YouTube Implements COPPA For Creators After Being Fined by FTC

[WereCat]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

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?

 

 

Does this apply for people outside of USA? 

I mean they do upload to YT so they are under their terms and conditions but the laws in their country may contradict FTC and since the YT functions in that country they should work under the law on that country. 

 

Sorry if this was answered already, haven't read everything. 

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, WereCat said:

Does this apply for people outside of USA? 

I mean they do upload to YT so they are under their terms and conditions but the laws in their country may contradict FTC and since the YT functions in that country they should work under the law on that country. 

 

Sorry if this was answered already, haven't read everything. 

No idea, I was responding to a claim that the FTC was just going to fine people 42K based on an automated scan of their content.

 

I would assume it is like all other laws, where I don't think the FTC can reach outside of the USA unless the crime is also a crime in that country and that country has signed an extradition treaty.   I.E the Aussie firm that got extradited to the US to face chagers of IP theft because they were selling uggboots via the internet and shipping to the US (an aussie terms for wooly boot) but in the US apparently some other brand has the name uggboot trademarked.  The asusie firm lost.

 

So yes it can happen, foreign countries can be fined for breaking laws in the us even if they don't step foot in the US.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-11/western-sydney-ugg-boot-maker-loses-case-in-us/11104374

 

[WereCat]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No idea, I was responding to a claim that the FTC was just going to fine people 42K based on an automated scan of their content.

 

I would assume it is like all other laws, where I don't think the FTC can reach outside of the USA unless the crime is also a crime in that country and that country has signed an extradition treaty.   I.E the Aussie firm that got extradited to the US to face chagers of IP theft because they were selling uggboots via the internet and shipping to the US (an aussie terms for wooly boot) but in the US apparently some other brand has the name uggboot trademarked.  The asusie firm lost.

 

So yes it can happen, foreign countries can be fined for breaking laws in the us even if they don't step foot in the US.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-11/western-sydney-ugg-boot-maker-loses-case-in-us/11104374

 

Thanks, that actually explains a lot of what's on my mind. 

[jagdtigger]

Well it claimed its first victim :

https://www.youtube.com/user/MinecraftLabDotCom/community

Quote

I am deleting my entire YouTube channel because of the threat of being heavily fined for potentially incorrectly choosing made for kids or not made for kids settings on my family friendly Minecraft and other content per the US Federal COPPA law changes here at YouTube.

 

[CarlBar]

16 hours ago, mr moose said:

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.

 

Um yes i do. The post you where replying to in m view had nothing to do with that. it was simply complaining about how the US government is using the whole "think of the children" mentality to justify cracking down on enforcing this particular law which is stupid in it's current form in this circumstance. To me any discussion about potential other laws is a fairly large tangent to the actual point being bemoaned there.

 

As an aside this law isn;t new, it's been around and ben getting enforced on other parts of the web for nearly 20 years. Whats changing isn't that a new law has come in or it's only being enforced at all now. Whats changed si that they're now enforcing it on youtube content creators when previously they weren't. People can actually look up and see if they've fined people.

 

Even if hypothetically they don't do a pure automated fining system it doesn't really matter, your still going to see people randomly caught in the crosshairs by this regardless. And thats going to force everyone else to start marking their stuff as for kids just to be safe.

 

If youtube hadn't simultaneously disabled a ton of youtube functionality beyond the required ad serving and data gathering we probably wouldn't have anywhere near as big an issue because a lot of content creators would almost certainly take the hit of marking videos for kids, (there's no penalty for mismarking them as for kids on the FTC side), but with so many youtube features key to a channel existing getting culled by the "for kids" tag virtually nobody can actually afford to mark their videos as for kids without killing their youtube channel.

 

Which is by design on Youtubes part i'm sure. If they let channels have full functionality the massive percentage o youtube that would suddenly not be getting personalised dds or be harvesting data would destroy youtubes current business model. This way youtube can pressure channels into taking the risk of mislabeling something on the youtubers pocket so they can reap the benefits of an add/data collection system they prefer.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

Um yes i do. The post you where replying to in m view had nothing to do with that.

It must be hard for you to comprehend that different people will approach the same topic differently.  I saw a different issue with that post, and I made my grievance clear.

 

 

You on the other hand didn't understand this and sought to "educate" me on what I didn't "understand".

 

I am more than capable of considering many different facets of this discussion.  I can even talk about them individually.  I don't have to try and force everyone else to conform to my understanding of the topic. 

 

Without reading the rest of your post, I have made my point, explained why it does not relate directly to the thread, if you don't like it then that is your problem,  If you wish to discuss what I have said then by all means, but don't assume my stance on things is wrong because it doesn't fit your desired context of the thread.

 

 

[JankyJeff]

Also of interest, this is NOT the "same law that's been applied across the web."  This is a new update. They (the FTC) usually update every 10 years, and last was in 2013, but parent groups pressured the FTC into a faster revision schedule. THIS IS NEW LAW.

