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