The Coming Youtube COPPA Adpocalypse

[EEVblog]

[elliottveares]

And then their is this worrying statement in YouTube's Terms of Service...

[rsjsouza]

And then their is this worrying statement in YouTube's Terms of Service...

Viva Frei talked about it.
https://youtu.be/evCFwg-v6iU

[EEVblog]

Main channel Blab video:

[Muttley Snickers]

I generally don't watch them anyway but wondered if these new rules will affect or have any impact on live streams ?.

[langwadt]

I sometimes watch a mechanic that  has spent months trying (and so far failed) to get his comments re-enabled, after they were disabled apparently because his kid is occasionally on camera helping

[johnlsenchak]

No, YouTube isn’t planning to jettison your unprofitable channel[


"Rather, the clause gives Google more leeway to determine whether it should remove particular YouTube or Google services if they find that it just doesn’t make commercial sense to keep them around"
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2019/11/13/no-youtube-isnt-planning-to-jettison-your-unprofitable-channel

[atkelar]

"Rather, the clause gives Google more leeway to determine whether it should remove particular YouTube or Google services if they find that it just doesn’t make commercial sense to keep them around"

Ah, yes, it does read like that when one calms down a bit. But the wording could be better...

Even as a non-monetizing hobby creator, I am worried about these changes though. The real danger is getting sued for whatever random US court established amount is a high risk. And yes, they usually can't do much if you are a foreigner, but... did you ever consider visiting the US? Guess what? They can also arrest you right at the airport if push comes to shove. And once "child protection" or "terrorism" is an attached label, there's no holding back no matter how benign the reason. I am poking alternative sites right now...

[sleemanj]

Eh, I don't think you can blame YT on this, or necessarily that there is blame to be had, I'm not sure it's a bad thing.
 From YT's perspective it's realistically impossible to review every video uploaded and make sure it complies with law before they publish it.

So yeah, asking the content producer to declare if the video is for kids or not for kids then that's reasonable to me.

The whole "if it's actually directed to kids according to the ftc's view" is clearly to stop people just marking their pedo-gathering videos ("challenges" etc, search the news if you don't know) not for kids to bypass the restrictions but still target them at kids.  By necessity this probably does have to be a very wide open to interpretation definition not something you can put into some specific checklist of (anti-)requirements.

The only thing I would perhaps question is if Youtube could not have made it so that if videos were NOT marked as kid friendly then one has to login and age-verify to view the video, but again they would be absolutely slammed by viewers and producers (and probably advertisers) if they did that.

They, Youtube, are stuck between a rock and many hard places, if they do nothing FTC hammers them, if they do this producers complain and might maybe (but extremely unlikely) find themselves unintentionally in trouble, if they took an even harder line everybody complains AND the FTC could come down on them when kids bypass age verification.

Sometimes I think people need to remember Youtube is a business, not a charity or a public service.  They got to make a buck while not doing things that will bring undue risk to their business and shareholders.

[daqq]

Absolute BS.

It's impossible to reasonably determine what's attractive to kids. I'm 30ish now, but if youtube and eevblog would have been available when I was 10 years old, I'd watch the crap out of the videos with wide eyed fascination, even though I'd probably not understand a lot of it. Arguably, I was a weird kid, but I believe many engineers can say the same.

Also, by definition, without tracking you can't determine if someone's a kid. The whole "problem" could be solved by adding a page that asks the person in question "Are you under 13 years of age?" when youtube loads up. If answered yes, all of the prohibited features go away, if not, then you get the full youtube experience as it was meant to be.

edit: Or, maybe to make sure that the video can't be viewed as kid friendly, say "f**k f**k f**k f**k" at the start and at the end of every video. As such it's obviously not meant for kids. Problem solved. 

[WN1X]

Dave,

The FTC is the Federal Trade Commission and not telecommunication 

[jbb]

Hi Dave

I agree that the COPPA provisions are going to be a giant pain in the backside.  It's like saying: 'Click this box to throw away money you really need.  If you don't click this box, someone may decide that you should have clicked the box and fine you a $hitload of money.' It's gonna suck, especially if you have over a thousand (still-relevant) videos in the back catalog.

