Implications of COPPA

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

So recently YouTube's COPPA changes took effect.

This controversy has brought to light some things I long suspected but could never confirm.

Firstly, that a lot of parents let children use the Internet, despite all the beheading videos, neo-Nazi hate speech, etc... that are rampant here. I guess all that indignation at "graphic violence in the media" was fake after all.

Secondly, that people automatically assume anything animated is for children, despite the history of animation, especially online. For instance, this music video about a girl feeling attracted to her stepbrother and watching him sleep is deemed kid-friendly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH2Ns9Tewpo

I was reluctant to assume people could be that ignorant, but here we are.

Our options are; retain the Internet as the last medium without gatekeepers, or turn it into something no different from the rest of the media. And the latter isn't really an option anyway what with us not clearly not having enough gatekeepers for everyone.

[Saiwania]

COPPA is a dumb law in my view, and the best way forward would be to get it repealed. Now, how to actually bring that about? Replace it with something more relevant or better if people really want that.

My understanding is that it was written by lawmakers who don't understand the Internet or think it can be regulated like TV. Maybe it worked well in the early 90s. But online its vastly different now, as to make it one of those obsolete laws that no one cares to enforce the majority of the time.

People now at least have tools to control their children's online access, without bothering the rest of us. This wasn't as true in the old days.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

COPPA is a dumb law in my view, and the best way forward would be to get it repealed. Now, how to actually bring that about? Replace it with something more relevant or better if people really want that.

My understanding is that it was written by lawmakers who don't understand the Internet or think it can be regulated like TV. Maybe it worked well in the early 90s. But online its vastly different now, as to make it one of those obsolete laws that no one cares to enforce the majority of the time.

People now at least have tools to control their children's online access, without bothering the rest of us. This wasn't as true in the old days.

Even if they couldn't, that doesn't give them the right to deprive the Internet of the free, open, unfettered nature that makes it unique. The world does not revolve around their kids.

[Southern Avarsarstan]

[...] or turn it into something no different from the rest of the media.

This is basically what the corporations are pushing for as far as I'm aware; to make the internet like TV; pay per view 'channels', 'premium subscriptions', very controlled content, very heavily monetized. They'll dress it up however they can to try to sell it. The lies about 'clogged pipes' (or whatever the hell it was with the whining about how the infrastructure 'just couldn't support it') didn't work so now its appealing to some sense of traditoinalist moralism.

[La Paz de Los Ricos]

The only thing this law will end up achieving is hurting content creators, which is very worrying considering that this is, largely, an issue with YouTube itself. At least in my humble, non-internet-legal-policy-expert opinion.

[Amuaplye]

I'm not afraid.

1. The people at the FTC aren't stupid. They won't watch like 5 seconds of a video and decide from then on. They probably are smart enough to watch an entire video, like all of us do.

2. The main person spreading stuff about this (a guy on YouTube under the name Chadtronic), is taking people's quotes out of context (The Mysterious Mr. Enter did a video about this, where in a single 30 second clip of the FTC speech tweeted by Chadtronic, there were 8 jump cuts)

3. We shouldn't worry if we're small content creators, because we're obscure and can probably slip under the radar.

4. The government has probably learned their lesson after going after thousands of people over DMCA.

[Saiwania]

I'm not afraid.

1. The people at the FTC aren't stupid. They won't watch like 5 seconds of a video and decide from then on. They probably are smart enough to watch an entire video, like all of us do.

There aren't enough hours in a day to watch a video from beginning to end at scale. Logistically it can't be done. If the FTC isn't invested in what they're reviewing, of course they don't watch the entire thing. It'd have to be quite similar to how the ESRB rates media.

[Amuaplye]

I'm not afraid.

1. The people at the FTC aren't stupid. They won't watch like 5 seconds of a video and decide from then on. They probably are smart enough to watch an entire video, like all of us do.

There aren't enough hours in a day to watch a video from beginning to end at scale. Logistically it can't be done. If the FTC isn't invested in what they're reviewing, of course they don't watch the entire thing. It'd have to be quite similar to how the ESRB rates media.

Well, it would be long enough to justify an accurate response. If your thing didn't get the right rating, you can probably take the matter up with YouTube and the FTC.

Also, here's the Mr. Enter video I was talking about in my previous post.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-1xHglORp0

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

There aren't enough hours in a day to watch a video from beginning to end at scale. Logistically it can't be done. If the FTC isn't invested in what they're reviewing, of course they don't watch the entire thing. It'd have to be quite similar to how the ESRB rates media.

