YouTube channel owners: Is your content directed to children?
ftc.gov
ftc.gov
Now the creators ask YouTube: please give us an option to have channels that are free of under 13 viewers. It is not my target demographic, and while your own analytics tell me there are a few of those watching, I do not want them here. Either block them or if they show up just comply with COPA and don't track them, OK?
But then YouTube goes: no can do. We either track everyone or no-one, your choice, and BTW n the latter case, we will decimate your revenue. But you are as always free to leave for some other webhost. LOL! Hey, and BTW, if you do indicate that your channel is not directed at kids, you are hereby informed that it is 100% you that is on the line, not us, if the FTC decides otherwise as we do nothing with all that analytics we have to turn away the kids from your doorstep.
So content creators are left up shit creeck without a paddle.
Can't you already do this by setting the age rating on your videos?
This was requested by the COPPA politicians as a "technology backstop" as they always misunderstand how tech and AI works, and were warned that it would lead to bad side effects like this.
I watch a lot of stuff with my 5 year old daughter -- whether on YouTube or elsewhere -- than we both seem to equally enjoy. Recent ones include Star Wars Resistance, The Mandalorian, Spirited Away, From Up on Poppy Hill, The Incredibles 2.
On YouTube we watch "how it's made" videos, as well as a lot of music videos, such as Taylor Swift and Billish Eilish. A lot of stuff probably has a median age of viewers that is right around the cutoff age, 13. But lots of over-18 adults like them too and would watch them completely in the absence of kids.
Are these things "for kids"? I don't see how you would make that determination.
Then you can allow your children to access Streama and they can watch without worry.
It's useless because once you log into YT you can't make playlists or I think subscribe without making a channel, by default that's first name/last name. even if I could I can't stop them uploading content. So the tiny org proofing tools that are there I can't use anyway.
I swear YT don't even use their own product.
Even if they do hire actual real human, they hire them as cheap labors, not as legitimate jobs (see Facebook)
No i mean user-curated playlists
That's the goal - if this is checked by the creator (for the specific video or for the entire channel), it will have personalized ads disabled for the video plus disable whatever tracking systems Google has for regular watching.
They were asking "is your content directed toward kids?" The FTC page confirms that and gives some examples.
To pull an example from memory, I used to watch Blue's Clues with my kids when they were little. Even though I also enjoyed the humor and creativity of the show, and the experience of watching it with them, it was clearly directed toward children.
OTOH, my dogs and cats have a YouTube channel where they show off their playtime adventures. It's completely child-friendly, but it's not specifically directed toward kids, it's just dogs and cats playing around. So I didn't mark the channel or any of the videos as being directed toward children.
I'm not familiar with all the videos you mentioned, but the ones I recognize would seem to be in the same category as my dog and cat videos: not directed toward children.
But if I'm, like, a Mario speedrunner, when I read that the FTC's indica of child-targeted content include "the use of animated characters" and "enabled settings that made their content appear when users searched for the names of popular toys", I think it's reasonable to be concerned. The FTC should (but I'm hopeful they will!) clarify that "directed towards children" only applies when you're specifically trying to get kids to watch it.
Blues Clues is clearly "directed at kids". My point isn't that there aren't things that are black and things that are white, but that there are also things that are gray.
I tried to choose ones that are in the gray area, but if you consider the ones I listed "not directed toward children", surely there are ones whose median audience is slightly younger, that would be considered to be in that gray area.
Since you mentioned it, care to share your dog and cat videos link? :) Here's my not-directed-at-kids playlist that stars a kid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6KuQYE3hDU&list=PLSz9W2tWBY...
Youtube is ignoring this and forcing a choice because it's easier to implement. They're also ignoring creators that are asking for age-gating with logged-in users only to prevent their video classification from being contested in the future.
This YouTube video has a segment of an interview that discusses this further:
I think google might be committing libel here. Claiming their users violate coppa when their users can't even control who google does or does not spy on.
If the child DOES post a comment, then that means they lied to YouTube about their age when signing up for an account. Why is this a channel host's legal responsibility, and what possible measures could be implemented to avoid it other than requiring an identity disclosing internet drivers license to be presented before each use of the internet.
The problem as far as I have heard was that youtube realized that there are a lot of to young (<13y) people on youtube and that they can be targeted advertised (implicitly, in a way which just "happens to" target kids "accidentally"), and then they where so stupid as to advertise that when getting in contact with advertisers. So in a certain way they screwed them self over, or more precise they screwed part of the content creators over.
The problem with the FTC requiring content producers for youtube (13+) to label videos as "for kids" is that with the FTC rules a lot of videos which are not meant for kids and are never supposed to be delivered to kids now fall under this label and lose targeted advertisement money, which can be there major income.