I have a question: in this video, around 14:20, you say: "... so you end up like you have to follow US laws and things like that, and I wish they would. Let's just follow ... US laws for free speech, for example. Get rid of this hate speech rubbish. It's just ridiculous. That's killing channels as well."

Do you mean you want to get rid of the hate speech on the platform, or get rid of the rules attempting to stop hate speech?

[thm_w]

Do you mean you want to get rid of the hate speech on the platform, or get rid of the rules attempting to stop hate speech?

He means the rules:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/03/tech/youtube-hate-speech/index.html

[EEVblog]

Do you mean you want to get rid of the hate speech on the platform, or get rid of the rules attempting to stop hate speech?

The rules.
Unless you are inciting or making threats of actual physical violence, free speech must take precedence.
To think that people's feelings can trump free speech is one of the most asinine and pathetic arguments I've ever heard, yet somehow it's a thing.

[Bud]

There is a petition opened with over 100K supporters already

https://www.change.org/p/youtubers-and-viewers-unite-against-ftc-regulation

[bitwelder]

Sorry if it's a stupid question, I'm not a YT creator.

Is it possible to geo-restrict the availability of a channel... to all countries where FTC doesn't have jurisdiction?
(I understand that e.g. in Dave's case wouldn't be much suitable, as he'd lose a substantial part of the viewership)
And if so, would this new rule still apply, while making even less sense?

[EEVblog]

Is it possible to geo-restrict the availability of a channel... to all countries where FTC doesn't have jurisdiction?
(I understand that e.g. in Dave's case wouldn't be much suitable, as he'd lose a substantial part of the viewership)
And if so, would this new rule still apply, while making even less sense?

For the large corporate Youtubers it is available, not sure about individual, never looked.
It would be silly to do that though, you are vastly better off just working the system as it changes and taking your chances.

[rsjsouza]

Eh, I don't think you can blame YT on this, or necessarily that there is blame to be had, I'm not sure it's a bad thing.
 From YT's perspective it's realistically impossible to review every video uploaded and make sure it complies with law before they publish it.

So yeah, asking the content producer to declare if the video is for kids or not for kids then that's reasonable to me.

As a foreigner having to answer that seemingly ridiculous questionnaire at the US border, to me this reads exactly the same: it is a declaration from the channel owner that allows Youtube to have more weight and avoid litigation when shutting down a channel due to these troubles with kids. IMHO after Elsagate I think this is not entirely a bad thing.

It's impossible to reasonably determine what's attractive to kids.

I agree completely - heck, even the definition of a "kid" varies across the world. However, there are blatantly obvious channels targeting kids that were explicitly adult - this filter/decision/whatever will *help* (not solve) to scare away these bastards, especially if they are in the US, where financial penalties can be enforced.

Obviously that, if a kid goes off to watch an adult-oriented channel, then all bets are off and the only filter are his/her parents.

[Synthtech]

It’s purpose is to allow YT to censor people who’s views that they don’t like. It gives YT another very effective excuse for banning content easily.

[magic]

I'm not sure what's the deal with notifications, but IIRC there was drama many months ago that comments have been disabled on videos uploaded by minors. I believe it officially was to protect them from pedos trying to contact them, so there you go, by the same logic your videos shouldn't have comments if children are watching them

[langwadt]

I'm not sure what's the deal with notifications, but IIRC there was drama many months ago that comments have been disabled on videos uploaded by minors. I believe it officially was to protect them from pedos trying to contact them, so there you go, by the same logic your videos shouldn't have comments if children are watching them

afaiu it was pretty much all videos with minors no matter who up uploaded

[EEVblog]

I'm not sure what's the deal with notifications, but IIRC there was drama many months ago that comments have been disabled on videos uploaded by minors. I believe it officially was to protect them from pedos trying to contact them

No, it was to stop the pedos from signalling each other using secret codes in the comments.
To nuke the entire platform of kids content is the dumbest response ever 

[langwadt]

I'm not sure what's the deal with notifications, but IIRC there was drama many months ago that comments have been disabled on videos uploaded by minors. I believe it officially was to protect them from pedos trying to contact them

No, it was to stop the pedos from signalling each other using secret codes in the comments.
To nuke the entire platform of kids content is the dumbest response ever 

as before someone with an agenda against Youtube found or made up something they could stir
up some outrage about and Youtube panics and overreacts

[EEVblog]

as before someone with an agenda against Youtube found or made up something they could stir up some outrage about and Youtube panics and overreacts

Hundred bucks says it was a Blue Checkmark on Twitter.

