discuss topics like history and use animation. There are channels that discuss animated movies for adults (by which I mean what you meant by "adult" in your video) analyzing them as works of art. There are channels that discuss mathematics that use animation. There are channels that are for toy collectors, many of them who would be adults or at least older teens. Some of these channels are pretty big business I guess. The question isn't whether a reasonable person might judge them as targeted to children, but whether an algorithm or a regulator would. That is the danger for them. Another area of concern is channels that may have children appearing in them. For example, I like to watch videos by a lawyer from Montreal named Viva Frei. Most of his recent content is about the law, but sometimes his family makes appearances in the video. Does that make it child directed under the rules you listed? The most reasonable answer is probably "it depends," and that is the problem. The limits that UA-cam will be placing on channels with content that may contain child directed material would essentially keep them from growing and becoming commercially viable (for example, no comments, so no interaction with viewers). Combine that with the fact that very few people have the financial wherewithal to fight the federal government should it decide that they are violating the law, many people will opt not to put this type of "family friendly" content up (not to imply that your content is not family friendly :) ). Bottom line: your channel will be fine, for which I am glad. But many other people that create good things will probably feel that that they can't use UA-cam any more. And that makes me sad. Rich Mills
You missed the most obvious point: Kids under the age of 13 are not allowed on UA-cam. So how can ANY content on UA-cam be directed at kids under 13? Isn't that what UA-cam Kids is for?
Steve, I’d like your opinion on a few things that I believe UA-cam, Content Creators, and video watchers could do to shield themselves from liability and limit the expected impact from this COPPA situation. #1. Keep the new self identification method in place to help those who intend to create content for children. #2. UA-cam Main should then force any videos not labeled or labeled not for kids, to be only accessible once an age verified account has been logged into on their platform. #3. UA-cam account settings should have a Parental consent check box that is reviewed/renewed every year. This would keep kids stuff open to children without logging in and shield Content Creators and UA-cam from the FTC. While allowing Google search results to appear even if the video is only viewable to an account holder.
The fear isn't from COPPA, it's from UA-cam, who is notorious for arbitrary censorship and account terminations and algorithm deranking. Just read the examples of what qualifies for child content. Half the stuff I watch on UA-cam as an adult could qualify.
As a web developer I have to deal with a lot of the regulations like this... Correct me if I'm wrong, but YT is a platform and the controller of the site and how it functions. The individual creator has no control over how the site functions such as setting/reading cookies and other "user data" interactions. My guess is their settlement included a big safe harbor escape clause if they created a self classification scheme. If they're redefining who the "operator" is then they're going to set the function of data collection solely on the setting you chose so that data collection is entirely in your lap.
Thanks for this video. How would an American law apply to content creators outside of the United States? Would an American Federal organisation be able to fine citizens of other countries?
You have explained so much in just a short time and I appreciate that. You have taken out the mystery of what UA-cam has handed their creators. Glad to know many of my friends can breath a little easier because they are small channels and are confused with some of the wording. Many have small children in the family that just happen to walk though in the background. Their content is not directed at children, but the adults or other parents. Homesteader channels, for example, were all worried about if they had to shut down all together. If that was the case we would miss vital information that they provide for how to look after food preparation. I'm 62 and follow how to grow (both animals and plants) and later preserve my end results. With the introduction of the computer/internet most information is now easier to access. Books are not kept in the family home like they were 15-20 years ago. This could have been a big blow to information sharing.
Just wanted to let you know that a few of your wonderful and informative videos were videos that I have shown to my 16 year old son. There was a few times that he had asked me questions that you had addresses in your videos and I felt that you had explained it far better than I ever could.
Two major concerns that I have been hearing from the model building and model trains communities are that in order to avoid potential conflicts, content will need to be less creative in order to attempt to retain the not aimed at children status, and that since these hobbies are outgrowths from what were traditionally considered to be toys, there could be an upcoming struggle to reverse arbitrary decisions by bureaucrats, which nobody can afford. Prior to the FTC issuing the guidance documentation which Steve is quoting here, there was a lot of concern being voiced over whether expanding "Directed at Children" to "Attractive to Children" is going to be an issue. Trains for an example can be very attractive to children of all ages, and a video about the locomotives in Cass, WV for example could well attract 5 year old viewers, even when targeted at an audience who are mostly over the age of 15. The other concern was that viewer demographic data was not going to be considered... prior to the latest guidance, that issue was at best unclear. So, the FTC and UA-cam aggravated much of the kerfluffle by their poor communications. It still remains to be seen if things turn out reasonably well. Because, we all know where the road paved with Good Intentions leads...
Ok so channels that deal with law, like yours, are fine. Good for you. Channels that deal with popular culture have to consider if it's worth being sued by the government over thier UA-cam channel.
Yay. When they take away all the other channels because of coppa this channel will have as many subscribers as PewDiePie, that's why he's not worried. When all the fun stuff is gone like video games, board games, arts and crafts, toys, kid friendly science/facts channels, comics, anime, skateboard channels, animation channels, etc there will be the good stuff... Like lawyer channels and stuff like that. I can't wait 😀
I’m at 4.4% due to the tractors and equipment on my page. So the “I’ll know it when I see it” plan doesn’t wash with me. Th channels that are talking about ending are the ones directed toward children. Their comments are turned off. (Not great for community engagement) and the ad revenue is tanked. I don’t think this is as harmless as you are implying.
I agree. There may be a question up in the air. This directly effects channels that are based on making family or kid friendly content. Their channels being basically wiped from recommendations with there comments shut off and their monetization gone. That basically is a death sentence for their channels.
But you have toy cars in your background that might appeal to children - you're in big trouble!! But while you exonerate yourself, your arguments aren't really applicable to others. Suppose that instead of a mid-50s guy talking about the law, you were a mid-50s guy who played classic video games. Would you be liable then? What if you were a 20-year-old who played current video games? An "I'll know it when I see it" law should be thrown out as unconstitutional.
I have two questions: 1. Given the fact that our rights under The Constitution are being shredded, how can an attorney who is wearing a shirt that says "I do not consent" be so willing to accept that COPPA will not be abused? 2. Just because COPPA appears to not directly threaten your channel, is it irrelevant to you if it appears to threaten others?
What I’ve seen from other attorneys discussing this is that all of your arguments that your channel is clear are presumptions. Google is aware kids log on through parents’ devices - you actually don’t know who is watching. You display “toy” cars which could attract a child under 13 to get a peek at the cool cars someone told them about. Not all children under 13 are uninterested in your content. My father gave my son subscriptions to Road and Track, Car and Driver, and Automobile well before his 13th Birthday (ironically they generated a lot of junk mail for hearing aids and erectile disfunction medication). I don’t disagree with the assumptions you’ve made. However, the FTC calling content creators “fish in a barrel” for fines wouldn’t make most content creators feel secure. The document the FTC has put out for public comment has a question 25 that seems to address content creators making these assumptions and using them to classify their content. Finally, I get the impression that COPPA is not the issue, but instead it is Google’s consent agreement that transfers liability to creators for Google’s failure to effectively control access that is the concern.
Is it true the legislation proposed to update this law is called: Children's Online Privacy Protection Act - Federal Extraneous Educational Legislation?
Here's the thing, unless your video is something like Teletubbies or ABC sing alongs, basically pre school level stuff, it's not fair to impose this on a channel. There are a lot of videos that I enjoy that people might be considered "for kids", things like lets plays and game walkthroughs a Mario, Pokemon, or Sonic games, animations by creators like LevelUp or TeamLevelUp, and MatPat's Game Theory and Film Theory are all examples. And it's not good enough as some people say, "you're stupid if you don't know if your videos are for kids or not", the problem is not whether you know or not. And what about these examples of general audience. And it doesn't just hurt content creators you will loose 90% of their revenue, it will hurt people who want to be able to view those videos, as now those videos will also be unsearchable.
If marked for kids makes it less likely that people find your video it will be even more likely that kids will find adult-oriented videos. Did anyone actually think this through?
@@crispyspa There's the "UA-cam Kids" app which is supposedly supposed to feature only kid-appropriate content. But who can say for certain if the app will actually do the thing that Google/YT says it will do?
Here's a tricky question that I don't really see/hear people talking about within this context: Is there a distinction being made by YT or the FTC for content that is being made specifically for children under 13 and content that is simply intended to be family-friendly which would include those same children under 13 and might actually appeal to some of those children?
