YouTube Implements COPPA For Creators After Being Fined by FTC

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

My take away from this is that @LinusTech is going to have to drop an F-bomb in each video to avoid being viewed as child friendly content.

 

Why? Because Child Friendly Content will, henceforth, be less "commercially viable" and likely end up getting the channel deleted.

 

Or mainly because I find the idea of him having to randomly insert an F-bomb into a video, to be utterly hilarious.

This is barking up the wrong tree, very hard.

 

Trying to deliberately make a video "not safe for kids" also makes it "not safe for advertising"

 

Trust me, while the occasional piece of profanity will slip under the radar, even slightly suggest that someone is naked or having sex, and all advertisers will drop that video, and likely the channel like a hot potato.

[Trik'Stari]

3 minutes ago, Kisai said:

This is barking up the wrong tree, very hard.

 

Trying to deliberately make a video "not safe for kids" also makes it "not safe for advertising"

 

Trust me, while the occasional piece of profanity will slip under the radar, even slightly suggest that someone is naked or having sex, and all advertisers will drop that video, and likely the channel like a hot potato.

Ironic considering sex sells.

 

I wonder how much money PHub makes from advertising? I'd wager a lot.

 

Also I was largely joking.

[Calabask]

 

This video by Jang bricks has a really good breakdown of this going over COPPA, the Settlement, Youtubes response, and what it all means. It doesn't matter if you swear. If google doesn't automatically flag it, and the FTC thinks your video targets kid, 42k fine, at the least, FOR ONE VIDEO. That's not counting other videos in your channel. If you have ten videos the FTC deems to be targetting children through their own algorithims or tools, which can't differentiate an action figure from a statue, and a small child action figure to a collectors piece, or one of their people thinks it is, that's $420,000 in fines right there.

 

This affects everything, coverage of toys, conventions, video games, movies, pretty much everything on youtube really. Google/Youtube, has tossed the content creators under the bus rather than police itself. They won't cover you. They will not protect you. The only real protection you have is "I make content that targets kids." Context does not matter here for the FTC, even Cosplay isn't protected with this

If you think you can just take it to court to get rid of it, just remember, how much that actually costs, and if you have the means to do it, as you likely do not. Someone with a lot of resources would need to be the person to do it, as most do not.

[CarlBar]

24 minutes ago, Tony Tony Chopper said:

Just dont say happy meal and have fortnite in the background.

 

That assumes the FTC agrees that fortnite is not acceptable for children under the age of 13. Which they may very well not since it's rated PEGI 12.

[mr moose]

On 11/15/2019 at 11:39 AM, RejZoR said:

Why won't someone think of the children! I still wonder how we managed to grow up and be normal people without this stupid babysitting by the government and all the stupid regulators for all the nonsensical things we have today...

If you are my age you never had the internet or access to hardly any content even remotely as bad as what you can get on the internet.  The worst thing you saw as a kid was walking in on your parents or the nudy stash in the old mans shed.  When kids have basically open access to an array of material that is not healthy for their development the government needs to step in.

 

 

The thing that scares me is not the governments trying to do what they are (implementation of these things is always a going to be controversial), but the fact that people don't understand the necessity.  

 

 

[RejZoR]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

If you are my age you never had the internet or access to hardly any content even remotely as bad as what you can get on the internet.  The worst thing you saw as a kid was walking in on your parents or the nudy stash in the old mans shed.  When kids have basically open access to an array of material that is not healthy for their development the government needs to step in.

 

 

The thing that scares me is not the governments trying to do what they are (implementation of these things is always a going to be controversial), but the fact that people don't understand the necessity.  

 

 

You think? Watching Alien as a kid late in the evening. Watching all the action movies with tons of brutal fatalities and blood. Dumpster diving for porn mags in the paper collection container at school (interesting times, now it feels like we were chasing weird real life achievements). And we kinda had glimpses of weird porn shit online with second gen squeaky modems (56K) and those more fortunate on Dual-ISDN at 128kbps a bit later. I'm not that old lol and you could find some weird shit even back then. And no one cared.

