I may lose all of my revenue because of COPPA and i dont know what to do. this feels like a nightmare.

[RonnieOP]

1 minute ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

Having them get a job outside of YouTube because parents want excuses not to have to do their job. Seems legit.

 

If you are concerned about the content on YouTube or any other platform, then you need to make the decision as to whether your kids will be allowed to use it or not. Expecting the government to intervene and put even more regulation in place that will stifle innovation and creativity is not the answer.

You realize they can still make youtube videos right? If they are worried about it they can take the steps to make sure their channel is safe.

 

"to hell with the health department. if your concerned about dying from eating bad food then you should eat at home"

"To hell with labor laws. if you dont like working in unsafe work conditions you can work for yourself"

right?

 

Can you show me anywhere that says youtube has to pay anyone for anything they upload to their platform? Why do creators think they are entitled to anything when they choose to do something out of their own free will.

 

I subscribe to quite a few channels that dont make a dime off youtube. Every single video is demonetized. They still upload but they have done the smart thing and created other avenues for money.

 

If you put all your eggs into the youtube basket and didnt think ahead you have no body to blame but yourself. If you are dumb enough to put everything you have into the faith of a single corporation with no back up plan. whos fault is that?

[RonnieOP]

6 minutes ago, redbread123 said:

They're protecting kids, in a half assed way paradox, that goes against the creators, plus since google make money off youtube through data and cookies to send you ads, having youtube "adult only videos" should be disabled for kids. and if they can access it, then that is kind of stupid, if it appeals to kids is not the matter, if it's an adult labeled video on youtube than it should be adults can only view it, even if it has barby princess dinosaur what not in it.

Theres no way to assure that kids are not going to see it though.

 

Outside of providing things like SSN, ID, Birth Certificate how would youtube/google be able to verify if a user is an adult or not?

[Drak3]

9 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

You realize they can still make youtube videos right? If they are worried about it they can take the steps to make sure their channel is safe.

The new FTC guidelines are so vaguely written that the only ways to ensure one is safe from the new update to the law is to:

1. Do it for effectively free
2. Delete everything

10 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

to hell with the health department. if your concerned about dying from eating bad food then you should eat at home"

"To hell with labor laws. if you dont like working in unsafe work conditions you can work for yourself"

right?

False equivalence.

 

The Health Department is responsible for making sure all commercially sold food products are safe for human consumption. They're not responsible for what you choose to eat or feed your kids.

Labor laws were created so that employers cannot unnecessarily endanger the lives of their employees, not dictate every aspect of employment nor are the laws applied the same along all career avenues. And yes, you can work for yourself if you find your work conditions unsatisfactory, it's one of the key requirements for capitalism.

 

Whereas the FTC is now telling content creators that any piece of content they create that could appeal to children, is made for  children. Context is irrelevant to them. Actual content is irrelevant.

11 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Can you show me anywhere that says youtube has to pay anyone for anything they upload to their platform?

Youtube Partner Program obligations.

 

11 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Why do creators think they are entitled to anything when they choose to do something out of their own free will.

Because they agree to let Google run ads over the content, in exchange for money.

[RonnieOP]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

The new FTC guidelines are so vaguely written that the only ways to ensure one is safe from the new update to the law is to:

1. Do it for effectively free
2. Delete everything

False equivalence.

 

The Health Department is responsible for making sure all commercially sold food products are safe for human consumption. They're not responsible for what you choose to eat or feed your kids.

Labor laws were created so that employers cannot unnecessarily endanger the lives of their employees, not dictate every aspect of employment nor are the laws applied the same along all career avenues. And yes, you can work for yourself if you find your work conditions unsatisfactory, it's one of the key requirements for capitalism.

 

Whereas the FTC is now telling content creators that any piece of content they create that could appeal to children, is made for  children. Context is irrelevant to them. Actual content is irrelevant.

Youtube Partner Program obligations.

 

Because they agree to let Google run ads over the content, in exchange for money.

Are you really going to quote youtube partner program as a source that they legally HAVE to pay people? Its their program they can change it literally whenever they want. And the creator doesnt have to agree on letting ads go on their video. Youtube at any moment can change their tos and say "upload it, were putting ads on it, and your not going to make money" and legally they would be in the right. Theres no constitutional right to make a living on youtube.

 

The FTC will come out with more concrete and specific guidelines. This is normal. They put out something vague and it gets more specific.

 

Im not saying that i 100% agree with what they are saying. It obv needs to be more specific.

 

But either way. Im not going to be pretend to be sympathetic that someone might not be able to make youtube videos anymore for a living. If you are ignorant enough to put all your faith into a company then thats on you and no one else. 