I watch all of your videos. My wife says I sometimes act like a 10 year old. Does that mean you are in danger of violating COPPA? Just for the record I am 84. Keep up the great work.
The problem for many channels is that their content is not clearly 'for kids' or 'not for kids.' videos on gaming, toys (Lego for instance) and animation are & can be directed for adults as much as they're directed to children: they're universal, so there's ambiguity for these creators as to how they should apply their video settings. What are they supposed to do? They're caught between a rock and a hard place.
Under the FTC FAQ's, there is also a "general audience" or "mixed audience" exception to this ruling, so there is a lot more going on than most channels would have you believe.
The issue is, youTube is suppose to give a third option for "mixed audiences" but they deliberately only give creators two options. Everyone knows youTube has always had the ability to terminate any (or all) channels for any (or no) reason at any time.
We know your channel isn't at risk BUT what about the majority of UA-cam? At the end of the day, if they are still using that broad, catch-all list of criteria to determine what they consider child's content then COPPA is still a concern to most people. I clicked this video expecting you to say they've changed that but since they haven't, nothing's changed. I'm not a creator as yet but I would like to make videos. I'm holding out for a change in COPPA before I do.
Same here. I was thinking about making a series of knitting lessons directed toward adults, due to a request from a couple ladies off Facebook. Only said lessons could be considered to be directed toward young children, since I personally was 9 when I learned how. Never mind that young children aren't supposed to be able to have a UA-cam account to begin with.
@@Iris_Collins it's all stupid. I think the fact that people have to be 13 for UA-cam doesn't matter to the FTC since they could use their parents phone. Normally I'd say knitting is safe but with their catch-all definition of child content I'm not too sure. I think 90% of UA-cam is child content according to their definition. I want to do video games so I could be screwed. I personally think there's more to COPPA than an advertising rule to protect kids. I think it's an excuse to target free speech as opposed to protecting kids. If you talk about something the Government don't like they can pull the video down because of a Spiderman poster or some pop tune that happens to start playing on a radio in the background that they decide to be associated with children. Ultimately the burden should be with UA-cam to ensure that any targeted ads they use on their platform are safe for kids and are not sinister in nature. If the ads are simple product advertisements I see no problem with kids viewing a pokemon sword game ad over a guy banging on about how great his lawnmowers are for the environment lol.
The regulations include "actual knowledge" it is directed at children, if someone lies about their age and you have no way to know, then there is no actual knowledge. This issue arose cause Google/UA-cam in their infinite wisdom had parents create UA-cam Kids accounts for under 13's as a sub-account of the parents Foogle account and then directed to those accounts. Which actually makes the solution simple, UA-cam doesn't direct to those accounts. If it is an standard account and someone lied, and you find out about it, there is no reason UA-cam can't terminate the account (they violated in the terms of account creation anyway and committed a form or fraud, and while it hasn't been prosecuted it is perfectly reasonable for UA-cam to terminate in such situations).
@@EwanMarshall the probleme is youtube cant prove that the user havent lie on is age the demographic is base of what age poeple said they have but youtube cant go around asking driver liscence and id to prove age so they just have to believe and by the fact of there contract could collect data on anyone who sing it srtating they have the age
@@serania1 I never said they should. Another party lying is not "actual knowledge" and so the fact another party committed fraud to sign up for service is irrelevant. There is no requirement in COPPA to prove age. It says if you have actual knowledge you are directing to children, then it applies. UA-cam in creating youtubekids gave themselves actual knowledge. Now there is some stuff about proving you are an authorized legal guardian to setup accounts for under 13s. But that is not the part I'm even arguing about here. I recommend actually going and reading the statute. Finally none of this shifts liability to "channel owners" under the wording of the statute.
I'm in my late 30's and have been doing toy reviews on UA-cam. Most of my reviews are of toys from the 1980's and some more recent releases. I was also planning to do stop-motion skits using toys/action figures. The thing is, I keep my channel family friendly (no swearing, no obscenities, etc) but at the same time, I never targeted kids under the age of 13. YT has tagged one of my vids as for kids, when it isn't. And because of that, I am worried. I don't have money for an attorney to give me advice. I aim my vids for 13+ and adult collectors. But I worry that YT/FTC won't see it that same way given what I have been reviewing and showing. My plans for stop motion skits are on hold as well. Other reviewers like myself are unsure what to do because of so much vagueness in the law.
@justin sawchuk I used to get a lot more views, and I've been working on some massive changes that would still affect me. This BS going on with COPPA, YT, and the FTC infringes my right to enjoy and share my hobby with other adults and people over the age of 13. Why should I be denied my right under the 1A when I never violated any law to being with?! Why should I be treated like a criminal when I am NOT?!?!
I watch Lehto’s Law and NIST, AAR and Autocad design video’s. Lehto’s Law is my only guilty pleasure. Oh yeah, SAP and Exel formulas are other videos I watch. My wife peeked in my IPad and told me that I am more boring than she imagined.😣
children under 13 and under can't legally have a youtube/google account either, but they lie about their age to get one anyway. which is the reason youtube got into trouble in the first place. and they specifically say "bright and vibrant colors".. I think the cars on your shelf apply. remember: it doesn't have to necessarily appeal to kids... the possibility alone is enough according to the proposed expansion.
Actually, UA-cam got in trouble for marketing and publishing data that proved they reached the 12 and under age group and trying use that information to appeal to advertisers seeking to advertise to that demographic. UA-cam is merely attempting to pass the buck off to the content creators since they want the protections offered to a Platform rather than those afforded to a Publisher.
@@frankbarajas except there's no actual way to prove the age of any user. as far as IPs and cookies are concerned they don't identify a user, let a lone the age of a user. in order to do targeted ads of any kinda at all you require an account. Basically, they lost an unloseible lawsuit, because some absent minded parent had decided to actually start paying attention, and noticed their kid having an account of their own that they didn't authorize, and reported it, rather than just deleting the account(this is actually the only way this can hapen). UA-cam, literally relies on people being honest at signup. show me a 100% honest person.. and i'll show you an invisible pink unicorn. . . :P
Sok games you don’t even need to be logged in to view UA-cam. So it’s not a matter of kids lying to get an account. Google doesn’t want to require a log in and other means to identify children. They would lose a lot of money if they did that. They didn’t want to have a general audience category for creators, because that category requires that UA-cam identify which if the general audience are children, and then either not collect their info, or get the parents consent.
@@glorioskiola right, that's the point. there's no real means to identify children. the mechanism simply doesn't exist. they're not even doing targeted ads or collecting personal data on viewers not signed in. sure, you can guess, but guessing doesn't exactly play well with the law nor can you be reasonably certain of anyone's age.
Thanks for covering this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but since COPPA has been law since 1998, the FTC would have had the power to issue fines all along right? It makes no sense that a civil settlement between the FTC and UA-cam would somehow give the FTC new legal powers against third parties (content creators) if the FTC didn't already have those powers to begin with. If that is the case, then this isn't even a UA-cam specific issue, and moving to another platform isn't a way around this. But it also isn't clear to me whether or not a content creator would meet the definition of "website operator." Ultimately I would think UA-cam is the "website operator" because they have total control over the platform. If it were the case that content creators are not "website operators" then UA-cam would be responsible for paying the fines.
Steve, I find your channel & content EERILY directed at me! I'm 59, male, a life-long car nut, considered a law career in my teens prior to committing to a professional music career (which led to recording engineering on the side, and an attending interest in vintage mics). Glad I found you. ☺
Those that think your channel will be shut down has not been paying good enough attention. It's the channels not meant for kids that have content in it that may attract child viewers to it, and it's hard to label correctly by the new settings and laws for those setting put into place. A channel like Vivziepop with shows on it such as HAZBIN HOTEL, for example. It has a lot in it said by COPPA that an adult channel should not have, for it will attract kids. So that is one channel that may likely be shut down, or have much of it's content deleted by UA-cam for not being COPPA compliant. It is all still a matter of, we will have to wait and see. But many are scared now, and I think many have a right to be.
Thank you for this video! Another of my favorite UA-cam content creators has been very worried about this topic, and I am going to send him a link to this video right now. Good information.