Well, it would be long enough to justify an accurate response. If your thing didn't get the right rating, you can probably take the matter up with YouTube and the FTC.

Also, here's the Mr. Enter video I was talking about in my previous post.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-1xHglORp0

How would content creators go about taking it up with Youtube and the FTC, though? And how do they know they couldn't face retaliatory bans for doing so, or at least copyright strikes they wouldn't otherwise get?

[Amuaplye]

And how do they know they couldn't face retaliatory bans for doing so, or at least copyright strikes they wouldn't otherwise get?

Because, afaik, YouTube hasn't done that ever. Even in the whole "profits before people" mentality, it wouldn't make sense. You would lose people, which would cause you to lose money.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

And how do they know they couldn't face retaliatory bans for doing so, or at least copyright strikes they wouldn't otherwise get?

Because, afaik, YouTube hasn't done that ever. Even in the whole "profits before people" mentality, it wouldn't make sense. You would lose people, which would cause you to lose money.

It would also lose them a potential source of evidence that their algorithm is flawed. Surely the tradeoff depends on how many viewers the individual calling it out already has.

[Page]

After seeing LegalEagle's video on this subject, I no longer think this situation is so dire as it's being portrayed among many YouTubers. It still may be problematic but it's not a digital apocalypse.

In any case, YouTube has already been ruined in many other ways. Independent political voices like Kyle Kulinski and Jimmy Dore are lumped in with nazis, Alex Jones types, and flat earthers, all suppressed by the algorithm and never recommended to anyone who doesn't already subscribe. (Hey conservatives, they are not just going after you, leftists have been targeted too!) Mere discussion of current events like terrorism and war results in automatic demonetization. Content creators who focus on history, politics, or religion are unfairly demonetized too.

In response to a nazi and conspiracy nut infestation in a few houses, YouTube nuked the whole continent in response.

[Chan Island]

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.

[Ethel mermania]

Coppa is nothing new. It has been around for about 6 years. The laws points are as follows. (From wiki)


After July 1, 2013, operators must:[29]
Post a clear and comprehensive online privacy policy describing their information practices for personal information collected online from persons under age 13;
Make reasonable efforts (taking into account available technology) to provide direct notice to parents of the operator's practices with regard to the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information from persons under 13, including notice of any material change to such practices to which the parents has previously consented;
Obtain verifiable parental consent, with limited exceptions, prior to any collection, use, and/or disclosure of personal information from persons under age 13;
Provide a reasonable means for a parent to review the personal information collected from their child and to refuse to permit its further use or maintenance;
Establish and maintain reasonable procedures to protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of the personal information collected from children under age 13, including by taking reasonable steps to disclose/release such personal information only to parties capable of maintaining its confidentiality and security; and
Retain personal information collected online from a child for only as long as is necessary to fulfill the purpose for which it was collected and delete the information using reasonable measures to protect against its unauthorized access or use.
Operators are prohibited from conditioning a child's participation in an online activity on the child providing more information than is reasonably necessary to participate in that activity.[30]



I. am not seeing anything unreasonable here, maybe your problem is what google is doing, take it up with them

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Coppa is nothing new. It has been around for about 6 years. The laws points are as follows. (From wiki)


After July 1, 2013, operators must:[29]
Post a clear and comprehensive online privacy policy describing their information practices for personal information collected online from persons under age 13;
Make reasonable efforts (taking into account available technology) to provide direct notice to parents of the operator's practices with regard to the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information from persons under 13, including notice of any material change to such practices to which the parents has previously consented;
Obtain verifiable parental consent, with limited exceptions, prior to any collection, use, and/or disclosure of personal information from persons under age 13;
Provide a reasonable means for a parent to review the personal information collected from their child and to refuse to permit its further use or maintenance;
Establish and maintain reasonable procedures to protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of the personal information collected from children under age 13, including by taking reasonable steps to disclose/release such personal information only to parties capable of maintaining its confidentiality and security; and
Retain personal information collected online from a child for only as long as is necessary to fulfill the purpose for which it was collected and delete the information using reasonable measures to protect against its unauthorized access or use.
Operators are prohibited from conditioning a child's participation in an online activity on the child providing more information than is reasonably necessary to participate in that activity.[30]



I. am not seeing anything unreasonable here, maybe your problem is what google is doing, take it up with them

Google warned parents that YouTube was not intended for those under 13, yet parents let kids use it anyway. Whose fault is that?