E.g. there are a bunch of channels doing LEGO reviews for _adults_ (because surprise there are a lot of young adults which started to like LEGO again, parents and also that cray people thinking it's a good money investment). Now because they do LEGO reviews they will have to label this as a kids thing, even through the amount of kids on their channels is less then 2%.... Or basically any easy to understand since video gets practically demonetized, because it's naturally interesting for 12y olds and has nice animations etc. This videos are fine to be seen by kids, but the producers would prefer kids to be excluded as they need to earn money to at least cover production cost.
Also because officially there are not <13y old kids on YT it means YT can't just "not track" the kids but everyone else.
Also we should not forget that there is YT for kids, so if you produce (good) content targeted at kids this is where you should go.
So it's a pretty messed up situation. If you now consider who has very large influence over the FTC and who either hates the modern internet which made people stop watching classical cable, or would like to additional bill YT (more?) etc. it's doesn't seem likely to resolve in a reasonable way, at last I would be surprised. But then I have been surprised before so let's hope it ends not to bad.
I would doubt the need for a physical artifact—I mean, even the IRS accepts digital returns.
1. It's easier not to target children.
2. This is more of a nuisance for established channels, as they have to edit every video and mark whether it's directed to children or not.
That's if I'm not wrong. I mean, I've mainly gotten my information from this one video so far: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwDrHOe43E
I'm only a new creator so it's not really going to be much for me to worry about, and I can't think of a single reason why anyone under the age of 13 would want to watch my content anyway. It's about as boring adult topic stuff (building a business and corporate life rantings) as you can get.
Note: the way YouTube has set this up, it is the creator's legal responsibility to mark their videos appropriately, but YouTube will also be running an algorithm to automatically flag videos as a best effort approach.
A proper solution is to create an age-gate for videos with categories of kids only, older-only, and general audience (which is allowed by the FTC). Also stop tracking tracking anonymous users.
This would allow creators to categorize content without losing all monetization and features, or risking legal action. That would be more expensive to implement though so it's not happening.
The whole social dynamic here is IMO pretty confusing. Google is kind of an ass to the content creators but they don’t leave. Everyone says it’s about discoverability but video podcasts are discoverable, nicer to creators and literally push your content to your subscribers devices. Not to mention most devices ship with a video podcast app as part of the OS now.
I think it’s more of a sort of digital Stockholm syndrome, kind of like how MacOS users enjoy working around defects youtubers enjoy dodging censorship.
There is also the problem of any YT competitor needing an extreme amount of money to invest without any promise of return for a long while. Google has invested 20+ years into digital advertising, so unless they use Google ads themselves they end up needing to roll their own ad platform. PR, managing the content creators put on your platform, etc. are also huge mountains to climb, which is why YT continues to struggle to "appease their creators".
> I think it’s more of a sort of digital Stockholm syndrome, kind of like how MacOS users enjoy working around defects youtubers enjoy dodging censorship.
I think it's more that the issues here are blown ridiculously out of proportion and show an obnoxious level of entitlement to advertiser dollars. Calling it censorship is a good example. Everything beyond the basic ability to upload videos and share links (getting recommended, getting advertiser money, etc.) is something that prior to youtube would require serious negotiation with publishers and lawyers. Small time creators never even had a seat at that table.
The reason creators don't leave is because it's beggars trying to choose and that doesn't work.
No they're not. Does the average person know what you're even talking about here? Because I don't know and a service that's unknown is not discoverable.
I'm on the consumer end of this. Basically every Youtube channel I'm subscribed to is effectively a video podcast, with new "episodes" every so often, from a few times a week to once a month.
I would love not to have to look to Youtube to find new feeds to subscribe to (in some cases literally subscribe, Youtube has RSS!). However, I don't have the slightest idea where I would begin looking for video podcasts. Maybe an RSS aggregator? But not everyone uses RSS... Any suggestions?
> FTC considers a number of factors in determining the appropriate amount
> the operator paid a total civil penalty of $35,000
I'll take 'Captured Agency for $100, Alex'
I know hacker news encourages us to assume the best intentions when responding to comments, but I'm finding that difficult to do when a $170 million COPPA fine was levied by the same agency in the same year, mentioned in the same sentence as the $35,000 fine that you derived your tidbit from.
YouTube is trying desperately to purge ALOT of content and creators that are not financially viable
They no longer desire to be "You"Tube, instead they want to be more like NetFlix or Disney+ and carry more mainstream content.
Allowing the government to be the bad guy has been used by large corporations for decades as cover
No where on my YouTube channels am I allowed to see the ip address of anyone who views it. Nor can I track individuals. But YouTube themselves can and do do this.