I'm not sure anybody is worried about COPPA specifically. We are however quite worried about our cultures shift away from "presumed innocence". Our government seems to have shifted in the direction of "presumed guilty",,,,,,big fine or forfeiture,,,,,,,and make his little lawyer fight our big legal team,,,if he wants it back. I will use "civil forfeiture" as one egregious example of "presumed guilty". And there is no "monetary" penalty for the government if their "dart doesn't stick". If I could sue them for millions for illegally seizing my funds,,,and causing me undue hardship,,, now that would be another matter,,,,entirely. "Presumed guilty" combined with our "civil servants" penchant for ensuring their retirement scheme's viability,,,,with,,,, "law enforcement for profit" ,,,,,presents a very troubling situation,,,,,for us peasants. My lawyer is very good,,,,but I'm not rich. I can only "afford" so much justice. We don't trust "big daddy government" anymore and we have to protect ourselves from "government extortion sniper shots".
I feel like one of the big issues with the entire COPPA situation is that people are used to youtube as being vague, nonsensical, and spotty on rules(which they are) while the FTC is a government agency and (should) have higher standards. And youtube is not helping this at all.
Well, Channels like Arlo, Game Theorists, Wolfs den, Several gaming let's players who play games, popular with children (Minecraft, a few MMOs...) Have quite a problem. Their content is not really made for children, but covers topics, popular with children. Gaijin Goomba could be in trouble as well. It is a channel about cultural references in Anime and Mangas - and sometimes in games. These subjects could make him be covered by coppa.
So what process would the FTC have to go through to get a fine applied to someone? I'm assuming they can't just slap one on you and scream "fight me in court" like Civil Asset Forfeiture.
I have seen videos from both model train people and the plastic model building community being concerned about how this might affect their channels. Some are worried about what happens if some dim-witted bureaucrat or UA-cam minion sees a model train or a model airplane kit building video decides that such videos are aimed at kids because only kids build model trains, airplanes and tanks? Then there are the myriad of Disneyland and Disneyworld video channels that are also aimed squarely at adult populations but could also be tarred by the same broad brush. One would hope that by showing the demographics of subscribers and viewers it would quickly be put to rest. This is an area where trade and hobby organizations could provide a more balanced view of such activities.
My channel does not target children, although I cover Comic Books (some have what are called 'Risque' covers), films, and video games. I never post film clips or play footage. I'm 61. The Analytics for my channel give me this statement in regards to the gender and age of my channel's viewers: "Not enough demographic data to show this report." I have subscribers in several countries. I use no music. There are no celebrities in my videos. No minors either. My channel isn't even monetized. I promised my subscribers years ago that I never would do so. I am on Patreon though as both a Patron and a Content Creator. I've always been careful not to ask my viewers or Patrons personal questions. Not on UA-cam. Not on Patreon. I'm thinking that I'm probably OK.
The other problem Steve is that just because you're Channel may not be directly targeting children does not mean that children are not watching it. There is a channel that deals with collectibles. My preteen granddaughter loved to watch that channel. There were other channels like that. Channels About Pets. Some others channels that I thought were quite stupid but she loved them. Those channels she watched because her friends watched them. None of those channels would have been considered targeted at children but yet teenagers and preteens we're watching them as well as adults.
Tell us more about your new OED. Everybody I know who has one has only the "compact" version -- 2 volumes of tiny print + supplement vol. + magnifying glass. I LOVE the OED. * * * Oh, never mind, I just saw your explanation in the "Accidents" video.
Your assumption however is wrong in that people aren't nearly as much worried about COPPA but Alphabets knee jerk reaction on just blanket banning stuff based on some machine learning algorithim like happen now with some random bits of game videos (or any videos) having copyrighted music despite fair use laws. like those cars of your algorithm says you had "car in bright colours" in the back ground -> insta ban and no one cares in the admin team when you try to appeal it. also take a look at how how they insta ban any videos with just a hint of anyone claiming copy rights on it, no matter who makes the claim. Reason being there millions of videos uploaded to you tube on daily basis.
Would a PG-13 or R-13 rating at the intro of any video be an indication that its restricted for those under 13? What legal function could a system like this serve for those who create content, like video games on youtube, that is intended for people over 13, but could be perceived as intended for those under 13?
Those specific ratings are trademarks of the MPAA, and use without authorisation might be problematic. MPAA ratings are not at all government approved or enforced.
The thing is though, that a human won't look through your videos and say "Yeah, this naturally isn't a kids channel, moving on" no; an AI algorithm will. It will look for identifiers; the things mentioned on that list, and flag any video found in 'violation'. So, if I was you I'd be removing them 'toy cars' on the shelf behind you, regardless of their age or any other factor, because the algoritm quite likely won't care. But the biggest issue here is not your channel; it's channels that clearly ARE oriented toward children, of which there are many, as well as the 'borderline' ones that probably aren't ment to be but appeals to a broad range of ages (many animation channels, gaming channels etc etc) most of which are basically screwed, unless they manage to find their own sponsors. The whole situation is utterly rotten, and the kids being robbed of their favorite video entertainment will be as much victims in this as the content creators.
Basically if you are genuinely not targeting children on purpose, and your demographics shows a majority adult viewership you have nothing to worry about. If you are genuinely not targeting children but they make up a majority of your audience anyway, then maybe talk to a lawyer. If you are targeting children on purpose but just want to call it adult targeted because you make more money on ads, then go complain to congress to change the law.
Thank you for giving this run down, my son has been screaming about this for a while and your video finally explain the "problem". I tried to have him watch you but he insisted that you were wrong, haha welcome to having a teenager.
a lot of people mentioned this to me as well. not worried at all. 0.1% of my viewers are under 18. videos on truck repair and turning wrenches go right over the head of 13 year old and younger people. no way it could be confused to be directed at children. did the same thing you did and checked the box for non of my video's ever have been or will be directed to children.
IF you ask me youtube is selling the creators out. As per the user agreement we all have to "sign" - if you're under the age of 13 you're not even allowed to use youtube, so if someone under the age of 13 is watching your videos it's because youtube is not enforcing it's own user agreement. As per that agreement, when I signed up for youtube, I was under the impression that no one under the age of 13 would even have access to my videos....so what the hell youtube, why are you letting children watch my video? And why are you punishing me when they do?
What about Sirius, Alexa and Google, they are advertising to be used by kids. They all collect data for target advertising. Can't forget your android phone is always listening and collecting information for targeting advertising.
A defendant can still coppa plea and not be in violation, since their plea is not intended for children? And the robot voice might just be Steve using Helium?
I’m Concerned for Disney bloggers . My question is fair use when it comes to live-streams something like Disney world or land or its impact on Facebook.
different vid , but wanted to say, i went to wal mart to buy just one quart of oil, i dont really care about the showing receipt but i wont wait in line to do it . i walked passed a long line of customers waiting to show and the wal mart guy , just went straight by and out and the guy didnt say shit, didnt even look at me funny .
Uh, I am a rarity around here then! I am 41 and Swiss - making me part of less than 5% of your viewers, probably even less than that given that I am also subscribed. Small question, as I am developing a game-collection and am going to open my own little YT channel soon to cover that development and gameplay of some games I like: If I am not monetized, does COPPA apply at all? Also, my content will not be aimed at children of course, more at people my age with the graphical style of my game and the kind of games I'll be playing so I'm in the green in any case. But young children may still view my things, and if I ever get into the monetized territory (fat chance of that, nowadays), what's the percentage to look out for? 25% younger than 13? 30%? 40%?
Monetization has nothing to do with it. It is that the channels gather information from viewers (via comments and so on). Goes back to the "Is this DIRECTED toward children?" question.
The problem with this COPPA issue is a you do not have to login to view content so a 13yr old could see content not intended for their age. Also on family computers if someone remains logged into their google account on that PC someone under the are of thirteen can still become a victim.
It's not an issue of seeing the content. It's the stupid decision that video uploaders on youtube (may?) count under the people who are "collecting data". Collecting data + targeting children is the trigger for COPPA
*Arnold Schwarzenegger*
GET TO THE COPPA!!
I thought it was Choppa?? Lol. Great comment btw
@@TopSecretVid I thought it was Chalupa?
Here's why he does this: there is a belief (which is supported by data) that videos under 5 minutes are not promoted. So he does the stuff in the first 5 minutes, then goes on for another 5 minutes that you don't want to watch (some people do). You watch the first 5 minutes and go to a different video. He gets his view and the ad revenue; UA-cam gets their ad revenue, you're happy, they are happy, everyone wins!