[langwadt]

as before someone with an agenda against Youtube found or made up something they could stir up some outrage about and Youtube panics and overreacts

Hundred bucks says it was a Blue Checkmark on Twitter.

And the medias that would love advertisers leave Youtube and come back to them milk it as much as possible

[magic]

as before someone with an agenda against Youtube found or made up something they could stir up some outrage about and Youtube panics and overreacts

Hundred bucks says it was a Blue Checkmark on Twitter.

Various elements that hate YT for, let's say, their content policies, also did their due part to promote the drama on antisocial media.

Also, from nonsensopedia

It was also revealed in the media that many videos featuring minors – frequently uploaded by the children themselves and showing innocent content – had attracted comments from pedophiles and other hate groups. Some of these videos were monetized. As a result of the controversy, several major advertisers froze spending on YouTube, forcing YouTube to ban children from their site, citing legal obligations.

Ehm, wait, did they mean that 13 y.o. chick ranting about incel white knights, muslims, arranged marriages and censorship?

On some level this shit is so insane it is absolutely hilarious, on the other this is apparently the world we live in

[EEVblog]

Also, from nonsensopedia

It was also revealed in the media that many videos featuring minors – frequently uploaded by the children themselves and showing innocent content – had attracted comments from pedophiles and other hate groups. Some of these videos were monetized. As a result of the controversy, several major advertisers froze spending on YouTube, forcing YouTube to ban children from their site, citing legal obligations.

If 13yo kids are banned from Youtube, why is this new COPPA policy needed? Surely their arse is legally covered in that case?
The solution is simple, you must be over 13yo to create a Youtube account, and you only get access to comments and recommended videos and tracked if you are logged in.
Youtube Kids has existed for years now.

[magic]

you only get access to comments and recommended videos and tracked if you are logged in.

Be careful what you ask for, didn't you say that disabling tracking cuts ad revenue by 60% to 90%? I, for one, never log in to YT. I don't know how many people use YT without logging in, but probably quite a few. Both YT and creators would lose money on that.

And the whole thing is a thing because FTC is going after YT. Perhaps it's part of Trump's vendetta against Google, he is on record saying that the government will have a look into them.

[rrinker]

 Repeat after me - this law is from 1998. Guess who wasn't US President in 1998?

 It's still bullshit. Growing up, my entire Saturday morning was nothing but kid-directed content and advertising. Every channel (well, we only got about 3) had cartoons on, and EVERY commercial was clearly directed at selling the latest toy to all the kids watching. Or sugary breakfast cereal. They didn't advertise new cars, or medicines, etc. Of course, most of the cartoons and the shows weren't as insipid as so many of them are today (and you can't even show many of the ones we watched - Looney Toons is too violent! Kids might swing from giant ropes off highway overpasses pretending to be the coyote!). Sure the special effects in Land of the Lost were cheesy beyond belief, but the stories were written by well known SF writers and it was actually a decent show. Then came the time I discovered that if I used the antenna rotator and turned it facing northeast, I could get this station from New York which showed this really neat SF program from England called Dr. Who. 2 1/2 hours straight every Saturday morning. Forget the cartoons.

 I get that there is a problem with child predation, but this and other actions taken recently aren't going to do much of anything to actually stop traffickers. Those kinds of bad people existed long before YouTube, long before the Internet.

 Facebook has an age requirement too - that doesn't seem to stop anyone. Only seem to do anything about it if someone raises a stink, and even then they don't do a mass sweep and eliminate all underage accounts. It woudl cut into their revenue source too much.