Also collecting legally binding consent from parents for their kids to watch channels is going to be way more of a breech of personally identifying information than not having that rule. For legally binding consent I'm going to have to verify their actual identity and that they are the legal guardian of the minor watching the channel. And from a practical standpoint I don't even see there is any way at all that doing so is even technically possible given the current YouTube design.
The only way to comply with this is to kill all videos and channels that have any content that might be of interest to children. Die all you homework help and approachable science channels!
Do youtube users actually "own" their channels or is this just an incorrect wording? What is meant by "own" here?
I'll take the regulations, thanks.
This isn't a problem with creators, it's Youtube violating regulations with data collection practices and then continuing to do so by pushing the compliance burden onto the community.
Upshot is that YouTube is pretending that they can't make good segmenting tools.
cool.
If it's deemed to be that way (by the FTC or by Youtube) then it overrules what the creator claims and can eliminate their monetization and open up legal risk and fines.
The issue is people who are not producing content for children and claim it properly but have that categorization overruled by the FTC or Youtube. This then removes their revenue and incurs legal fines. Youtube is also now doing this with automatic bots that have no understanding of context and comes with a long appeals process.
This severely hurts creators who get unfairly and inaccurately caught up in this while having no control over any of the data collection practices of Youtube which started this whole mess.
Also, the word "kids" do not exist in the legal parlance of the code nor the Rule set by FTC, they only mention "children" and they provide a definition for them: every person in the 0-12 ages. This is also to clarify some confusion that may arises from the concept of "minor age" and "children" as defined by this law.
So let's first address the FTC assumption that content creators are "websites" or "online services", remembering that what is relevant here is the collection of personal information from children without prior verifiable parent's consent.
So let's make just one rethoric question: do content creators really own their "channels"? Do they are able to verify parent's authorization and provide them the information about the use of the collected information? Do they can even access the collected data? Do they have the ability to make any change on their "website" apart what YouTube allows them to do? Of course no, no, no.
Here the FTC have attempted to charge a responsibility on the content creators' shoulders assuming something they are not. With the pretext content creators benefit bt earning a small, SMALL, share from what YouTube/Google earn exploiting their creativity, art and skills, FTC is mistakenly assuming they are "websites" or "online services" when they actually lack all the relevant power required to do things that could make them compliant (or non-compliant) with the law.
Content creators are just users, or at most suppliers as a storyteller authors would be for a publisher, while YouTube have the ultimate control of how, where, when, and at whom to serve its content (yeah, because you give to YT a worldwide unlimited non-exclusive license of your content when you upload on their platform, so as long as you do not remove your content they hold it in full control).
YouTube already have broken the law by tracking children without parent's consent, as we learned from the Civil Judgment and the attached Exhibits; so let's now suppose you label your content as "for kids", well, what tells you they won't break the law again? They say they turn off many features to avoid to track children, but is that for real? Are you in control to check that through your "website" they won't really collect data from children? Where is your power in doing so?
There is none. And remember the law is about collecting data from children without parental consent, not labeling your videos to be "made for kids". Under the current FTC's assumption you would be deemed liable even if you labeled your videos as "made for kids" if, despite this, YT would collect data from children.
Into this swamp YouTube is swimming to make business as usual by placing persistent identifiers (AKA cookies) to track users while handing over the liability to the content creators, with the complicity of the FTC it seems.
Now, let's have a moment to think about GDPR, is YT compliant with that Regulation too? If you are an EU resident, did you ever seen a notice that inform you what cookies are used, what data are collected, where, and the exact address of who is in charge to ask about your data and to exercise your rights under the provisions of the GDPR?
(It is a genuine question, I did not check.)
GOOGLE knowingly tracked children, marketed towards them, but somehow the FTC allowed them to transfer liability to their creators.
No creator has ever tracked children, and yet, they are liable for Google's actions?
What options am I left here? I can't make content for children of even talk about anything that might appeal to a child; I can't make adult content or swear, or be dark because advertisers don't like that.
I do not see the the transfer here. Google would still be liable, but able to ban owners who do not properly label their channels. This would protect them of course, but not transfer liability.
The FTC specifically mentioned channel owners tracking users via third parties. I did not know that was possible. I did not see any examples referenced either. As such, channel owners cannot be liable. Correct?
> What options am I left here? I can't make content for children of even talk about anything that might appeal to a child
Or ......... you can mark your video as targeted as children.
retirement planning, exercises for pregnant ladies, choosing a wedding cake, using the GI bill, hair transplants, adjusting to menopause, wisdom teeth removal