You got me good - I burst out laughing like I rarely do.
Good thing I had just swallowed the bite (I'm having supper right now), otherwise ther'd be some cleaning to do now xD
A tip: you can watch series at flixzone. I've been using them for watching lots of of movies these days.
Your UA-cam channel is safe, but many in the crafting community are going to be seriously impacted by the changes.
Agreed. He's brushing this issue under the rug. It all comes down to some bureaucrat in the FTC labeling your video as made for children. What recourse do you have at that point?
Yes you are correct YOUR page will not be affected. There are thousands sites here that produce wholesome children content. Those producers are going to be demonitized.. The sky IS falling for them.
go read ftc updated notes on the website they answer these questions... again they go over gaming videos and animation,they said they know some of that can be either adult oriented or general audience oriented and it doesnt apply, even kids in videos, just cause their is kids in videos doesnt make it specifically for kids, they even said there are many factor they have to put together if it is kids. when they say language they arent talking about swearing, they are saying their you have to dumb down your language for your audience, are specifically targetting kids.amd is kids your only demographic. From what i see they are trying to put the youtubers that knew for a while now that they are for kids to go finally acknowledge they are. SO yes thought who KNOW AND KNEW for a while that their content was for a under 13 audience to make sure they comply, those who are unsure, mostly like dont have to unless they were targeting kids in their videos, but even then you have to look at the demographics of who is actually watching so this effects alot less people. I mean when we can be mad at this for those people, but it not like they didnt know for awhile they need to be on youtube kids.
@@JoshuaTerence38
My point is that there are thousands of excellent children's channels on this platform who's content creation cannot survive with the low monitization of being tagged "kid targeted" on this platform, or by having to move to the much less profitable "UA-cam Kids" platform. Those creators and their content will just disappear, and children will be worse off for it..
To preface this, I'm neither a legal expert nor have I researched this topic a lot. I'll just be trying to address your point about UA-camrs "trying to scare you" for views because I think it's unfair. I think that most of these content creators making videos on the topic are genuinely scared and here's why.
"UA-camrs", as a group, are worried because a large amount of them belong to either vlogging, gaming, animation or certain hobbyist communities. In this video, you read an animator's comment and were a bit dismissive towards their concerns. If you took the time to compare the FTC's list to THEIR content instead of yours, you would notice that many of the bullet points can be marked as present. This animator's content may not be intended for children, but, as far as we know, it will be categorized as "kids content" by FTC's rules. The same rings true for most of the creators I outlined at the top of this paragraph.
The problem here is that something can appeal to both children AND adults. Under COPPA, again *as far as we know*, if your content appeals to the former then it doesn't matter if it also appeals to the latter, it's still going to be marked as "kids content". THAT is why so many content creators are worried and making videos about this.
Do I know if all that I have written above is 100% accurate? Hell no. It wouldn't be surprising if it was though and that's enough to scare you silly if your livelihood depends on UA-cam income.
Problem, as I understand it, is that there's huge amounts of content creators with those channels oriented towards adults but they are labelled as directed at children due to gaming content or whatever. And some have chosen the tab which says it is NOT directed towards children yet youtube can, and on some occasions have done, manually change it to kid-directed.
ftc answered this on their website
@@JoshuaTerence38 what I understood about it, there is middle ground for mixed audience within viewers. No problem. But in this case youtube as a platform does not give that option. Only either or another, no middle ground. Therefore no lawsuits but it will kill all the revenue of content creators who make money from their videos, and the rest scatter due misinformation and fear.
Obviously your channel is not aimed at children or any person the age of 13 or under. The angst displayed by many UA-camrs is because many of them make their living on UA-cam full time and either they have child directed content or they are aimed at Adults but present in a clownish or cartoonish way to help differentiate their channel. In addition there are topics that appeal to all ages or where parents engage in hobbies with their children. The most prevalent example is crafts where the target is home makers often using tools like CNC machines, lathes, sewing machines, modeling knives, 3D printers, toxic paints etc... but making stuff where the end user might be a kid such as greeting cards, dolls house furniture, dolls cloths, models, RC models, painting and drawing, cosplay, etc.... Others are adults with adult themed channels but using child toys such as Lego or action figures. COPPA in effect could demonetise these channels by either UA-cam automatically changing their adult designation to child or suspending their channel using their AI algorithms or the FTC doing a "sweep" as they have said they will and "shooting fish in a barrel" - their chilling phrase, fining the channel owner upto $42,000. The channel owner wouldn't known until suddenly they stopped getting cheques from google, their views and subscriptions plummeted and they couldn't pay this months rent on their apartment and/or they got a fine from the FTC. If as you suggest they mark their channel for Kids then they will lose 80% of their revenue making their channel unviable in many cases. It is a real fear not because they perhaps couldn't afford the fine or survive without the revenue from adds but because they couldn't afford to go to court and fight to reverse the decision. Lawyers are just too expensive for most UA-camrs. I am struck as well that a bunch of ageing adults in the FTC can absolutely define a child as being 13 or under and an adult being 14 and over. I know many Kids with more adult in them than most adults and I know of adults who behave like five year olds. I think You know who I am talking about. Curiously the law seems to choose ages without consistency, here for COPPA purposes an adult is 14+ but to drive a car, drink alcohol, watch pawn(sp), smoke, get married or join the Army it's different ages and probably different in different US states. I am surprised that no under 14 year olds watch your channel, I would have thought the seeds of a future law degree at Harvard must be set at a very young age. Perhaps you could encourage more youngsters into a career in law ?
Not to mention the bots on UA-cam are not a robot voice that sounds like your 50 year old mother. They are set up to err on the side of UA-cam.
Don't worry though if they screw up they will be manually screening any video that gets more than a 1000 views in the first week and if they are able to determine that there really isn't a problem then they will be happy to send you an emai...... Maybe not because they lose any connection with you when they cut the channel. Send a letter perhaps? What's your address? They don't have it anymore. They stopped sending checks months ago.
Oh well.You're just one of those whiny creators anyway. They don't need to worry. Look at Pewdie Pie and Chuckie2009. They are doing just fine.
Sneelock has left the platform.
@Michael Defibaugh The simpler UA-cam can maintain thevrelationship the better for them. A flat percentage and only having two catagories of creator means simple math and no wiggle room.
your comment is perfectly hitting the nail on the head. I would add that it is not really Coppa threatening the channels but the machine learning google are proposing to use which is the thing that is likely to affect the channels as it is directly targeting child content aspects from background music, words used, colour palette and the background dressing of a set. So regardless of whether or not you are targeting a child audience google is targeting those factors. The other factor that is disturbing is that there will be apparently no way to get the decision lifted.
So yes I agree Coppa is not an issue however, the process that google intends to apply to ensure that channels are obeying the FTC guidelines is very problematic. Personally, I think that the contract that you sign to use UA-cam should make the user responsible for whether or not children are viewing content that may be unsuitable or gathering personal data rather than place the burden on creators as at the end of the day you personally have no control over who watches your channel. (i apologise for any spelling or grammatical errors I am dyslexic and they can sneek past me)
it's a tricky problem ... if youtube is able to see who is under 14 for targetted adds then they can block them from viewing and direct them to youtube kids automatically. only overrideable by parent. there are other ways to crack this nut. i can't spell to save my life... as you can see no spell check on this device.
To be fair, people reacting this way is understandable. When you see fines as high as 42,000 Dollars being thrown around and you've got Andrew Smith from the FTC saying "Content Creators are always at risk of being fined", it's no wonder people are going to panic and threaten to leave.
Thanks for the video Steve. Nice to hear someone go over the specifics without claiming the sky is falling.
Also thanks for letting me get my daily required Chicken Little reference in.
Is there any way to revisit this issue as it pertains to video game content creators?
Many of the concerns that have them worried are the ones you specifically do not have to worry about. Let's say for example that you represent a content creator who's sole income comes from YT, and while your client's game is rated E for everyone, there are animated characters that clearly could be appealing to children. You have empirical evidence that 95% of your client's audience is in the 13+ range, but undeniably there are some children that play this game and watch your client's 300+ videos.
I believe this scenario represents most of the people "freaking" out about COPPA, and for good reason. Their content while not intended for children may appeal to children and if marked as "For adults" in order to sustain their income revenue stream may be subject to review from FTC and result in the fine for willfully misrepresenting the target audience, at any occurrence this would bankrupt any smaller content creator just barely getting by on YT.