 

And like you said, the fact governments are trying to do the job of parents is the creepiest part.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

You think? Watching Alien as a kid late in the evening. Watching all the action movies with tons of brutal fatalities and blood. Dumpster diving for porn mags in the paper collection container at school (interesting times, now it feels like we were chasing weird real life achievements). And we kinda had glimpses of weird porn shit online with second gen squeaky modems (56K) and those more fortunate on Dual-ISDN at 128kbps a bit later. I'm not that old lol and you could find some weird shit even back then. And no one cared.

 

Yep.  When I was a developing teen, modems were a futuristic device well beyond the reach of domestic users.  Most of the porn you went looking for dumpsters was soft porn, you were lucky of you actually found pictures of penetration in many cases.  The hard core porn (which included cum and penetration shots was no where near as easily obtainable.    And by the time kids were old enough to work out how to get it they were old enough to be able to deal with it in a healthy manor.  Nowadays kids under 10 are seeing hardcore porn and violence on a whole new level.  And this is not because they can get to it, but because older siblings can and show it to them.

 

 

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

And like you said, the fact governments are trying to do the job of parents is the creepiest part.

This is not a change in parenting, it's a change in technology. Parents have no control over the internet or modern technology.  It doesn't matter what a parent does, the only way they can prevent their kids from seeing this stuff is to severely limit their access to technology.   This is why we have laws on ratings and who can sell what where.  When the technology changes so does the need for laws that govern those ratings.   Especially in the case of companies that advertise their material for under 13's as is the case with youtube.

[ravenshrike]

On 11/16/2019 at 1:47 PM, Calabask said:

 

This video by Jang bricks has a really good breakdown of this going over COPPA, the Settlement, Youtubes response, and what it all means. It doesn't matter if you swear. If google doesn't automatically flag it, and the FTC thinks your video targets kid, 42k fine, at the least, FOR ONE VIDEO. That's not counting other videos in your channel. If you have ten videos the FTC deems to be targetting children through their own algorithims or tools, which can't differentiate an action figure from a statue, and a small child action figure to a collectors piece, or one of their people thinks it is, that's $420,000 in fines right there.

 

This affects everything, coverage of toys, conventions, video games, movies, pretty much everything on youtube really. Google/Youtube, has tossed the content creators under the bus rather than police itself. They won't cover you. They will not protect you. The only real protection you have is "I make content that targets kids." Context does not matter here for the FTC, even Cosplay isn't protected with this

If you think you can just take it to court to get rid of it, just remember, how much that actually costs, and if you have the means to do it, as you likely do not. Someone with a lot of resources would need to be the person to do it, as most do not.

This should make for some fun 1st amendment jurisprudence in about 5-8 years.

[mr moose]

On 11/17/2019 at 6:47 AM, Calabask said:

 

This video by Jang bricks has a really good breakdown of this going over COPPA, the Settlement, Youtubes response, and what it all means. It doesn't matter if you swear. If google doesn't automatically flag it, and the FTC thinks your video targets kid, 42k fine, at the least, FOR ONE VIDEO. That's not counting other videos in your channel. If you have ten videos the FTC deems to be targetting children through their own algorithims or tools, which can't differentiate an action figure from a statue, and a small child action figure to a collectors piece, or one of their people thinks it is, that's $420,000 in fines right there.

 

This affects everything, coverage of toys, conventions, video games, movies, pretty much everything on youtube really. Google/Youtube, has tossed the content creators under the bus rather than police itself. They won't cover you. They will not protect you. The only real protection you have is "I make content that targets kids." Context does not matter here for the FTC, even Cosplay isn't protected with this

If you think you can just take it to court to get rid of it, just remember, how much that actually costs, and if you have the means to do it, as you likely do not. Someone with a lot of resources would need to be the person to do it, as most do not.

Isn't this assuming the FTC will fine based only on an algorithm and not a manual viewing?  I mean I get they would use an algorithm to short list videos for inspection but I can't for the life of me understand how they could justify handing out a 42K fine based only on a computer report and no actual investigation. 