[Bud]

And the whole thing is a thing because FTC is going after YT. Perhaps it's part of Trump's vendetta against Google, he is on record saying that the government will have a look into them.

You do not have to be Trump to do this. It is long overdue.

[SiliconWizard]

Eh, I don't think you can blame YT on this, or necessarily that there is blame to be had, I'm not sure it's a bad thing.
 From YT's perspective it's realistically impossible to review every video uploaded and make sure it complies with law before they publish it.

It sucks but I agree, and I don't even think they have a choice here. Politics worldwide have been working on making the "media" in general (in the sense: all means of conveying content, such as TV, journals, web sites, video streaming sites, social networks, etc) responsible in case they convey unlawful contents, or content that is not appropriate for a certain age class, and wouldn't be clearly flagged as such. And as it seems, many (possibly a large majority) people agree with this. Whether it's globally a good thing or not, they just don't have a choice.

Heck, even forum owners can have this problem - that's why moderation can be pretty hard on some forums.

[edy]

I started another thread by accident as I didn't notice this one (for some reason I had to search for "COPPA" a few times before something showed up?).

Anyways, after watching Dave's video I decided to ERASE about a dozen or so of my 300+ videos completely (less than 5%). I made my entire channel "NOT FOR KIDS" and just decided to delete anything that could remotely be construed as being something that YouTube may show kids.

Examples include videos of animals, bunnies, baby mice, gerbils and whatever else I happened to upload over the past few years that had any sort of "cuteness" associated with them. Similarly, certain toy reviews I did (electric track cars, magnetic shape blocks, ball bearing mazes) and some video games (LEGO racers) went into the dustbin of history.

I did keep some video games that are not kid-targeted but have a bigger teen and adult audience, some retro games (which kids wouldn't know about), RaspBerry Pi stuff and so on. This is a very grey area.

The accumulated number of views on those dozen or so videos I deleted was maybe on the order of 10^4 views, compared to my overall channel views in the order of 10^6, so I don't really care. I'm not making any money on this anyways, it is a hobby. I enjoy sharing and talking about stuff, helping other viewers fix things or see before they buy.

I feel bad though for actual creators who make a living on this platform. Perhaps the day will come when YouTube will be meant only for professional creators and average users will not be able to upload at all. Then they will be another streaming service competing with large corporate streamers (like NetFlix, Disney and so on) just with more indie content but still professionally produced. They must be running out of room on their storage servers. Anyone who is depending on YouTube for their livelihood should start preparing for backup options as it is always good to have a planned exit, or diversify their income stream now and not depend exclusively on YouTube.

[EDIT:  Added the following after, before any additional posts to this thread....]

I was thinking if I would still put up videos if YouTube decided to demonetize completely, and to be honest with myself, I realized that I wouldn't have the same fervor if it wasn't for the money. Not that I'm getting rich on YouTube.... I may get a payout of $100 every 4 or 5 months, maybe longer. That is enough to buy a bunch of cheap stuff off eBay and play around with electronics and do some reviews or kit builds. It is a token "thank you" but nothing more, a sort of nod from Google to keep going.

My kids of course think they all want to be YouTube stars when they grow up. I keep telling them to look away and keep walking. That's because they see this crap on YouTube and think it is real life. They believe that every kid-produced channel that has millions of hits is just a little kid doing everything, but there is a production team behind some of them and lots of time, money and energy spent on it.

One channel my kids enjoy watching out of Australia is called "The Norris Nuts":

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYd0us2OtW4d4-1cfpT2ktw

I wonder how their videos will be affected by this? I know it is out of US jurisdiction. They have 3.39M subscribers and 919,556,423 views. With that kind of popularity I believe they have money pouring in from YouTube. They also have a shop selling their brand. It is an entire production at this point, and Kudos to them for pulling it off! If they are doing it themselves it must take quite a bit of work editing the videos, perhaps one of the parents is spending hours a day doing this. Not every kid can be a YouTube star like the Norris kids.