 

The first decent video I ran across was from Chadtronic. (no clue who he is, but his video was well said and thought out) and he mentions that there is still a public comment period. He provided the following:

 

1 - Leave a comment for the FTC! → https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D...

2 - Sign the Petition! → https://www.change.org/p/youtubers-an...

3 - Spread the word! Every Bit Helps!

[Taf the Ghost]

On 11/17/2019 at 8:51 PM, ravenshrike said:

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

What's more fun: YT acts like a Publisher but hides behind being a "Platform". The cases around this are going to lock YT into a fundamental legal position and either open them up to every Cease & Desist know to Lawyer-kind or obliterate most of their ability to act. Either way, once that gets settled, YT is functionally dead and everyone is just counting down the days until Google closes it up.

[Taf the Ghost]

I think the proper situation for most creators is to mark everything as "kid friendly" and just assume it's a Radio Model. So hit up those Raid Shadow Legends ads like they're going out of style.

[thorhammerz]

8 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

So hit up those Raid Shadow Legends ads like they're going out of style.

If there was ever a reason to never disable adblock on YT...

[Taf the Ghost]

7 minutes ago, thorhammerz said:

If there was ever a reason to never disable adblock on YT...

Having listened to a lot of radio when younger, I've always found the ad reads far less annoying than video ads, but that might just be a personal preference. 

[Bryan-10EC]

What ever happened to "kids are not supposed to browse the internet unsupervised"?

We can't force the entire internet to be G rated just because parents don't do their jobs.

What bothers me about this new LAW (this is COPPA, not YT forcing this) is the FTC said they would be fining creators.

Everybody with an active YT channel needs to have liability insurance and a lawyer now.

And if you have questionable videos out there... I guess make them all private now.

This just reeks of ok boomer.

 

EDIT. (oops)

Ok, I didn't realize exactly what was going on here.

This is about data collection.

My rant was.. um.. true but not really the issue.

Basically viewer data collection is one way to make money on the internet, so the FTC is saying anything that could possibly be seen by a "under 13" needs to have the data collection thing turned off.

Maybe we just need some way to sort the kids out on the ISP end versus punishing the creator/site for being view-able and collecting data?

[Donut417]

On 11/18/2019 at 4:23 PM, WereCat said:

Does this apply for people outside of USA? 

That would depend on treaties your country has with the US. Id say that Youtube might have to implement Geo Blocking to ensure that all content shown in the US is within the letter of the law. But I would assume that the FTC can not fine a person living in a foriegn country, With the exception if that person is an American Citizen. Though Youtube might also introduce their own penalties for creators outside the US. 

[sNowCat]

I'm hopping Linus talks about this on WAN show this week. I am very interested in his opinion on this whole situation. 

[jagdtigger]

 

[Taf the Ghost]

2 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

 

Good find. It's still going to slaughter a large chunk of YT, but if you drop a F-bomb in the first 5 seconds of every video you'll be generally safe from the FTC. Great.

[Taf the Ghost]

12 hours ago, Donut417 said:

That would depend on treaties your country has with the US. Id say that Youtube might have to implement Geo Blocking to ensure that all content shown in the US is within the letter of the law. But I would assume that the FTC can not fine a person living in a foriegn country, With the exception if that person is an American Citizen. Though Youtube might also introduce their own penalties for creators outside the US. 

The cases would Civil not Criminal, so it'd be a summons to a lawsuit. Which actually might be the way they do the "test case". Apparently there's Eastern European content mills that attack the algo really well, so they might get sued in DC court so the FTC can get summary judgment.

[Taf the Ghost]

9 hours ago, sNowCat said:

I'm hopping Linus talks about this on WAN show this week. I am very interested in his opinion on this whole situation. 

He gave a pretty long answer on the Bitwit/Paul's Hardware livestream. Google got smacked because they were breaking the law, but he's generally not worried for his content. And he seems to be quite correct. (I.e. he's already gotten legal advice.)

[Donut417]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

The cases would Civil not Criminal, so it'd be a summons to a lawsuit. Which actually might be the way they do the "test case". Apparently there's Eastern European content mills that attack the algo really well, so they might get sued in DC court so the FTC can get summary judgment.

Still unless the country has the proper treaties with the US. The court cant compel people outside the US to pay those fines. The only thing the Goverment can do is to order Youtube to block the content. Which is why I think all this is going to be pushed on the Youtube to figure out. Hell, they might not go after any creators instead issue fines on Youtube and make them push compliance. 

[Taf the Ghost]

17 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Still unless the country has the proper treaties with the US. The court cant compel people outside the US to pay those fines. The only thing the Goverment can do is to order Youtube to block the content. Which is why I think all this is going to be pushed on the Youtube to figure out. Hell, they might not go after any creators instead issue fines on Youtube and make them push compliance. 

FTC wouldn't be after fines with the test cases. They'd want a locked in victory (first objective) that gave them explicit rulings to go after other creators (secondary objective). Right now they'd lose a case against any "normal" creator in court, but they're saber rattling about it. Once they have a collection of cases (even if summary judgments), they'll have a framework where they can attack people further & further within the normal space.