[Xmara]

Coppa is nothing new. It has been around for about 6 years. The laws points are as follows. (From wiki)


After July 1, 2013, operators must:[29]
Post a clear and comprehensive online privacy policy describing their information practices for personal information collected online from persons under age 13;
Make reasonable efforts (taking into account available technology) to provide direct notice to parents of the operator's practices with regard to the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information from persons under 13, including notice of any material change to such practices to which the parents has previously consented;
Obtain verifiable parental consent, with limited exceptions, prior to any collection, use, and/or disclosure of personal information from persons under age 13;
Provide a reasonable means for a parent to review the personal information collected from their child and to refuse to permit its further use or maintenance;
Establish and maintain reasonable procedures to protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of the personal information collected from children under age 13, including by taking reasonable steps to disclose/release such personal information only to parties capable of maintaining its confidentiality and security; and
Retain personal information collected online from a child for only as long as is necessary to fulfill the purpose for which it was collected and delete the information using reasonable measures to protect against its unauthorized access or use.
Operators are prohibited from conditioning a child's participation in an online activity on the child providing more information than is reasonably necessary to participate in that activity.[30]



I. am not seeing anything unreasonable here, maybe your problem is what google is doing, take it up with them

Google warned parents that YouTube was not intended for those under 13, yet parents let kids use it anyway. Whose fault is that?

Ever heard of the YouTube kids app (made by Google for the under-13 crowd)?

Anyway, tbh YouTube kids should have never been a thing in the beginning, kids under 13 have no business being on YouTube (especially unsupervised), and parents should monitor their under-10 year old kids when they use the Internet. Look, it’s upsetting that some preschoolers got exposed to graphic violence and sex, but their parents shouldn’t have let the iPad babysit for them in the first place. Sorry for the rant.

As for COPPA, I’ll read more on that later because I have stuff I need to do, and I’ll add my opinion on that specific thing soon.

[Ethel mermania]

Coppa is nothing new. It has been around for about 6 years. The laws points are as follows. (From wiki)


After July 1, 2013, operators must:[29]
Post a clear and comprehensive online privacy policy describing their information practices for personal information collected online from persons under age 13;
Make reasonable efforts (taking into account available technology) to provide direct notice to parents of the operator's practices with regard to the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information from persons under 13, including notice of any material change to such practices to which the parents has previously consented;
Obtain verifiable parental consent, with limited exceptions, prior to any collection, use, and/or disclosure of personal information from persons under age 13;
Provide a reasonable means for a parent to review the personal information collected from their child and to refuse to permit its further use or maintenance;
Establish and maintain reasonable procedures to protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of the personal information collected from children under age 13, including by taking reasonable steps to disclose/release such personal information only to parties capable of maintaining its confidentiality and security; and
Retain personal information collected online from a child for only as long as is necessary to fulfill the purpose for which it was collected and delete the information using reasonable measures to protect against its unauthorized access or use.
Operators are prohibited from conditioning a child's participation in an online activity on the child providing more information than is reasonably necessary to participate in that activity.[30]



I. am not seeing anything unreasonable here, maybe your problem is what google is doing, take it up with them

Google warned parents that YouTube was not intended for those under 13, yet parents let kids use it anyway. Whose fault is that?

1. YouTube hosts material that targets kids.

2. That point is not material to what the law requires from google.

[Munkcestrian Republic]

Raise the COPPA age to 21 and actually enforce it. First step if you want it to be taken seriously.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Google warned parents that YouTube was not intended for those under 13, yet parents let kids use it anyway. Whose fault is that?

1. YouTube hosts material that targets kids.

2. That point is not material to what the law requires from google.

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?

[New haven america]

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.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

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.

[New haven america]

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.

There's nothing illegal about showing ads to kids.

However, by COPPA law, it's illegal to steal the personal information of minors and create ads to target them. That's the main issue here.

[Vegaslovakia]

And how do they know they couldn't face retaliatory bans for doing so, or at least copyright strikes they wouldn't otherwise get?

Because, afaik, YouTube hasn't done that ever. Even in the whole "profits before people" mentality, it wouldn't make sense. You would lose people, which would cause you to lose money.

... This is not true. Somebody, channel name YooTube Poop, was terminated from YouTube back in '09.

[Bear Stearns]

Here are some options I wouldn't mind exercising:

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

[Ethel mermania]

1. YouTube hosts material that targets kids.

2. That point is not material to what the law requires from google.

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