They are deep into this.... look at the article:

https://www.totallyawesome.tv/blog/top-global-youtube-stars-ckn-toys-and-the-norris-nuts-join-the-likes-of-jojo-siwa-as-kidfluencers-on-fun-kid-safe-app-popjam/#more-2301



They clearly appeal to kids... they are fun to watch and younger kids (under 13) enjoy their antics. If YouTube destroys their income with the COPPA laws, what then? The Norris Nuts may have enough side-projects that they can develop other revenue streams if YouTube dries up. It seems like they are fairly diversified. It may mean that most kids channels end up doing direct sales or embedded ads in their videos and demonetizing completely, so YouTube no longer has a conflict with paying advertisers.

[edy]

you only get access to comments and recommended videos and tracked if you are logged in.

By the way, there is a site where you can view anything on YouTube without logging in, including ADULT YouTube content (stuff that would be normally filtered if not logged in). Just add "nsfw" in front of the YouTube Link.

For example, this is Dave's new video:



And here is the modified URL with "nsfw" added in front of "youtube" in the URL...

Code: [Select]

https://www.nsfwyoutube.com/watch?v=SFrUINyYcEA


Keep in mind the NSFW site has a bunch of annoying popups and may have other stupid ads that are inappropriate, but the point is the site is a proxy for YouTube that must already have login credentials and it just passes you through to them. I also am not sure if I see any ads when watching through that site. I wouldn't use it as I have no interest in YouTube videos of that nature but it exists for those of you who may be on a public computer somewhere and worried about logging in to YouTube and want to watch something that is restricted to logged in adult users.

[Bud]

I would had been offended if someone called me a kid when i was 13 y. o.

[Macbeth]

I would had been offended if someone called me a kid when i was 13 y. o.

That's ok because the USA Federal Law of the yeehaw FTC states that a "kid" is not just a young billy goat, but any 'murican child <13 years of age, not <=13, so god help me!

I guess a normal description would be a teenager.

[jonovid]

And the whole thing is a thing because FTC is going after YT. Perhaps it's part of Trump's vendetta against Google, he is on record saying that the government will have a look into them.

You do not have to be Trump to do this. It is long overdue.

its a difficult time for the American empire
their is no guarantee YT will remain free to use. -no guarantee of anything, even the internet may face a loss of neutrality.
as the North American empire is in the middle of a coup. yes a government factional coup.
by kangaroo court & sedition to remove a president with attempts to overturn an election.

[EEVblog]

[BrianHG]

A good brief 'authentic' explanation of what coppa really is and it's rules:



Long story short, Dave is in the clear not matter what he does here on his channel, but, will Youtube see it that way, or throw a dumb AI algorithm at him and nail him down one day unexpectedly?  Youtube seems to do their own interpretations as they see or judge fit.  And from a cautionary business sense, I not sure I can blame them for taking a blanket approach.

[EEVblog]

Long story short, Dave is in the clear not matter what he does here on his channel, but, will Youtube see it that way, or throw a dumb AI algorithm at him and nail him down one day unexpectedly?  Youtube seems to do their own interpretations as they see or judge fit.

It's been that way forever.
I'm not the least bit worried.
The worst that can happen is Youtube take my channel down, and if that happens to a channel like mine it means the entire Youtube creator community is rooted and the platform is no longer viable for any creator. That day might of course come, but I've been prepared from day one.

[I wanted a rude username]

By the way, there is a site where you can view anything on YouTube without logging in, including ADULT YouTube content (stuff that would be normally filtered if not logged in). Just add "nsfw" in front of the YouTube Link.

You don't even need to visit a different domain, because YouTube itself will play any video as long as you use the embed URI.

Change the watch?v= to embed/ and voila, you can watch without logging in.

Not saying this is easier, but the point is that YouTube's security is window dressing ... except when it comes to restricting you from watching YouTube Red videos without a subscription, of course. 

Example: https://www.youtube.com/embed/EE3nSDt4GRc

[EEVblog]

By the way, there is a site where you can view anything on YouTube without logging in, including ADULT YouTube content (stuff that would be normally filtered if not logged in). Just add "nsfw" in front of the YouTube Link.