 

Though, after that first case goes, Internet is going to be a WILD place for a while. No one is talking about the knock-on effect that'll happen with Reddit, Imgur or Facebook. This is a backdoor regulation of all social media. Anyone posting videos of their kids on Facebook might suddenly be at risk after these cases start piling up. Nothing specifically in the YT-FTC agreement restricts this discussion to monetized videos.

 

Now, I'm not quite sure what the point of trying to regulate all social media content this way is about, but it's also very hard to work through the logic that sits at the nexus of Evil & Incompetent that is the US Federal Government. 

 

Edit: considering the "all cartoons are for kids" bit they are definitely going to hang their hat on, I realize I know the internet far too well. The Great Flood of Hentai Memes of 2021 will probably be legend. And make any imageboards NSFW for a good 6 weeks.

[CarlBar]

5 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

FTC wouldn't be after fines with the test cases. They'd want a locked in victory (first objective) that gave them explicit rulings to go after other creators (secondary objective). Right now they'd lose a case against any "normal" creator in court, but they're saber rattling about it. Once they have a collection of cases (even if summary judgments), they'll have a framework where they can attack people further & further within the normal space.

 

Though, after that first case goes, Internet is going to be a WILD place for a while. No one is talking about the knock-on effect that'll happen with Reddit, Imgur or Facebook. This is a backdoor regulation of all social media. Anyone posting videos of their kids on Facebook might suddenly be at risk after these cases start piling up. Nothing specifically in the YT-FTC agreement restricts this discussion to monetized videos.

 

Now, I'm not quite sure what the point of trying to regulate all social media content this way is about, but it's also very hard to work through the logic that sits at the nexus of Evil & Incompetent that is the US Federal Government. 

 

Still listening to the video posted above but if your not monetising the content your automatically free and clear. The COPPA law only applies to commercial people and groups. If your not getting money you can't be a commercial entity and COPPA thus can't touch you.

[Donut417]

3 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

FTC wouldn't be after fines with the test cases. They'd want a locked in victory (first objective) that gave them explicit rulings to go after other creators (secondary objective).

The point I was making. They cant go after non american citizens outside the US. Yes, they can go after people within the US, but this law is like copy right law. The government doesnt have the time or resources to sue every fucker in to poverty or imprison them. They are not going to play a game of wack a mole. They will go after to big guys, like Youtube, Twitch and such. They probably wont even consider many creators, as they would not be worth it. What they will do is go after the companies directly and force them to make their content creators comply with the law. Either by blocking the content or by banning creators from the platform. 

 

In the end I have a feeling this is going to turn in to a supream court case about first amendment violations. Especially if they start blocking content. 

[Taf the Ghost]

3 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

Still listening to the video posted above but if your not monetising the content your automatically free and clear. The COPPA law only applies to commercial people and groups. If your not getting money you can't be a commercial entity and COPPA thus can't touch you.

Per the actual COPPA law, unless you run the website you actually are free & clear. But keep listening. He will get to a part where they're trying to broaden the definition so wide that anyone that is using a site's services would be under the COPPA rules. That's why they'll build a large pile of cases won via settlements/no-shows, so they can keep expanding its power. 

 

You have to think about it more in terms of Orwellian Power Grab than in the terms of legal fines for statutory violations. 

[CarlBar]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Per the actual COPPA law, unless you run the website you actually are free & clear. But keep listening. He will get to a part where they're trying to broaden the definition so wide that anyone that is using a site's services would be under the COPPA rules. That's why they'll build a large pile of cases won via settlements/no-shows, so they can keep expanding its power. 

 

You have to think about it more in terms of Orwellian Power Grab than in the terms of legal fines for statutory violations. 

 

And he then goes on to outline the commercial entities part after that. That part is extremly cut and dried. TLDR they may be able to define you as an operator of a website under the law as written by stretching things a lot. But they can onyl define you as commercial if you make money from it.

[Taf the Ghost]

13 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

And he then goes on to outline the commercial entities part after that. That part is extremly cut and dried.

 

Start there. And don't confuse "plain reading of the law" and "what they intend to do with technically limited powers but will keep pushing anyway".  If the FTC went after a big Fortnite streamer, they'd lose in court badly and their interpretations would get thrown out & they were far outside of the statutory authority. That's the technical legal reality. That isn't what the FTC is going to do, however.

 

What they'll do is find ways of building a huge pile of victories in cases that define "for kids" and expand their authority to regulate. The easiest way would be to bring civil suits against foreign businesses that would never defend themselves in a US Court. FTC gets free wins and establishes a pile of case law. Then, from that pile of case law, they start going after whatever person or group posts anywhere on the Internet. 

 

Whether it's a full scale attack on the ability to fine anyone that posts anything on social media OR just a little power fiefdom for the FTC, I don't know. But I can see the exact path they'd use to expand their authority without anyone being able to call their bluff. It's the prelude to racketeering by the FTC.