Would be interested in your take on this scenario. I came to your channel because your view turned me around on a topic a few months ago, but think in this topic you too narrowly limited your discussion to how it applies to your channel and while admittedly that is your understandable first concern, I feel the title in this video could more accurately be titled "COPPA is Not the End of the World for Legal discussion YTers".
Love to hear your thoughts.
COPPA is not the end of YOUR world, but there are lot of youtubers who make content that is on the grey area, they are screwed big time.
Hahaha 😂😂 according to the majority of wife’s, we guys are like a child (
Well said Sir.
You just made an airtight case that *your* channel can never be tagged as directed toward children.
You've made *no* case that many other channels not intended by their creators to be directed toward children, can't be so tagged.
The danger here, is that you, the content creator, do not have the final say about that; the FTC bureaucrats do.
Can all of them be counted on, never to make a capricious ruling? On how many million videos that fall under this rule?
I am not a content creator on YT or elsewhere ... at present. So maybe I don't "have a dog in this fight."
But I am a content consumer on YT, and I have to say I'm more than a little concerned about this. Maybe I do "have a dog in this fight."
In any case, thanks for a real lawyer's perspective on the topic - subject, of course, to your disclaimer.
I could even say, thanks for your COPPA plea.
Fred
I suspect that most of the fear stems from YT's intent to use an algorithm to decide which ones are actually for kids, but not marked as such. Given prior examples of YT's poor use of algorithmic detection methods, concern is not unfounded.
The part that eludes me is how you identify the user as a child without identifying them (as a child).
Thanks for the rational explanation! I’m watching other UA-camrs panic and they’re ready to shut down their channels. I will go check out the FTC site.
Steve, your channel is not at risk, directly. I am not a content creator but instead I am a content consumer that has enjoyed UA-cam until now. The risk to me (not that the sky is falling on this) has to do with a lot of family friendly, general audience content that has developed on UA-cam that my family and I enjoy along with many others that could be construed as directed at kids under 13. Many of those content creators in that category may decide it is not worth the risk, cost, time and trouble and leave UA-cam. In that case I start looking for a new media outlet as UA-cam becomes no longer appealing. I know after the dust settles on this everybody will be just fine. But things like this have a way of reshaping internet culture.
OK Boomer
look your content is clearly directed to children
I mean you do have toys in the background, not cars, TOYS
Thanks for being calm during the storm Steve. You made me look at my analytics. 25-44 year olds is all I got. A bit narrow. I need more of the old fogie factor.
What about content aimed at BOTH adults and children? Thousands of kids go to model aircraft and model train shows where they can watch people using knives and other potentially dangerous tools. The content appeals to both age groups. How should it be marked?
I disagree with your statement that youtube is a company so just go somewhere else. Yes youtube is a company but they have a monopoly worth of the market share and benefit from the same protections as a utility company. If you dont like your electric bill you cant just jump to another one. Sure you could try and go solar but its not the same DTE has you in Detroit and UA-cam has you in relevant online video land.
UA-cam knuckles under and just how far behind are the rest of them. A horde of lawyers smells blood in the water and just like the asbestos and talcum powder fiasco they will be digging through every possible avenue for getting a piece of the money.
Steve might be the only honest man left in the profession. Or not.
Sounds like UA-cam needs to be regulated like the utility companies are regulated. Maybe we should ask the FTC to step in to protect young naive kids from being taken advantage of by UA-cam and advertisers.
@@MikeHeath Mom and Dad wouldn't let us watch late night TV. It was their opinion, it wasn't good for us. If we turn our kids loose with the ability to access anything they want, but complain that the government doesn't protect them, we are giving up our rights as parents because we are to lazy to be good ones.
@@OldSneelock Clearly the sarcasm in my comment was lost. Everyone is screaming that the sky is falling because the FTC created a law to protect young naive kids from being taken advantage of and now it's being enforced. Obviously, responsible parents are closely involved with how their kids use the Internet and don't government hand holding.
Steve, your channel clearly doesnt fall under COPPA. However, there are many large channels that are not aimed at children, but tick multiple check boxes that do apply. They are the ones that are extremely worried about how COPPA will affect their livelihood.
In this case you are wrong Steve. It’s the folks that put up content that can be construed to be for children, so topics like plastic model kids, Star Wars, train sets, model planes. Basically there’s always the boy in a man, so although we “grow up” a substantial number still as a hobby as an adult make complex plastic model kits, or a huge train set, or a millennium falcon quarter scale model. These are not aimed at children but adults, and there’s millions of them and thousands of content creators, and COPPA will because these creators can’t 100% say these aren’t aimed at children and aren’t skilled in law or have the finances to fight any case, will just stop producing content.
I feel like an old man now because I'm 25 and I watch your videos.
Do I make videos targeted at children..? Answer, an emphatic "No". If it were that easy then I wouldn't be writing this. However, I write children's musicals and therfore have children in the videos I use to promote the music to adults, in the hope they might buy the score and perform it themselves.. The guidlines say (paraphrasing) "if the video contains children, then it's made for children", even though the videos arn't. I'm not some youtube conspiritory/click-bait nut, I'm just a normal guy, who write music that kids like, who can't run the risk of some federation lawyer somewhere trying to make a quick buck or name for himself from what would be a soft target. This COPPA thing is a nightmare for people like me.
The essential COPPA problem is that there is a huge gray area. For example, there are channels that discuss topics like history and use animation. There are channels that discuss animated movies for adults (by which I mean what you meant by "adult" in your video) analyzing them as works of art. There are channels that discuss mathematics that use animation. There are channels that are for toy collectors, many of them who would be adults or at least older teens. Some of these channels are pretty big business I guess. The question isn't whether a reasonable person might judge them as targeted to children, but whether an algorithm or a regulator would. That is the danger for them.
Another area of concern is channels that may have children appearing in them. For example, I like to watch videos by a lawyer from Montreal named Viva Frei. Most of his recent content is about the law, but sometimes his family makes appearances in the video. Does that make it child directed under the rules you listed? The most reasonable answer is probably "it depends," and that is the problem.
The limits that UA-cam will be placing on channels with content that may contain child directed material would essentially keep them from growing and becoming commercially viable (for example, no comments, so no interaction with viewers). Combine that with the fact that very few people have the financial wherewithal to fight the federal government should it decide that they are violating the law, many people will opt not to put this type of "family friendly" content up (not to imply that your content is not family friendly :) ).
Bottom line: your channel will be fine, for which I am glad. But many other people that create good things will probably feel that that they can't use UA-cam any more. And that makes me sad.
Rich Mills
You missed the most obvious point: Kids under the age of 13 are not allowed on UA-cam. So how can ANY content on UA-cam be directed at kids under 13? Isn't that what UA-cam Kids is for?
Go someplace else? If it wasn't for contributors like yourself, UA-cam would not exist. Your shirt says it all...
I have a comic book channel directed at collectors. I am not even monetized. I only worry because comics are often associated with kids.
Steve, I’d like your opinion on a few things that I believe UA-cam, Content Creators, and video watchers could do to shield themselves from liability and limit the expected impact from this COPPA situation.
#1. Keep the new self identification method in place to help those who intend to create content for children.
#2. UA-cam Main should then force any videos not labeled or labeled not for kids, to be only accessible once an age verified account has been logged into on their platform.
#3. UA-cam account settings should have a Parental consent check box that is reviewed/renewed every year.
This would keep kids stuff open to children without logging in and shield Content Creators and UA-cam from the FTC. While allowing Google search results to appear even if the video is only viewable to an account holder.
The fear isn't from COPPA, it's from UA-cam, who is notorious for arbitrary censorship and account terminations and algorithm deranking. Just read the examples of what qualifies for child content. Half the stuff I watch on UA-cam as an adult could qualify.
As a web developer I have to deal with a lot of the regulations like this... Correct me if I'm wrong, but YT is a platform and the controller of the site and how it functions. The individual creator has no control over how the site functions such as setting/reading cookies and other "user data" interactions.
My guess is their settlement included a big safe harbor escape clause if they created a self classification scheme. If they're redefining who the "operator" is then they're going to set the function of data collection solely on the setting you chose so that data collection is entirely in your lap.