You don't even need to visit a different domain, because YouTube itself will play any video as long as you use the embed URI.
Change the watch?v= to embed/ and voila, you can watch without logging in.
Not saying this is easier, but the point is that YouTube's security is window dressing

I surely it would be sufficient to meet legal tracking requirements.
Currently you have to be over 13yo to have a Youtube/Google account, so it seems the answer is simple. Don't track anyone unless they logged in, bingo, you have met the COPPA requirement.
Anyone logged in has legally signed the TOS that state they are over 13yo, surely that's enough to cover Youtube's arse?

[magic]

Currently you have to be over 13yo to have a Youtube/Google account, so it seems the answer is simple. Don't track anyone unless they logged in, bingo, you have met the COPPA requirement.

Yes, but a lot of adults browse Youtube not logged in and Youtube wants to track them, as they want to track people between their multiple accounts and so on. That's what they do for a living and, unlike you, it's the only job they have.

[Yansi]

By the way, there is a site where you can view anything on YouTube without logging in, including ADULT YouTube content (stuff that would be normally filtered if not logged in). Just add "nsfw" in front of the YouTube Link.

You don't even need to visit a different domain, because YouTube itself will play any video as long as you use the embed URI.

Change the watch?v= to embed/ and voila, you can watch without logging in.

Not saying this is easier, but the point is that YouTube's security is window dressing ... except when it comes to restricting you from watching YouTube Red videos without a subscription, of course. 

Example: https://www.youtube.com/embed/EE3nSDt4GRc

..mmmm.... ever heard about https://invidio.us/ ?

[EEVblog]

Currently you have to be over 13yo to have a Youtube/Google account, so it seems the answer is simple. Don't track anyone unless they logged in, bingo, you have met the COPPA requirement.

Yes, but a lot of adults browse Youtube not logged in and Youtube wants to track them

Yes, but it's surely a better idea than nuking your entire system and pissing off and driving away the creators who make your system what it is.

That's what they do for a living and, unlike you, it's the only job they have.

Youtube is the only job I have.
But I wouldn't deliberately go and piss off my entire audience like Youtube are doing to their creators.

[EEVblog]

..mmmm.... ever heard about https://invidio.us/ ?

What exactly is the point of that site?

[I wanted a rude username]

..mmmm.... ever heard about https://invidio.us/ ?

An alternative YouTube front-end, which lets you watch videos and even subscribe to channels within its own database? Seems more performant than YouTube, too. Thanks for the tip!

[magic]

Youtube is the only job I have.
But I wouldn't deliberately go and piss off my entire audience like Youtube are doing to their creators.

But you could get some other job if Youtube disappeared, I think you said it yourself many times that if nothing else, you could go back to doing design jobs. Meanwhile if YT were to stop showing personalized ads they could as well shut the company down, unless they miraculously convince their viewers, creators or anyone else to start paying for it overnight

Now, I really have no idea how much money they make and from what, what kind of demographics watch those videos, how many logged in, how many on incognito, how many from countries where perhaps nobody uses Google accounts. A quick web search indicates that they are in fact rather secretive about it. But it isn't out of the realm of possibility that treating all anonymous users as children would bring them even more havoc that pissing people off and maybe killing a few random innocent channels.

Your solution is rather simple and they probably have considered it and decided against it for reasons unknown to you.

And it's not going to be the end of the world. I doubt that you will abandon them over this drama if they don't nuke your channel and I doubt that others will. Of course risk will increase, creators will be thinking more seriously about backup plans, a few kids channels will be shown the door, some small channels may get screwed by dumb AI. But if yours gets restricted by accident then thousands of people, presumably including several Google employees, will stir up enough shit that you will be back online by the end of the day. Such is life.

And it's not like this is anything new for YT. They were banning channels for stupid reasons and pissing various people off for a long time. The only thing more certain than death and taxes is Silicon Valley web companies treating their users like cattle.

For what it's worth, Youtube is the only software company in the world which had its headquarters shot up by a pissed off customer. Perhaps even the first such company of any sort in history.

