YouTube Ads May Have Led to Online Tracking of Children, Research Says
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
There's no way that Google isn't collecting massive amounts of children's data. The fact that we force children to sign up for Google accounts and use chromebooks in schools sickens me.
I see zero reason to trust Google when they say they aren't using the data they collect to make inferences about our children. It would take a whistleblower (and one with extraordinary access within Google's org) for us to have clear picture of all the ways that data is kept and abused. I'm not sure what the solution to that is though. Random unannounced independent audits? Since they're likely there already, maybe we can have the government officials who work in the Google equivalent of Room 614A (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A) keep an eye on them?
See: Piracy, Speeding, Lesser: Fraud, Theft
There's only a chance that a company will be caught at all, and when they are it often ends up still being profitable for them in the end. This makes crimes more attractive to companies than for most people who tend to suffer severe consequences for even minor infractions of the law. If I owe money to someone and I poison them to try and get out of paying what I owe I'd probably go to prison if I were caught. If a company knowingly poisons an entire city's water supply to avoid paying for properly cleaning up their waste products, and they spend years carefully conspiring to hide that fact from the people they're killing, they can get a fine smaller than what it would have cost them to clean up their mess responsibly in the first place.
It's much easier to hurt people or to choose inaction when acting as part of a group and when you've been told to do something by someone perceived to be an authority or someone with a higher level of responsibility. There is also an aspect of self-preservation here too because again, individuals face disproportionately severe consequences. Being a whistleblower, or even just refusing to do what your boss tells you can be extremely costly. It can be career ending. It can mean not being able to support your family, being forced to live on the streets, or being unable to pay for medications you need to survive. Companies can be caught over and over again committing acts which cause real harm to hundreds or even thousands of people at a time, but still continue to operate more or less as usual.
Perhaps the underlying impulse is sometimes similar (many individuals are opportunistic when it comes to small offenses) but the differences in scale, incentives, and the burden of guilt make the behavior of individuals and corporations very different.
You could say the same thing about Google search or any website with outgoing links for that matter.
*As with children’s television, it is legal, and commonplace, to run ads, including for adult consumer products like cars or credit cards, on children’s videos. There is no evidence that Google and YouTube violated their 2019 agreement with the F.T.C.*
So if YouTube puts a big ad in an app exclusively for kids then how is it not their problem if clicking that ad then tracks the child? Who cares what website does the tracking if YouTube deliberately sends the child from an app meant for children to a website that tracks them.
The path would always be clear, but the steps would vary. Click 3 would be one of those gross people who pimp out their kids to making toy opening videos, etc.
I would not see the same mix of suggestions when I’d use my account on that device. The journey of recommend content is the key.
I could accept that Google didn’t engineer that experience with the intention of targeting my kid. But I don’t find it plausible that they didn’t understand why that pattern monetized so well - YouTube is too good at printing cash. If they didn’t know, they chose not to ask.
Correction/Edit: I didn’t realize that google was fined for this behavior in 2019. Presumably it has changed.
I do agree that singling out YouTube is strange, but it definitely got people to click.
[0] https://support.google.com/youtubekids/answer/6130541?hl=en
That app was, at least when my kid was in that market, a hobbled app with its own significant problems.
YouTube’s issue here are all about how they funnel kids to profitable content.
What do you mean "singling out"? They're the biggest advertising company in the world.
Of course advertisers, not just on Youtube, but pretty much everywhere track children's interests as well as adults. Someone said recently, "the antichrist has already arrived, and he works, in a suit and tie, in advertising" which while hyperbolic is surprisingly fitting. Mass tracking (which is a form of surveillance) for the uses of taking advantage of weaknesses in a human being (impulse control, gotchas, perceived "need", etc.) to reap monetary rewards at the expense of the individual, whether adult or adolescent, whether intelligent, or mentally handicapped... which may result in a percieved or otherwise degredation of QoL. It is immoral, not just unethical.
Most "tracking" scripts aren't age gated, most advertisers don't care, every day I grow to hate them and their institutions more and more. I would say that at this point, not having adblockers, and blocking tracking scripts is a form of enabling these parasites. Which, i believe (with strong conviction) that there is an argument to say that enabling such behavior without contest is unethical at the very least bordering on immoral.
And in the USA at least tracking children under 13 is illegal.
The real concern is determining how much or if you are being tracked through these ads. People are more aware that ads do track them but not what or how much. A larger concern is the malaise people may give when they hear this information; to put simply they don’t care. The frog is aware that the pot is getting hotter and they’re willingly asking for the man to go higher.