[Kawaii Koneko]

46 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

You realize they can still make youtube videos right? If they are worried about it they can take the steps to make sure their channel is safe.

 

Have you even been listening to their concerns and how complex this issue is? This isn't a matter of just making sure their channel is safe. Some people aren't targeting kids but talk about content that kids find interesting such as video games, Star Wars, or anything else that crosses the age divide. The concern is that the government in its infinite wisdom will come after some guy making Fortnite montages and dropping f bombs because Fornite appeals to children. I can already think of two different channels who did an animated parody of Micky Mouse and Sonic that were extremely crude and full of adult humor. Are those people just supposed to stop because you don't want to take YouTube away from your kids?

 

46 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

"to hell with the health department. if your concerned about dying from eating bad food then you should eat at home"

"To hell with labor laws. if you dont like working in unsafe work conditions you can work for yourself"

right?

 

That's totally different and you know it. Watching YouTube isn't a necessary part of life and isn't going to bring physical harm to anyone.

 

If there is content that you find objectionable on the platform and you don't feel YouTube does a good enough job of separating kid friendly content from the adult stuff, then don't let your kids use it. This shouldn't be the government's, content creator's, or my problem. YouTube content is already suffering enough due to YouTube's own policies and all the issues with monetizing. Creators are already having to change their content and this is just going to make it worse for them.

 

46 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Can you show me anywhere that says youtube has to pay anyone for anything they upload to their platform? Why do creators think they are entitled to anything when they choose to do something out of their own free will.

YouTube owes much of its growth to previous monetization policies. You wouldn't have near the amount of content creators putting in the effort they do if it wasn't for the money they can make.

 

Would you go to work everyday if it wasn't for the fact you are getting paid? You are choosing to do so out of your own free will so why do you expect compensation? Dumb question, right? This is the same kind of deal. YouTube and creators are in a symbiotic relationship. YouTube needs the creators so they have content to sell ads with and the creators need something in return. 

 

46 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

I subscribe to quite a few channels that dont make a dime off youtube. Every single video is demonetized. They still upload but they have done the smart thing and created other avenues for money.

Great except that still doesn't solve the issue that they can face massive fines from the FTC.

 

Not to mention, finding alternate funding doesn't solve the ad revenue problem. Many creators are still making less than they used to. Many are just choosing to give it up all together. It is affecting their livelihood and the type of creative content that gets uploaded. Like I said, this is just going to stifle creativity.

 

46 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

If you put all your eggs into the youtube basket and didnt think ahead you have no body to blame but yourself. If you are dumb enough to put everything you have into the faith of a single corporation with no back up plan. whos fault is that?

You mean like many people who are just reporting to work everyday, hoping that pension will be there when they retire?

 

Yes, in general it is not a good idea to have all your eggs in one basket but let's not try to justify what is happening here with such logic. 

 

  

38 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Theres no way to assure that kids are not going to see it though.

 

Outside of providing things like SSN, ID, Birth Certificate how would youtube/google be able to verify if a user is an adult or not?

Good point. If only the parents could do something...

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

Are you really going to quote youtube partner program as a source that they legally HAVE to pay people?

Contractual obligation. So yes.

 

1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

Youtube at any moment can change their tos and say "upload it, were putting ads on it, and your not going to make money" and legally they would be in the right.

They could. But they didn't.

 

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

They put out something vague and it gets more specific.

No, they put out something vague and it stays vague. The current guidelines are as vague as they were when first created.

[RonnieOP]

10 minutes ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

Have you even been listening to their concerns and how complex this issue is? This isn't a matter of just making sure their channel is safe. Some people aren't targeting kids but talk about content that kids find interesting such as video games, Star Wars, or anything else that crosses the age divide. The concern is that the government in its infinite wisdom will come after some guy making Fortnite montages and dropping f bombs because Fornite appeals to children. I can already think of two different channels who did an animated parody of Micky Mouse and Sonic that were extremely crude and full of adult humor. Are those people just supposed to stop because you don't want to take YouTube away from your kids?

 

That's not at all what I said and you know it. Watching YouTube isn't a necessary part of life and isn't going to bring physical harm to anyone.

 

If there is content that you find objectionable on the platform and you don't feel YouTube does a good enough job of separating kid friendly content from the adult stuff, then don't let your kids use it. This shouldn't be the government's, content creator's, or my problem. YouTube content is already suffering enough due to YouTube's own policies and all the issues with monetizing. Creators are already having to change their content and this is just going to make it worse for them.

 

YouTube owes much of its growth to previous monetization policies. You wouldn't have near the amount of content creators putting in the effort they do if it wasn't for the money they can make.