[EEVblog]

And it's not going to be the end of the world. I doubt that you will abandon them over this drama if they don't nuke your channel and I doubt that others will. Of course risk will increase, creators will be thinking more seriously about backup plans, a few kids channels will be shown the door, some small channels may get screwed by dumb AI. But if yours gets restricted by accident then thousands of people, presumably including several Google employees, will stir up enough shit that you will be back online by the end of the day. Such is life.

There are 10's of thousands of kids Youtube channel, it's not "just a few". Every single one will be completely screwed by this.

[magic]

So it is indeed a few, as there are apparently tens of millions of channels in total

So they choose between totally screwing 0.1% of their channels (assuming your number) or partly screwing everybody. Sacrificing small groups of channels is hardly new for them, they are already going after conspiracy stuff, fake news, hate speech and whatnot. It would seem that more people browsing Youtube anonymously than people watching kid stuff might be enough to prefer castrating kid channels, from a purely financial perspective.

Now, nothing is ever purely financial and they pay for it with drama, bad PR and creators increasingly researching alternatives to their platform, but I don't think we really know how much alternative solutions would cost them.

And I'm not saying anything happening on Youtube these days is sane. IMO nothing happening in America these days is sane, and IMVHO it was that way for a very long time, but that's another rant.

[rsjsouza]

As seen before in other crisis, nothing will happen with the high profile kids channels such as Ryan ToysReview (top earner on YT), which blatantly cater to kids. On the other hand, channels with dubious content full of duplicity regarding suitable age viewership from idio*** (ahem) "influencers" such as Jake Paul and Logan Paul will be much more cautious about theirs. 

Comments help the audience feel part of the experience, but I wonder how disabling them will influence engagement on kids channels. Kids watch the same thing over and over and couldn't care less for the comments, and that is what Youtube really wants: those eyeballs fixed on their advertisements.

[EEVblog]

As seen before in other crisis, nothing will happen with the high profile kids channels such as Ryan ToysReview (top earner on YT)

Wrong.
Youtube are required BY LAW to not track kids, and have stated as part of the legal FTC settlement they will disable comments, notifications, and virtually everything for kids channels, so there cannot be a single exception to this.
IIRC Ryans toy reviews does not take sponsorship, they rely on the ad revenue which will drop by probably 90%.
Ok, so they go from $20M year to $2M a year, ours hearts bleed at their hardship, but you can't say "nothing will happen".

[EEVblog]

So it is indeed a few, as there are apparently tens of millions of channels in total
So they choose between totally screwing 0.1% of their channels (assuming your number) or partly screwing everybody.

You are massively wrong.
But considering you are pretty much just trolling at this point, I won't bother explaining.

[magic]

Let's put it that way. Kids content is a lost cause anyway, blame the US government.

As for why Youtube exposes creators to legal risk in America and increased financial uncertainty in general, instead of taking the hit themselves and implementing some measures to physically restrict children on their website, let's say that they probably have their reasons and they probably have done the math and they probably understand their situation better than you do.

I also must say that I don't expect any kind of mass exodus of creators over this issue. I would want to see it before I believe it. They probably can afford this move, and they certainly think they can.

[rsjsouza]

As seen before in other crisis, nothing will happen with the high profile kids channels such as Ryan ToysReview (top earner on YT)

Wrong.
Youtube are required BY LAW to not track kids, and have stated as part of the legal FTC settlement they will disable comments, notifications, and virtually everything for kids channels, so there cannot be a single exception to this.
IIRC Ryans toy reviews does not take sponsorship, they rely on the ad revenue which will drop by probably 90%.
Ok, so they go from $20M year to $2M a year, ours hearts bleed at their hardship, but you can't say "nothing will happen".

Yes, tracking is one thing, but I don't believe for a second that the big advertisers think the COPPA will take kids' eyeballs away from those channels - sure, they may take a pause to see how this rolls, but there's just too much money sitting in such targeted content and popular media. That may chip away some of the revenue, but I suspect it won't be that high.

Of course that, over time, folks will find ways to circumvent this. As the Legal Eagle video linked by you says, there are gobs of deliberately vague statements in the agreement/regulations.