[jagdtigger]

53 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Isn't this assuming the FTC will fine based only on an algorithm and not a manual viewing?  I mean I get they would use an algorithm to short list videos for inspection but I can't for the life of me understand how they could justify handing out a 42K fine based only on a computer report and no actual investigation. 

Same way youtube just takes away revenue based on bots.... (And relying on rights holders that they wont abuse it.) BTW good luck with ppl who do not live in the USA so they dont have any kind of jurisdiction.

Edited November 18, 2019 by jagdtigger

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Same way youtube just takes away revenue based on bots.... (And relying on rights holders that they wont abuse it.) BTW good luck with ppl who do not live in the USA so they dont have any kind of jurisdiction.

The difference is youtube are (I assume) just protecting themselves from the big media giants and their buddies in parliament.suing them into oblivion.    The FTC is a government body handing out fines, doing so on an algorithm without actually manually investigating the video would be like the police giving you a speeding ticket because their helicopter camera saw a car that resembled yours speeding the other day.

 

I just can't see that being the case.   If it turns out to be the case then I will hang my head and hold a minutes silence for all the people in the USA. 

[CarlBar]

11 hours ago, mr moose said:

If you are my age you never had the internet or access to hardly any content even remotely as bad as what you can get on the internet.  The worst thing you saw as a kid was walking in on your parents or the nudy stash in the old mans shed.  When kids have basically open access to an array of material that is not healthy for their development the government needs to step in.

 

 

The thing that scares me is not the governments trying to do what they are (implementation of these things is always a going to be controversial), but the fact that people don't understand the necessity.  

 

 

 

Per a prior video this has zero, zip, nadda, nilliante, nothing to do with any of that. It's purely about what information you can collect on the individual in question. If your over 13 they can collect everything, if your not they cant. Thats ot, that is all this is about.

 

40 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

BTW good luck with ppl who do not live in the USA so they dont have any kind of jurisdiction.

 

Thats going to be the big litmus test here, how that plays out. But right now both the FTC and various youtubers outside the USA are expecting them to enforce it on non-US based content creators. 

[jagdtigger]

33 minutes ago, mr moose said:

, doing so on an algorithm without actually manually investigating the video would be like the police giving you a speeding ticket because their helicopter camera saw a car that resembled yours speeding the other day.

Or seen a number plate that matches yours. Except its not your motorbike..... It wasnt even the same brand and model but the system still sent out the check. Turns out the culprit made a "U" from the "J" on his plate.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Or seen a number plate that matches yours. Except its not your motorbike..... It wasnt even the same brand and model but the system still sent out the check. Turns out the culprit made a "U" from the "J" on his plate.

Well, I don;t know what the US is like, but when that happens in Australia you ask for the photo and when you show them that your car/bike/unicycle isn;t that color and not in that state they drop the fine.  No need for expensive court costs as per the claim.

[mr moose]

10 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

Per a prior video this has zero, zip, nadda, nilliante, nothing to do with any of that. It's purely about what information you can collect on the individual in question. If your over 13 they can collect everything, if your not they cant. Thats ot, that is all this is about.

 

What are you talking about?

[CarlBar]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What are you talking about?

 

Your going on about how it's a good thing the government is stepping in to prevent kids seeing things they shouldn't that could harm them. Which COPPA has absolutely nothing to do with. Your entire post on the matter is a completely random tangent to the actual item under discussion here.

[jagdtigger]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Well, I don;t know what the US is like, but when that happens in Australia you ask for the photo and when you show them that your car/bike/unicycle isn;t that color and not in that state they drop the fine.  No need for expensive court costs as per the claim.

Yeah, but still. They are relying on algorithms without any kind of sanity check..... If they can do it why would it be any different for the FTC? They will write false positives off as collateral damage and rug it under the carpet as usual.