Thanks for this video. How would an American law apply to content creators outside of the United States? Would an American Federal organisation be able to fine citizens of other countries?
You have explained so much in just a short time and I appreciate that. You have taken out the mystery of what UA-cam has handed their creators. Glad to know many of my friends can breath a little easier because they are small channels and are confused with some of the wording. Many have small children in the family that just happen to walk though in the background. Their content is not directed at children, but the adults or other parents. Homesteader channels, for example, were all worried about if they had to shut down all together. If that was the case we would miss vital information that they provide for how to look after food preparation. I'm 62 and follow how to grow (both animals and plants) and later preserve my end results. With the introduction of the computer/internet most information is now easier to access. Books are not kept in the family home like they were 15-20 years ago. This could have been a big blow to information sharing.
Just wanted to let you know that a few of your wonderful and informative videos were videos that I have shown to my 16 year old son. There was a few times that he had asked me questions that you had addresses in your videos and I felt that you had explained it far better than I ever could.
Two major concerns that I have been hearing from the model building and model trains communities are that in order to avoid potential conflicts, content will need to be less creative in order to attempt to retain the not aimed at children status, and that since these hobbies are outgrowths from what were traditionally considered to be toys, there could be an upcoming struggle to reverse arbitrary decisions by bureaucrats, which nobody can afford.
Prior to the FTC issuing the guidance documentation which Steve is quoting here, there was a lot of concern being voiced over whether expanding "Directed at Children" to "Attractive to Children" is going to be an issue. Trains for an example can be very attractive to children of all ages, and a video about the locomotives in Cass, WV for example could well attract 5 year old viewers, even when targeted at an audience who are mostly over the age of 15.
The other concern was that viewer demographic data was not going to be considered... prior to the latest guidance, that issue was at best unclear.
So, the FTC and UA-cam aggravated much of the kerfluffle by their poor communications. It still remains to be seen if things turn out reasonably well.
Because, we all know where the road paved with Good Intentions leads...
Ok so channels that deal with law, like yours, are fine. Good for you. Channels that deal with popular culture have to consider if it's worth being sued by the government over thier UA-cam channel.
Yay. When they take away all the other channels because of coppa this channel will have as many subscribers as PewDiePie, that's why he's not worried. When all the fun stuff is gone like video games, board games, arts and crafts, toys, kid friendly science/facts channels, comics, anime, skateboard channels, animation channels, etc there will be the good stuff... Like lawyer channels and stuff like that. I can't wait 😀
I’m at 4.4% due to the tractors and equipment on my page. So the “I’ll know it when I see it” plan doesn’t wash with me.
Th channels that are talking about ending are the ones directed toward children.
Their comments are turned off. (Not great for community engagement) and the ad revenue is tanked.
I don’t think this is as harmless as you are implying.
I agree. There may be a question up in the air. This directly effects channels that are based on making family or kid friendly content. Their channels being basically wiped from recommendations with there comments shut off and their monetization gone. That basically is a death sentence for their channels.
There goes the "The Dodo" channel
But you have toy cars in your background that might appeal to children - you're in big trouble!! But while you exonerate yourself, your arguments aren't really applicable to others. Suppose that instead of a mid-50s guy talking about the law, you were a mid-50s guy who played classic video games. Would you be liable then? What if you were a 20-year-old who played current video games? An "I'll know it when I see it" law should be thrown out as unconstitutional.
I have two questions:
1. Given the fact that our rights under The Constitution are being shredded, how can an attorney who is wearing a shirt that says "I do not consent" be so willing to accept that COPPA will not be abused?
2. Just because COPPA appears to not directly threaten your channel, is it irrelevant to you if it appears to threaten others?
Did you even watch the video
@@Gibblegobblegoob Certainly did. That is why I wrote the comment.
What I’ve seen from other attorneys discussing this is that all of your arguments that your channel is clear are presumptions. Google is aware kids log on through parents’ devices - you actually don’t know who is watching. You display “toy” cars which could attract a child under 13 to get a peek at the cool cars someone told them about. Not all children under 13 are uninterested in your content. My father gave my son subscriptions to Road and Track, Car and Driver, and Automobile well before his 13th Birthday (ironically they generated a lot of junk mail for hearing aids and erectile disfunction medication). I don’t disagree with the assumptions you’ve made. However, the FTC calling content creators “fish in a barrel” for fines wouldn’t make most content creators feel secure. The document the FTC has put out for public comment has a question 25 that seems to address content creators making these assumptions and using them to classify their content. Finally, I get the impression that COPPA is not the issue, but instead it is Google’s consent agreement that transfers liability to creators for Google’s failure to effectively control access that is the concern.
Is it true the legislation proposed to update this law is called:
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act - Federal Extraneous Educational Legislation?
Here's the thing, unless your video is something like Teletubbies or ABC sing alongs, basically pre school level stuff, it's not fair to impose this on a channel. There are a lot of videos that I enjoy that people might be considered "for kids", things like lets plays and game walkthroughs a Mario, Pokemon, or Sonic games, animations by creators like LevelUp or TeamLevelUp, and MatPat's Game Theory and Film Theory are all examples. And it's not good enough as some people say, "you're stupid if you don't know if your videos are for kids or not", the problem is not whether you know or not. And what about these examples of general audience. And it doesn't just hurt content creators you will loose 90% of their revenue, it will hurt people who want to be able to view those videos, as now those videos will also be unsearchable.
If marked for kids makes it less likely that people find your video it will be even more likely that kids will find adult-oriented videos. Did anyone actually think this through?
Right? So if I wanted to entertain my five-year-old with UA-cam videos, and I do a search for kids videos... I will actually come up with nothing?
@@crispyspa There's the "UA-cam Kids" app which is supposedly supposed to feature only kid-appropriate content. But who can say for certain if the app will actually do the thing that Google/YT says it will do?
Your toy cars could be appealing to children
Here's a tricky question that I don't really see/hear people talking about within this context: Is there a distinction being made by YT or the FTC for content that is being made specifically for children under 13 and content that is simply intended to be family-friendly which would include those same children under 13 and might actually appeal to some of those children?
$100 on the books outside of bookshelf to right.
"Mr. Blutoski .. ZERO POINT ZERO"
I watch all of your videos. My wife says I sometimes act like a 10 year old. Does that mean you are in danger of violating COPPA? Just for the record I am 84. Keep up the great work.
Well you do have cool car models sitting behind you. Kids might like that.
The problem for many channels is that their content is not clearly 'for kids' or 'not for kids.' videos on gaming, toys (Lego for instance) and animation are & can be directed for adults as much as they're directed to children: they're universal, so there's ambiguity for these creators as to how they should apply their video settings. What are they supposed to do? They're caught between a rock and a hard place.
Under the FTC FAQ's, there is also a "general audience" or "mixed audience" exception to this ruling, so there is a lot more going on than most channels would have you believe.
I love your YT channel. I'm a retired lawyer from the great state of California. That's why I now live in Florida....lol
The issue is, youTube is suppose to give a third option for "mixed audiences" but they deliberately only give creators two options. Everyone knows youTube has always had the ability to terminate any (or all) channels for any (or no) reason at any time.
I am anxiously awaiting your next video to see saw you survived calling your robot announcer much over 13. How could you have made such a mistake?
We know your channel isn't at risk BUT what about the majority of UA-cam? At the end of the day, if they are still using that broad, catch-all list of criteria to determine what they consider child's content then COPPA is still a concern to most people. I clicked this video expecting you to say they've changed that but since they haven't, nothing's changed.
I'm not a creator as yet but I would like to make videos. I'm holding out for a change in COPPA before I do.
Same here. I was thinking about making a series of knitting lessons directed toward adults, due to a request from a couple ladies off Facebook. Only said lessons could be considered to be directed toward young children, since I personally was 9 when I learned how. Never mind that young children aren't supposed to be able to have a UA-cam account to begin with.
@@Iris_Collins it's all stupid. I think the fact that people have to be 13 for UA-cam doesn't matter to the FTC since they could use their parents phone. Normally I'd say knitting is safe but with their catch-all definition of child content I'm not too sure. I think 90% of UA-cam is child content according to their definition. I want to do video games so I could be screwed. I personally think there's more to COPPA than an advertising rule to protect kids. I think it's an excuse to target free speech as opposed to protecting kids. If you talk about something the Government don't like they can pull the video down because of a Spiderman poster or some pop tune that happens to start playing on a radio in the background that they decide to be associated with children. Ultimately the burden should be with UA-cam to ensure that any targeted ads they use on their platform are safe for kids and are not sinister in nature. If the ads are simple product advertisements I see no problem with kids viewing a pokemon sword game ad over a guy banging on about how great his lawnmowers are for the environment lol.
