NationStates

This has been edited as information was given to me, I have attempted to make it less "OH MY GOD YOUTUBE CREATORS ARE GOING TO BECOME HOMELESS!" to a "Okay this seems bad but all we really need to do is to get the FTC to clarify their reasoning a bit."

So not sure if everyone knows, and there clearly isn't a discussion on here about this yet, but the general gist is the FTC is currently going to implement a system in which they can fine content creators on youtube for attempting to dodge the new system which doesn't allow ads to be posted on videos targeted at kids, however what worse is their reasoning are so vague and out dated that one of their policies for being kid friendly is the use of the terms "cool" and "fun". No I'm not kidding, this however doesn't mean they will always 100% flag people who use these words, but rather since it's so vague on the use of these words it's simply alarming. I'm probably not explaining it the best so here's Jim Sterling discussing if you wan't to get into it more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OBGfbSk_HE

As Jim Sterling said, it shouldn't be that bad and will probably not be that bad for creators however that doesn't mean we should ignore the vagueness of the terms and push the FTC to at least clarify their terms more so individual content creators don't have to worry about their channel getting randomly slapped with a 42k fine. Obviously likely the biggest ass end of the stick would be those content creators who are specifically made for children, if they were dependent on their channel for income now their entire career has been thrown out the window. For some this would actually be a good thing because I'm sure we've all seen pregnant Elsa before. However for those few creators who actually do good videos for kids it kinda just sucks for them.

I hate to be that guy, but can we get a source that's not a video?

My personal should be quite obvious in that I totally do not support this, and frankly the FTC is being vague in it's power. They are suing YouTube for their rather dark and corrupted use in data mining children. Which is also causing youtube to completely demonetize any and all channels aimed for kids. However their reasoning so vague it technically(not saying they will) can give them legality to basically fine basically anyone they want, so if this is what they are going for it's pretty bs because YouTube was never for children in the first place, so to try and sue content creators for not being kid friendly is bull shit, this is without even mentioning that Youtube has "Youtube Kids" Which is specifically for kids. However it does kinda suck for the actually decent kids channels who are basically out of the youtube career. So NSU's what's your thoughts?

Galloism wrote:I hate to be that guy, but can we get a source that's not a video?

Ofc, https://nerdist.com/article/youtube-ftc-kids-content-creators-demonetize/
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/protecting-consumer-privacy-security/kids-privacy-coppa
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/09/google-youtube-will-pay-record-170-million-alleged-violations
Edit: another one for ya https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/13/20963459/youtube-google-coppa-ftc-fine-settlement-youtubers-new-rules

Satuga wrote:So not sure if everyone knows, and there clearly isn't a discussion on here about this yet, but the general gist is the FTC is currently going to implement a system in which they can fine content creators on youtube for basically not being kid friendly, and what's even worse is their reasoning are so vague and out dated that one of their policies for being kid friendly is the use of the terms "cool" and "fun". No I'm not kidding. I'm probably not explaining it the best so here's Jim Sterling discussing if you wan't to get into it more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OBGfbSk_HE

Yeah you've kind of misrepresented it. Basically YouTube was informed they weren't complying with an online privacy law that predates the site by almost a decade. Rather than stop harvesting data, YouTube simply decided to pull anything that could be considered "data collection" from any content that could be aimed at children under 13, unless the content uploader tells them it's definitely not aimed at said demographic.

And for all the talk of vagueness, the FTC isn't an algorithm. They're not going to be fining people just for using "kid friendly" language in a video that blatantly isn't supposed to be.

OP, did you even listen to the video you linked? Because he addresses your more sensational claims.

Satuga wrote:

Galloism wrote:I hate to be that guy, but can we get a source that's not a video?

Ofc, https://nerdist.com/article/youtube-ftc-kids-content-creators-demonetize/
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/protecting-consumer-privacy-security/kids-privacy-coppa
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/09/google-youtube-will-pay-record-170-million-alleged-violations
Edit: another one for ya https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/13/20963459/youtube-google-coppa-ftc-fine-settlement-youtubers-new-rules

Danke. Reading.

Vassenor wrote:
Yeah you've kind of misrepresented it. Basically YouTube was informed they weren't complying with an online privacy law that predates the site by almost a decade. Rather than stop harvesting data, YouTube simply decided to pull anything that could be considered "data collection" from any content that could be aimed at children under 13, unless the content uploader tells them it's definitely not aimed at said demographic.

And for all the talk of vagueness, the FTC isn't an algorithm. They're not going to be fining people just for using "kid friendly" language in a video that blatantly isn't supposed to be.

They're going to have to go through millions of channels, do you really think they're not going to use an algorithm?

Satuga wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Yeah you've kind of misrepresented it. Basically YouTube was informed they weren't complying with an online privacy law that predates the site by almost a decade. Rather than stop harvesting data, YouTube simply decided to pull anything that could be considered "data collection" from any content that could be aimed at children under 13, unless the content uploader tells them it's definitely not aimed at said demographic.

And for all the talk of vagueness, the FTC isn't an algorithm. They're not going to be fining people just for using "kid friendly" language in a video that blatantly isn't supposed to be.

They're going to have to go through millions of channels, do you really think they're not going to use an algorithm?

Are they actually going to be sifting through every single video looking for cases of people saying "cool" in the first place?

Satuga wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Yeah you've kind of misrepresented it. Basically YouTube was informed they weren't complying with an online privacy law that predates the site by almost a decade. Rather than stop harvesting data, YouTube simply decided to pull anything that could be considered "data collection" from any content that could be aimed at children under 13, unless the content uploader tells them it's definitely not aimed at said demographic.