[Gegger]

my school thinks fortnite is inappropriate for middle school, i swear yt is going to do something like that too

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

Your going on about how it's a good thing the government is stepping in to prevent kids seeing things they shouldn't that could harm them. Which COPPA has absolutely nothing to do with. Your entire post on the matter is a completely random tangent to the actual item under discussion here.

Do you ever read the chain of discussion before jumping in and making such comments on posts?  If you read the discussion and the post I was responding to you would see it makes perfect sense and doesn't require an ill informed commentary.    

 

If you had read the comments I was responding to you would realize my post was not specific to coppa but to the claim that governments should never do this or anything like it because that is the parents job.   It's painful when I have to repeat myself to explain something so simple because people don't bother looking back over the discussion to get proper context.

 

6 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Yeah, but still. They are relying on algorithms without any kind of sanity check.....

Are they though? that is my question.  I find it difficult to believe they are not manually investigating first.

6 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

If they can do it why would it be any different for the FTC? They will write false positives off as collateral damage and rug it under the carpet as usual.

 

Because one is a government body that is supposed to enforce the law and the other is a private company trying to make a buck.

[jagdtigger]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Are they though? that is my question.  I find it difficult to believe they are not manually investigating first.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=hu&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fhegylakok.hu%2F2019%2F11%2Fhamis-rendszam-vetlen-motorosnak-postaztak-a-birsagot%2F

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, jagdtigger said:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=hu&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fhegylakok.hu%2F2019%2F11%2Fhamis-rendszam-vetlen-motorosnak-postaztak-a-birsagot%2F

No not the motor bike fine, the FTC fine,  are the FTC just going to fine on an algorithm and not manually check?  I get that a speeding ticket is automated, that can easily be disputed and resolved.   But the claim here is that the FTC is going to slap you with a 42K fine and not do any investigation and you have to go to court to defend it.  To that I want a citation or proof, because that does not sound right. 

[jagdtigger]

32 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No not the motor bike fine, the FTC fine,  are the FTC just going to fine on an algorithm and not manually check?  I get that a speeding ticket is automated, that can easily be disputed and resolved.   But the claim here is that the FTC is going to slap you with a 42K fine and not do any investigation and you have to go to court to defend it.  To that I want a citation or proof, because that does not sound right. 

Well based on the potential number of hits i dont think its feasible to have humans review them.

[mr moose]

Just now, jagdtigger said:

Well based on the potential number of hits i dont think its feasible to have humans review them.

Then I would imagine they will only fine the ones they do review.   Besides all that, until we see this thing in action or an actual quote from the new laws explaining how the system works then the amount of fines and the process is just assumptions and speculation.

[Calabask]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

No not the motor bike fine, the FTC fine,  are the FTC just going to fine on an algorithm and not manually check?  I get that a speeding ticket is automated, that can easily be disputed and resolved.   But the claim here is that the FTC is going to slap you with a 42K fine and not do any investigation and you have to go to court to defend it.  To that I want a citation or proof, because that does not sound right. 

The FTC person in the video said they have tools to rapidly go through channels and find people who violate this. It doesn't matter what your stuff looks like, if you swear, or what's in the video, if it looks like it is for kids from a distance, it will invoke the fine and the minimum fine is $42,000.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Calabask said:

The FTC person in the video said they have tools to rapidly go through channels and find people who violate this. It doesn't matter what your stuff looks like, if you swear, or what's in the video, if it looks like it is for kids from a distance, it will invoke the fine and the minimum fine is $42,000.

 

You didn't answer the question.  we have already established they have the tools to scan through content looking for evidence, but what I am asking is did they say they will fine based on those tools or do the tools just tell them which videos to review?

 

This is the problem i have with a lot of self proclaimed professionals on youtube,  they insinuate these things will happen when the reality is they are nothing like assumed.  and now we have people think the FTC is just going fine you based on an algorithm and not on a review of videos discovered by the algorithm. 

 

So my question is this, does the FTC actually say that the whole process is automated from scanning videos to issuing fines,  or does the automated process only create a short list of videos for review and fines are applied only after investigation?