Seriously, the US desperately needs a port of the GDPR that applies to people of all ages. As long as there are escape hatches for claiming plausible deniability, companies will abuse them.
[Google] added that it did not have the ability to control data collection on a brand’s website after a YouTube viewer clicked on an ad. Such data-gathering, Google said, could happen when clicking on an ad on any website.
Even so, ad industry veterans said they had found it difficult to prevent their clients’ YouTube ads from appearing on children’s videos, according to recent Times interviews with 10 senior employees at ad agencies and related companies. And they argued that YouTube’s ad placement had put prominent consumer brands at risk of compromising children’s privacy.
The argument was already put forth that Alphabet can't control what's on the advertisers' sites. But for a company that loves hoovering up data they seem to have picked an interesting blind spot that their algorithms "can't" fine-tune for. And they of course always have the choice to not run ads for websites that deposit a deluge of trackers, but that would mean revenue down, big sad.
And your rebuttal is.... a downvote. How erudite.
No need to be presumptuous. Hackernews doesn't allow parents to downvote replies.
Huh? Why would you think it's not in Google's best interest -- from an ethical, business and perhaps legal standpoint-- to police what its advertisers do?
Or did you forget about Analytics.
Ages of consent (no matter the context) are basically ballpark guesses. It’s not like every 20 year and 364 day old lacks the mental capacity to responsibly drink alcohol and every 21 year old does. As a society we’ve settled on these ages as being reasonable averages. It is what it is and absent any realistic alternative (cognitive tests before a browser launch is permitted?) it’ll stay that way.
In society we consider consent/contracts that were entered to without understanding by one party to be null and void in many scenarios. Its a reason for example that most EULAs are dubiously enforcable (ofc it depends on how reasonable the eula clause being litigated is) there have been a good few rulings that release users from having to abide by them because they can't be expected to know their own obligations for every one of myriad services they use daily.
Did you have a more specific point to make here?
However, this research seems to be about children clicking ads, and then being tracked by that third party (or maybe even google ads/doubleclick on the page).
0: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2019/09/...
They 100% know they are advertising to some children, even if just by mistakenly mislabeling children as older in rare cases. That's impossible to prevent through probabilistic means, so by implementing such systems they have accepted such an outcome.
That's the problem.
They know based on usage patterns. They know what age groups watch which videos. They use it to target children.
But because they didn't explicitly collect it, they can skirt the law.
The intent of the law is being ignored for profit.
"Under COPPA, the presence of cookies is permissible for internal operations including fraud detection," said Paul Lekas, head of global public policy at the SIIA, a software industry group whose members include Google and BMO, "so long as cookies and other persistent identifiers are not used to contact an individual, amass a profile or engage in behavioral advertising.""
How would we verify how Google uses cookies. When Google gets sued for privacy violations or is subject to regulatory action, it usually settles or pays a fine. Admitting no wrongdoing and yet by implication suggesting exactly that. By settling, it may avoid discovery that could perhaps show, for example, how cookies are actually being used.
In 2019, Google allegedly was violating COPPA and paid a fine.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2019/09/...
If Google was not violating COPPA, they have could disproved the allegations. But instead they signed a consent decree.
This would not be the first time we have seen Big Tech violate privacy-related a consent decree.
Going to youtubekids.com, it makes parents (the age check is a 1st grade arithmetic question) agree to this, so they're clearly in violation of the law according to your Paul Lekas quote:
We also use this information to offer users personalized content. We associate an identifier that's unique to the app with the videos your child has watched and terms they've searched for to recommend content likely to be of interest to them, subject to the controls described below.
We use unique identifiers to provide contextual advertising, including ad frequency capping. The app does not allow interest-based advertising or remarketing.
YouTube Kids does not allow your child to share personal information with third parties or make it publicly available.
But then later, they make it clear that they also don't allow your child to avoid sharing personal information with third parties:
For external processing
We may provide individual user information to our affiliates or other trusted businesses or persons to process it for us, based on our instructions and in compliance with our Privacy Policy and any other appropriate confidentiality and security measures.
They then incorporate additional ToS documents by reference. It's already clear they're violating COPPA according to SIIA, so I'm not going to bother continue reading:
You can find additional information about the app in the YouTube Kids Privacy Notice and the Parental Guide. Our Disclosure for Children explains our data processing practices to your child, which we encourage you to review with them.
Dated: August 7, 2019
That was not my understanding of COPPA, how is this violating it if it is used for the service and the parent gives consent?
Seems inevitable really.
Wait until they see they are still being tracked, only the opted_out column in their profile data shows "true" instead of false.