Richard France I got an email message from FTC regarding COPPA. Check it out.
Iris Collins I got an email message from FTC regarding COPPA. Check it out.
Most kids just create a fake Google account and state they are 18 or older to see adult content, even though they are under 13 years old.
The regulations include "actual knowledge" it is directed at children, if someone lies about their age and you have no way to know, then there is no actual knowledge. This issue arose cause Google/UA-cam in their infinite wisdom had parents create UA-cam Kids accounts for under 13's as a sub-account of the parents Foogle account and then directed to those accounts. Which actually makes the solution simple, UA-cam doesn't direct to those accounts. If it is an standard account and someone lied, and you find out about it, there is no reason UA-cam can't terminate the account (they violated in the terms of account creation anyway and committed a form or fraud, and while it hasn't been prosecuted it is perfectly reasonable for UA-cam to terminate in such situations).
@@EwanMarshall the probleme is youtube cant prove that the user havent lie on is age the demographic is base of what age poeple said they have but youtube cant go around asking driver liscence and id to prove age so they just have to believe and by the fact of there contract could collect data on anyone who sing it srtating they have the age
@@serania1 I never said they should. Another party lying is not "actual knowledge" and so the fact another party committed fraud to sign up for service is irrelevant. There is no requirement in COPPA to prove age. It says if you have actual knowledge you are directing to children, then it applies.
UA-cam in creating youtubekids gave themselves actual knowledge.
Now there is some stuff about proving you are an authorized legal guardian to setup accounts for under 13s. But that is not the part I'm even arguing about here.
I recommend actually going and reading the statute. Finally none of this shifts liability to "channel owners" under the wording of the statute.
"COPPA is Not the End of the World!"
But YTers will need an attorney on retainer in case you get fined and need to dispute it.
Exactly! This just like how UA-cam creators have always needed an attorney on retainer for DMCA disputes.
I'm in my late 30's and have been doing toy reviews on UA-cam. Most of my reviews are of toys from the 1980's and some more recent releases. I was also planning to do stop-motion skits using toys/action figures. The thing is, I keep my channel family friendly (no swearing, no obscenities, etc) but at the same time, I never targeted kids under the age of 13. YT has tagged one of my vids as for kids, when it isn't. And because of that, I am worried. I don't have money for an attorney to give me advice. I aim my vids for 13+ and adult collectors. But I worry that YT/FTC won't see it that same way given what I have been reviewing and showing. My plans for stop motion skits are on hold as well. Other reviewers like myself are unsure what to do because of so much vagueness in the law.
You don't know what to do? How about stop making and posting videos?
@@10bbremer How about you minding your own business?
@justin sawchuk I used to get a lot more views, and I've been working on some massive changes that would still affect me. This BS going on with COPPA, YT, and the FTC infringes my right to enjoy and share my hobby with other adults and people over the age of 13. Why should I be denied my right under the 1A when I never violated any law to being with?! Why should I be treated like a criminal when I am NOT?!?!
Sometimes I act like a child
I watch Lehto’s Law and NIST, AAR and Autocad design video’s. Lehto’s Law is my only guilty pleasure. Oh yeah, SAP and Exel formulas are other videos I watch. My wife peeked in my IPad and told me that I am more boring than she imagined.😣
Go someplace else? Where?
children under 13 and under can't legally have a youtube/google account either, but they lie about their age to get one anyway. which is the reason youtube got into trouble in the first place. and they specifically say "bright and vibrant colors".. I think the cars on your shelf apply. remember: it doesn't have to necessarily appeal to kids... the possibility alone is enough according to the proposed expansion.
Actually, UA-cam got in trouble for marketing and publishing data that proved they reached the 12 and under age group and trying use that information to appeal to advertisers seeking to advertise to that demographic. UA-cam is merely attempting to pass the buck off to the content creators since they want the protections offered to a Platform rather than those afforded to a Publisher.
@@frankbarajas except there's no actual way to prove the age of any user. as far as IPs and cookies are concerned they don't identify a user, let a lone the age of a user. in order to do targeted ads of any kinda at all you require an account. Basically, they lost an unloseible lawsuit, because some absent minded parent had decided to actually start paying attention, and noticed their kid having an account of their own that they didn't authorize, and reported it, rather than just deleting the account(this is actually the only way this can hapen). UA-cam, literally relies on people being honest at signup. show me a 100% honest person.. and i'll show you an invisible pink unicorn. . . :P
Sok games you don’t even need to be logged in to view UA-cam. So it’s not a matter of kids lying to get an account. Google doesn’t want to require a log in and other means to identify children. They would lose a lot of money if they did that. They didn’t want to have a general audience category for creators, because that category requires that UA-cam identify which if the general audience are children, and then either not collect their info, or get the parents consent.
@@glorioskiola right, that's the point. there's no real means to identify children. the mechanism simply doesn't exist. they're not even doing targeted ads or collecting personal data on viewers not signed in. sure, you can guess, but guessing doesn't exactly play well with the law nor can you be reasonably certain of anyone's age.
Where else is there to go ?
Hundo, unfolded, laid on top of the new OED on the right side of the set. 28.
Coppa is the stupidest law I have seen
Thanks for covering this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but since COPPA has been law since 1998, the FTC would have had the power to issue fines all along right? It makes no sense that a civil settlement between the FTC and UA-cam would somehow give the FTC new legal powers against third parties (content creators) if the FTC didn't already have those powers to begin with. If that is the case, then this isn't even a UA-cam specific issue, and moving to another platform isn't a way around this. But it also isn't clear to me whether or not a content creator would meet the definition of "website operator." Ultimately I would think UA-cam is the "website operator" because they have total control over the platform. If it were the case that content creators are not "website operators" then UA-cam would be responsible for paying the fines.
Steve, I find your channel & content EERILY directed at me!
I'm 59, male, a life-long car nut, considered a law career in my teens prior to committing to a professional music career (which led to recording engineering on the side, and an attending interest in vintage mics).
Glad I found you.
☺
I find Your youtube channel very educational and I love old cars , best regards Andreas 11 years old...
Those that think your channel will be shut down has not been paying good enough attention. It's the channels not meant for kids that have content in it that may attract child viewers to it, and it's hard to label correctly by the new settings and laws for those setting put into place.
A channel like Vivziepop with shows on it such as HAZBIN HOTEL, for example. It has a lot in it said by COPPA that an adult channel should not have, for it will attract kids. So that is one channel that may likely be shut down, or have much of it's content deleted by UA-cam for not being COPPA compliant.
It is all still a matter of, we will have to wait and see. But many are scared now, and I think many have a right to be.
Thank you for this video! Another of my favorite UA-cam content creators has been very worried about this topic, and I am going to send him a link to this video right now. Good information.
I'm not sure anybody is worried about COPPA specifically.
We are however quite worried about our cultures shift away from "presumed innocence".
Our government seems to have shifted in the direction of "presumed guilty",,,,,,big fine or forfeiture,,,,,,,and make his little lawyer fight our big legal team,,,if he wants it back.
I will use "civil forfeiture" as one egregious example of "presumed guilty".
And there is no "monetary" penalty for the government if their "dart doesn't stick".
If I could sue them for millions for illegally seizing my funds,,,and causing me undue hardship,,, now that would be another matter,,,,entirely.
"Presumed guilty" combined with our "civil servants" penchant for ensuring their retirement scheme's viability,,,,with,,,, "law enforcement for profit" ,,,,,presents a very troubling situation,,,,,for us peasants.
My lawyer is very good,,,,but I'm not rich.
I can only "afford" so much justice.
We don't trust "big daddy government" anymore and we have to protect ourselves from "government extortion sniper shots".
I feel like one of the big issues with the entire COPPA situation is that people are used to youtube as being vague, nonsensical, and spotty on rules(which they are) while the FTC is a government agency and (should) have higher standards. And youtube is not helping this at all.