And for all the talk of vagueness, the FTC isn't an algorithm. They're not going to be fining people just for using "kid friendly" language in a video that blatantly isn't supposed to be.

They're going to have to go through millions of channels, do you really think they're not going to use an algorithm?

The FTC won't be going through millions of channels. They will respond to violations that are brought to their attention, as they respond to violations that are brought to their attention in other media. When such violations are reported, as in real life, real people have to look at it.

Holy Marsh wrote:OP, did you even listen to the video you linked? Because he addresses your more sensational claims.

Actually, I didn't listen to Jim Stirling's, video I actually found out from TearOfGrace, however I do know TOG can exaggerate some so I knew Jimmy boy would be more calm and likely address some concerns yes, I will be looking at the video soon however still the discussion does apply.

Satuga wrote:

Holy Marsh wrote:OP, did you even listen to the video you linked? Because he addresses your more sensational claims.

Actually, I didn't listen to Jim Stirling's, video I actually found out from TearOfGrace, however I do know TOG can exaggerate some so I knew Jimmy boy would be more calm and likely address some concerns yes, I will be looking at the video soon however still the discussion does apply.

Wait. So you linked a video in the OP and you didn't even watch it? You should do so soon, because he addresses your points.

Satuga wrote:https://twitter.com/i/status/1197103979521593345

<---- grabbed from my phone. This is why I say they are likely going to use an algorithm.

Satuga wrote:

Satuga wrote:https://twitter.com/i/status/1197103979521593345

<---- grabbed from my phone. This is why I say they are likely going to use an algorithm.

Nothing about that implies the FTC is going to use an algorithm.

I mean dude, he is using an edited clip with dramatic zooms.

Calm down. Not the end of the world.

Holy Marsh wrote:

Satuga wrote:Actually, I didn't listen to Jim Stirling's, video I actually found out from TearOfGrace, however I do know TOG can exaggerate some so I knew Jimmy boy would be more calm and likely address some concerns yes, I will be looking at the video soon however still the discussion does apply.

Wait. So you linked a video in the OP and you didn't even watch it? You should do so soon, because he addresses your points.

That I will admit, I did probably move in haste soon I will watch the video, I might not time at this very moment however.

data mining on minors is a very dark and underground issue as technically they have no ability to consent to such techniques.

Ethel mermania wrote:data mining on minors is a very dark and underground issue as technically they have no ability to consent to such techniques.

Yes it is which the FTC is actually doing something good, however the limits on content creators are worrying at the very least.

I'm of the opinion that the FTC is broadly in the right here, and that the problem stems from Google's bad practices and attempts to preserve as much of their advertising empire as possible without care for the actual content creators.

Worth noting that the FTC probably wouldn't go after individuals anyways - the linked verge article notes they have a serious lack of staff, and the burden of proof that a specific creator actively went around the kids thing is high. Plus, the settlement is entirely with Google, creators have no actual way to be in violation of COPPA since they're rather obviously not collecting the date that caused the fine anyways.

Satuga wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:data mining on minors is a very dark and underground issue as technically they have no ability to consent to such techniques.

Yes it is which the FTC is actually doing something good, however the limits on content creators are worrying at the very least.

And what actual limits are those?

Being a relatively experienced "YouTuber" since about 2015, I've seen the updates to the site - there's now a function where you select whether your videos are for kids or not. You now also have to disclose any child appearances in your videos in line with the COPPA legislation (if you're American). You did have to mark that anyway in the past, but it wasn't seen as legally enforceable or a ToS breach if you didn't.

If your videos are marked as kid friendly (you can do this video-by-video or channel-wide) but turn out to be non-child friendly stuff, that's when you can get in trouble if you're a citizen of the US. If you're an international creator, YouTube will likely make you change the rating (or change it for you as they mention they will). If you change it back after that they'll remove it. Changing your content rating appropriately and sticking within YouTube's guidelines on this will likely be just fine and you shouldn't have any trouble with it.


YouTube do an oopsie here by saying no matter my location I am legally bound to follow United States law. What they should say is I am bound to the Terms of Service.

In summary, the United States is stupid with its superfluous laws and regulations, but YouTube is an American company and from what I've personally seen and experienced, they're trying hard to put creators first.

The FTC sucks!

Vassenor wrote:

Satuga wrote:Yes it is which the FTC is actually doing something good, however the limits on content creators are worrying at the very least.

And what actual limits are those?

Well there are links directly set to the FTC which I believe have the limits you're asking about and if not I'm rather sure a simple google would tell you.

Holy Marsh wrote:

Satuga wrote:Actually, I didn't listen to Jim Stirling's, video I actually found out from TearOfGrace, however I do know TOG can exaggerate some so I knew Jimmy boy would be more calm and likely address some concerns yes, I will be looking at the video soon however still the discussion does apply.

Wait. So you linked a video in the OP and you didn't even watch it? You should do so soon, because he addresses your points.

I have now fully watched the video and updated the OP accordingly, however I'm still going to make some changes to make it less exaggerated or deceptive.

Satuga wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
And what actual limits are those?

Well there are links directly set to the FTC which I believe have the limits you're asking about and if not I'm rather sure a simple google would tell you.

So what's stopping you from explaining them if the information is so readily available?

Satuga wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
And what actual limits are those?

Well there are links directly set to the FTC which I believe have the limits you're asking about and if not I'm rather sure a simple google would tell you.

I believe the parents of the children are required to consent at any point when there is intentional data collection of children involved. Think about why they always said "ask your parents first" back in the 2000s when advertising the Disney Channel website and stuff. The parents are meant to look at the website and consent to the Privacy Policy and ToS on behalf of the kid (as if that ever happens).

On the YouTube debacle, the FTC is now pushing content creators to step in rather than the parents controlling what children watch.