Implications of COPPA

[Ethel mermania]

FFS, I said it in the last thread, and I'll say it again: COPPA isn't causing YouTube to make all of these stupid new rules, YouTube and Google are making YouTube make all these stupid new rules.

YouTube would've been just fine if they stopped taking people's data and personal info, but just like Facebook they don't want to do that anytime soon, so now they have to come up with these stupid rules so they can still steal data but not have it be illegal.

I have nothing to hide from them. The problem isn't the data collection, it's the ads. No one should be advertising to children; a business that cannot convince an adult of a product or service's quality deserves to lose.

Which means that YouTube, as a service that uses advertising, should not be shown to children. Which they themselves admitted when they said it wasn't intended for people under 13.

The issue is the data collection. The law says kids under 13 cant consent to it.

Now why 13? I have no idea.

[-Ocelot-]

Youtube started off as a platform where random people could post videos. Ever since, it is slowly marching towards the opposite direction. That of being a platform designed for corporations and state entities. COPPA is essentially a barrier, but only for the small uploaders, as corporations will have no issue adapting around it.

Google may not owe anyone a career but smaller uploaders bring the most viewers. And many uploaders may be unable to cope with the prospect of being fined for not tagging their videos properly.

The question is when will Youtube stop?

1. Nationalize YouTube so that it is bound by the 1st Amendment - let the people take the risks for what they watch
2. Regulate YouTube as a publisher rather than a platform so YouTube can play fast and loose with its terms & conditions, but it's now just liable for any problems arising from videos
3. Split the difference and regulate YouTube as a telecom, which makes it bound to all sorts of free speech and fairness regulations, but not quite at the same level nationalization would have

Nationalizing YT? Just go ahead and kill it, instead.

[Dumb Ideologies]

YouTube has for some time now been introducing algorithims and semi-automatic systems to sanitise its content in order to keep advertisers on board. What creators and the majority of the audience want is not much of a factor. They're a target for regulation because of their market, brand position and archive. They also rely on that position in their assessments. Even if they set up incoherent and haphazard demonetisation, video takedowns and the like, they're betting that people won't leave because of the reach of their platform. Most of the YouTubers I'm subscribed to make their money from Patreon, merch and such, rather than from the site itself, because its internal reward/punishment mechanisms don't make any sense and it makes income too unpredictable. The platform is a means to make money elsewhere.

That's bumbling along for now, but it's like a Loony Tunes character who's run off the edge of the cliff. As the bar rises for people making money there won't be enough new creators to replace the natural wastage, and the site will inexorably plummet to the bottom of the canyon.

[New Paine]

YouTube has for some time now been introducing algorithims and semi-automatic systems to sanitise its content in order to keep advertisers on board. What creators and the majority of the audience want is not much of a factor. They're a target for regulation because of their market, brand position and archive. They also rely on that position in their assessments. Even if they set up incoherent and haphazard demonetisation, video takedowns and the like, they're betting that people won't leave because of the reach of their platform. Most of the YouTubers I'm subscribed to make their money from Patreon, merch and such, rather than from the site itself, because its internal reward/punishment mechanisms don't make any sense and it makes income too unpredictable. The platform is a means to make money elsewhere.

That's bumbling along for now, but it's like a Loony Tunes character who's run off the edge of the cliff. As the bar rises for people making money there won't be enough new creators to replace the natural wastage, and the site will inexorably plummet to the bottom of the canyon.

Indeed. Youtube has become so unfriendly to content creators, I do see a competitor over taking it as the number one video streaming platform. I just wonder if it’s going to be a new website it has yet to be created or is it going to be an existing website.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

So if individuals claim their video is appropriate for kids, despite posting it on YouTube, couldn't the law get those individuals on false advertising?

False advertising is more civil than criminal. Usually their has to be both fraud and the monetization of that fraud. So, I dunno I would want a lawyers opinion

Eh, before even hearing of a lawyer's legal opinion I may as well give my moral opinion.

I still think, at least morally speaking, it's more so the fault of those individual uploaders than anyone else, and we need a way to go after THEM. If YouTube didn't enable that kind of shit, some other website would have in its place. Also, it's too big to police.

That and/or that of the parents' fault; they ignored fair warnings the site was inappropriate for children, brought them there anyway, and then bitched at the rest of us for not accommodating them when they had no business there in the first place.

[Ethel mermania]

False advertising is more civil than criminal. Usually their has to be both fraud and the monetization of that fraud. So, I dunno I would want a lawyers opinion

Eh, before even hearing of a lawyer's legal opinion I may as well give my moral opinion.

I still think, at least morally speaking, it's more so the fault of those individual uploaders than anyone else, and we need a way to go after THEM. If YouTube didn't enable that kind of shit, some other website would have in its place. Also, it's too big to police.

That and/or that of the parents' fault; they ignored fair warnings the site was inappropriate for children, brought them there anyway, and then bitched at the rest of us for not accommodating them when they had no business there in the first place.

I think your anger is misdirected. There is plenty of content aimed at small children on youtube. Search sesame street or raffi for quick examples. The problem is in how youtube monetizes you the viewer. It's up to youtube to come up with a solution to the problem.

[Aclion]

I actually like COPPA. Keep your tissue gremlins away from me.

[Cisairse]

Coppa is just another step towards censoring and regulating the internet like the corporations have wanted to do for a long time now. Eventually something like it was going to get passed, but what a damn shame.

It's sad remembering that wild west, few algorithms and no controls internet from the 2000s. When 'E-Beggar' was an actual insult and cyriak was a big deal.

You realize that COPPA was enacted in 1998, right? It predates YouTube by seven years.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Eh, before even hearing of a lawyer's legal opinion I may as well give my moral opinion.

I still think, at least morally speaking, it's more so the fault of those individual uploaders than anyone else, and we need a way to go after THEM. If YouTube didn't enable that kind of shit, some other website would have in its place. Also, it's too big to police.

That and/or that of the parents' fault; they ignored fair warnings the site was inappropriate for children, brought them there anyway, and then bitched at the rest of us for not accommodating them when they had no business there in the first place.

I think your anger is misdirected. There is plenty of content aimed at small children on youtube. Search sesame street or raffi for quick examples. The problem is in how youtube monetizes you the viewer. It's up to youtube to come up with a solution to the problem.

Gee, if only there were some other medium on which children could watch Sesame Street or Raffi...

[Neutraligon]

The issue I have with COPPA is that it requires places like youtube determining if the watcher is a child. How do they do that? How do they deal with a child using parent's youtube account (while being supervised by the parent)?

[Ethel mermania]

I think your anger is misdirected. There is plenty of content aimed at small children on youtube. Search sesame street or raffi for quick examples. The problem is in how youtube monetizes you the viewer. It's up to youtube to come up with a solution to the problem.

Gee, if only there were some other medium on which children could watch Sesame Street or Raffi...

Yet it is still on YouTube, who's fault is that?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Gee, if only there were some other medium on which children could watch Sesame Street or Raffi...

Yet it is still on YouTube, who's fault is that?

Parents who ignored the "this site is inappropriate for kids under 13" warning.

If Sesame Street didn't upload to YouTube, it would attract a lower-fraction of the attention of children whose parents let them use the Internet, and their attention would turn to worse content. Of all the things you could use to placate a child, TV is nowhere near as dangerous as the Internet.