Now wait !!! You have a robot ??? 😃
Well, Channels like Arlo, Game Theorists, Wolfs den, Several gaming let's players who play games, popular with children (Minecraft, a few MMOs...) Have quite a problem. Their content is not really made for children, but covers topics, popular with children.
Gaijin Goomba could be in trouble as well. It is a channel about cultural references in Anime and Mangas - and sometimes in games. These subjects could make him be covered by coppa.
So what process would the FTC have to go through to get a fine applied to someone? I'm assuming they can't just slap one on you and scream "fight me in court" like Civil Asset Forfeiture.
I have seen videos from both model train people and the plastic model building community being concerned about how this might affect their channels.
Some are worried about what happens if some dim-witted bureaucrat or UA-cam minion sees a model train or a model airplane kit building video decides that such videos are aimed at kids because only kids build model trains, airplanes and tanks?
Then there are the myriad of Disneyland and Disneyworld video channels that are also aimed squarely at adult populations but could also be tarred by the same broad brush.
One would hope that by showing the demographics of subscribers and viewers it would quickly be put to rest. This is an area where trade and hobby organizations could provide a more balanced view of such activities.
I have a large can of pepper spray that's directed at children, but that's about it.
My channel does not target children, although I cover Comic Books (some have what are called 'Risque' covers), films, and video games. I never post film clips or play footage. I'm 61. The Analytics for my channel give me this statement in regards to the gender and age of my channel's viewers: "Not enough demographic data to show this report." I have subscribers in several countries. I use no music. There are no celebrities in my videos. No minors either. My channel isn't even monetized. I promised my subscribers years ago that I never would do so. I am on Patreon though as both a Patron and a Content Creator. I've always been careful not to ask my viewers or Patrons personal questions. Not on UA-cam. Not on Patreon. I'm thinking that I'm probably OK.
Have to love Steve’s shirt “I DO NOT CONSENT.” Perfect backdrop for this topic. Is there a Lehto’s Law merch store to buy one?
I noticed the mic was covering the S in consent.
Due to the nature of this video, it could also be a T, for:
I Do Not Content
Jason W I saw an “S” as he moved about.
The other problem Steve is that just because you're Channel may not be directly targeting children does not mean that children are not watching it. There is a channel that deals with collectibles. My preteen granddaughter loved to watch that channel. There were other channels like that. Channels About Pets. Some others channels that I thought were quite stupid but she loved them. Those channels she watched because her friends watched them. None of those channels would have been considered targeted at children but yet teenagers and preteens we're watching them as well as adults.
Carmelo Pappalardo That’s mentioned in the law itself. “Your content is not necessarily directed to kids because some kids may see it.”
How wonderful that these kids are able to enjoy content that is clearly directed to a general audience and not targeting kids.
Carmelo Pappalardo I got an email message from FTC regarding COPPA. Check it out.
@@LinkMountaineer Do you remember Joe Camel? It was not intended for children but that is not how the government saw it.
Carmelo Pappalardo No clue who that is or what kind of content he makes.
Tell us more about your new OED. Everybody I know who has one has only the "compact" version -- 2 volumes of tiny print + supplement vol. + magnifying glass. I LOVE the OED.
* * * Oh, never mind, I just saw your explanation in the "Accidents" video.
Your assumption however is wrong in that people aren't nearly as much worried about COPPA but Alphabets knee jerk reaction on just blanket banning stuff based on some machine learning algorithim like happen now with some random bits of game videos (or any videos) having copyrighted music despite fair use laws.
like those cars of your algorithm says you had "car in bright colours" in the back ground -> insta ban and no one cares in the admin team when you try to appeal it.
also take a look at how how they insta ban any videos with just a hint of anyone claiming copy rights on it, no matter who makes the claim.
Reason being there millions of videos uploaded to you tube on daily basis.
Would a PG-13 or R-13 rating at the intro of any video be an indication that its restricted for those under 13? What legal function could a system like this serve for those who create content, like video games on youtube, that is intended for people over 13, but could be perceived as intended for those under 13?
Those specific ratings are trademarks of the MPAA, and use without authorisation might be problematic. MPAA ratings are not at all government approved or enforced.
The thing is though, that a human won't look through your videos and say "Yeah, this naturally isn't a kids channel, moving on" no; an AI algorithm will. It will look for identifiers; the things mentioned on that list, and flag any video found in 'violation'. So, if I was you I'd be removing them 'toy cars' on the shelf behind you, regardless of their age or any other factor, because the algoritm quite likely won't care. But the biggest issue here is not your channel; it's channels that clearly ARE oriented toward children, of which there are many, as well as the 'borderline' ones that probably aren't ment to be but appeals to a broad range of ages (many animation channels, gaming channels etc etc) most of which are basically screwed, unless they manage to find their own sponsors. The whole situation is utterly rotten, and the kids being robbed of their favorite video entertainment will be as much victims in this as the content creators.
I have seen you get animated a time or two on your videos, Steve.
And the t-shirt admonitions aren't those ads??? my, oh, my!
Basically if you are genuinely not targeting children on purpose, and your demographics shows a majority adult viewership you have nothing to worry about. If you are genuinely not targeting children but they make up a majority of your audience anyway, then maybe talk to a lawyer. If you are targeting children on purpose but just want to call it adult targeted because you make more money on ads, then go complain to congress to change the law.
Lilitha11 I got an email message from FTC regarding COPPA. Check it out.
Thank you for giving this run down, my son has been screaming about this for a while and your video finally explain the "problem".
I tried to have him watch you but he insisted that you were wrong, haha welcome to having a teenager.
@@Freek314 Yeah I'm in that boat. Make fantasy, scifi, and horror game videos on my channel.
a lot of people mentioned this to me as well. not worried at all. 0.1% of my viewers are under 18. videos on truck repair and turning wrenches go right over the head of 13 year old and younger people. no way it could be confused to be directed at children. did the same thing you did and checked the box for non of my video's ever have been or will be directed to children.
I'm soon turning eighteen and I love your channel.
IF you ask me youtube is selling the creators out. As per the user agreement we all have to "sign" - if you're under the age of 13 you're not even allowed to use youtube, so if someone under the age of 13 is watching your videos it's because youtube is not enforcing it's own user agreement. As per that agreement, when I signed up for youtube, I was under the impression that no one under the age of 13 would even have access to my videos....so what the hell youtube, why are you letting children watch my video? And why are you punishing me when they do?
One further question to consider - do children flood onto your channel just to remember your Milo and Wolfy dogs?
What about Sirius, Alexa and Google, they are advertising to be used by kids. They all collect data for target advertising. Can't forget your android phone is always listening and collecting information for targeting advertising.
A defendant can still coppa plea and not be in violation, since their plea is not intended for children? And the robot voice might just be Steve using Helium?
It is a shame there aren't more youngsters who are interested in law and automobiles.
I’m Concerned for Disney bloggers . My question is fair use when it comes to live-streams something like Disney world or land or its impact on Facebook.
There is nothing that might be of interest to Children on the top shelf behind Steve!
different vid , but wanted to say, i went to wal mart to buy just one quart of oil, i dont really care about the showing receipt but i wont wait in line to do it . i walked passed a long line of customers waiting to show and the wal mart guy , just went straight by and out and the guy didnt say shit, didnt even look at me funny .
Uh, I am a rarity around here then!
I am 41 and Swiss - making me part of less than 5% of your viewers, probably even less than that given that I am also subscribed.
Small question, as I am developing a game-collection and am going to open my own little YT channel soon to cover that development and gameplay of some games I like: If I am not monetized, does COPPA apply at all?
Also, my content will not be aimed at children of course, more at people my age with the graphical style of my game and the kind of games I'll be playing so I'm in the green in any case. But young children may still view my things, and if I ever get into the monetized territory (fat chance of that, nowadays), what's the percentage to look out for? 25% younger than 13? 30%? 40%?
Monetization has nothing to do with it. It is that the channels gather information from viewers (via comments and so on). Goes back to the "Is this DIRECTED toward children?" question.
The problem with this COPPA issue is a you do not have to login to view content so a 13yr old could see content not intended for their age. Also on family computers if someone remains logged into their google account on that PC someone under the are of thirteen can still become a victim.
they can lie when making an account as well
It's not an issue of seeing the content. It's the stupid decision that video uploaders on youtube (may?) count under the people who are "collecting data". Collecting data + targeting children is the trigger for COPPA
COPPA, COPPA, COPPA Cabana! 🎉