As for Ryan himself, he is already under contract with NickJr. and has a series of regular TV shows.

[SparkyFX]

It's been that way forever.
I'm not the least bit worried.
The worst that can happen is Youtube take my channel down, and if that happens to a channel like mine it means the entire Youtube creator community is rooted and the platform is no longer viable for any creator. That day might of course come, but I've been prepared from day one.

That is a sound, sustaining approach because your type of content is what makes Youtube a great place. Before this crisis, it was the question if uploading to Youtube provides a sustainable income, if moderation on youtube axes it, if copyright strikes kill YT and so on and so on.

I am not sure if i would call it Youtube pissing off creators, YT somehow shot themselves in the foot, first by trying to make the platform as open and accessible as possible (worked out economically) and more or less a lack of moderation, then for overdoing the consequences (in response to fines paid). It is not as if YT did nothing, they got "Youtube Kids", but no one seems to want to limit their audience there. Technically they were prepared for COPPA, but if creators do not get that this will one day be a problem there will be a hard cut - not sure how that was communicated to those affected. That those established structures are now in danger creates an unnecessarily huge backlash than somehow limiting the type of content in the first place, but that would have risked growth.

I've seen a lot of commentary now, what i kind of miss is opinions of those directly affected - otoh i am not watching kids channels,  rather the mentioned mixed content like LEGO reviews or Dude perfect.

[metrologist]

Somehow advertisers were once able to use media without tracking capabilities, but technology somehow broke that. Where will all the kid-relevant marketing go now that they cannot track individual kids? 

What is youtube really going to do with channels and videos that are marked as targeted for kids? Stop collecting info but perhaps still feed kid-relevant adverts? Maybe 

What if you have general purpose content or think that it's good for adults only, and the FTC finds your content actually appeals to kids and deems it as targeted for kids? Oops if you marked your channel as not kid friendly, because that is telling YT to collect all the data they want from your viewers. Some of that Arduino wearable stuff seems like it would appeal to kids, such as that lillypad, even though it is about programming microcontrollers...which seems hardly kiddo material.

So that one video said there are really 3 targets, kids, general, and adult only. How is YT supposed to deal with the general target if it may or may not be kid material?

Didn't seem at all relevant to the material anyway, just whether YT will collect data or not. It did not seem like they are going to hide your content from kids if it's not kid relevant, or vice-versa. It's just all about the data that they can legally collect from their pray and sell for some bucks.

Here is a filing from Alphabet Inc. "Don't assume only kids are watching kids videos..."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-09/youtube-to-ftc-don-t-assume-only-kids-are-watching-kids-videos

Seems to be missing the point. Alphabet wants that data so they can turn it into money. The statement should be, "don't assume only adults are watching not ment for kids videos."

What are kids going to watch when all those kid relevant channels and content dries up?

[EEVblog]

As seen before in other crisis, nothing will happen with the high profile kids channels such as Ryan ToysReview (top earner on YT)

Wrong.
Youtube are required BY LAW to not track kids, and have stated as part of the legal FTC settlement they will disable comments, notifications, and virtually everything for kids channels, so there cannot be a single exception to this.
IIRC Ryans toy reviews does not take sponsorship, they rely on the ad revenue which will drop by probably 90%.
Ok, so they go from $20M year to $2M a year, ours hearts bleed at their hardship, but you can't say "nothing will happen".

Yes, tracking is one thing, but I don't believe for a second that the big advertisers think the COPPA will take kids' eyeballs away from those channels - sure, they may take a pause to see how this rolls, but there's just too much money sitting in such targeted content and popular media. That may chip away some of the revenue, but I suspect it won't be that high.

Advertisers can always use Adwords to target channels directly. Some manufacturers do this for my channel.
At present the majority of advertising is done in a more automated way (this ability is almost single handedly what built Google into the behemoth it is today), like "I want to spend X million dollars and target kids aged 8-12 in this country who like playdough and dominoes" etc. Well, they won't be able to do that any more and will either have to target kids channels directly or just more generically blanket advertise and hope they pick them up.