 

Would you go to work everyday if it wasn't for the fact you are getting paid? You are choosing to do so out of your own free will so why do you expect compensation? Dumb question, right? This is the same kind of deal. YouTube and creators are in a symbiotic relationship. YouTube needs the creators so they have content to sell ads with and the creators need something in return. 

 

Great except that still doesn't solve the issue that they can face massive fines from the FTC.

 

Not to mention, finding alternate funding doesn't solve the ad revenue problem. Many creators are still making less than they used to. Many are just choosing to give it up all together. It is affecting their livelihood and the type of creative content that gets uploaded. Like I said, this is just going to stifle creativity.

 

You mean like many people who are just reporting to work everyday, hoping that pension will be there when they retire?

 

Yes, in general it is not a good idea to have all your eggs in one basket but let's not try to justify what is happening here with such logic. 

 

  

Good point. If only the parents could do something...

Creativity is not limited to youtube. If money is the only thing that keeps someone creative then thats on them. But again. Theres content creators out there that dont make a dime off youtube ads. Instead of giving up they found other ways on supporting their channel. I understand that some people arent willing to put in that kind of work. But again thats on them. OP even stated that he had options when it came to saving his channel he just doesnt like those options. And i can see where hes coming from. But thats life. Its not fair and its never going to be fair. You adapt to survive. 

 

"Hoping your pension will be there". Has no one ever told you about having back up plans for retirement? To answer your question yes i also think its a bad move to not invest and only rely on a pension for retirement. Im not very old (29) and i was taught in school about investments and strongly encouraged to do something to prepare for my life after im unable to work.

 

"If only parents could do something" you seem stuck on the asinine concept. You just quoted me when i was asking how GOOGLE could verify if someone was an adult or not. Idk what the hell you think parents could do to prove to youtube that someone is or isnt an adult.

 

You seem to think that its possible for parents to monitor every single second of a kids life. If thats what you expect from a parent then why dont you expect content creators to monitor everything at every second on their channel? 

[Drak3]

Just now, RonnieOP said:

Instead of giving up they found other ways on supporting their channel.

And they're subject to the same exact rules. Any monetized content is.

 

1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

You just quoted me when i was asking how GOOGLE could verify if someone was an adult or not.

It's not Google's job to do the parents' jobs for them.

[RonnieOP]

5 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

And they're subject to the same exact rules. Any monetized content is.

 

It's not Google's job to do the parents' jobs for them.

Its also not googles job to make sure that someone can making a living uploading to youtube and nothing else. 

 

And yes they are subjecting to the same rules...so they put in the right steps to abide by them. Which is exactly what everyone else can do as well.

 

It wont be easy. But people do it. If your not willing to put in the hard work when problems occur then i dont know what to tell you. 

 

Your still not making any real distinction on what parents are meant to do? You think asshole people are finding ways around child settings? 

 

Unless you expect parents to monitor literally every second of their kids life then idk what you are getting at.

 

Are you under the impression that people are not hiding messed up content in things classified as kid content? 

 

Again ill ask you. Since you think its fair that parents have to watch their kids every movement for every second because people go around all child setting, is it not fair that content creators have to monitor and be responsible for everything that happens on their channel? 

 

If someone uploads a video thats 20 mins long and its a my little pony video and i sit with my kid through the first 15 mins of it and its all good and i step away and all of a sudden the video cuts to a beheading of a man is that my fault? 

 

Again. You only have people to blame. That exact thing i was describing was/is happening on youtube (well wasnt always a beheading, sometimes it was porn, but something not made for kids either way).

 

 

[Kawaii Koneko]

29 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Creativity is not limited to youtube. 

Of course not, but YouTube is the most popular place for creative people to upload videos. Creative people want others to see their work.

 

29 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

If money is the only thing that keeps someone creative then thats on them.

Some people want to be creative for a living and not just a hobby. Look at it as that's how passionate they are, not that I guess they aren't that passionate then.

 

29 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Theres content creators out there that dont make a dime off youtube ads. Instead of giving up they found other ways on supporting their channel. I understand that some people arent willing to put in that kind of work.

Again, that just isn't a good replacement for many people. 

 

29 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

I understand that some people arent willing to put in that kind of work. But again thats on them.

That doesn't absolve guilty parties of the absurdity of not only this particular situation but the ad revenue station to begin with.

 

29 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Its not fair and its never going to be fair.

Good. So at least you admit that it isn't fair to force everyone else to make adjustments and sacrifices for parents who just don't want to put in the effort.

 

29 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

You adapt to survive. 

If I was a parent and I saw my kid being exposed exposed to negative influences through a streaming platform, then I would adapt by taking the source away, not expecting the government to step in and ruin people's lives.

 

29 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

"Hoping your pension will be there". Has no one ever told you about having back up plans for retirement?

I'm aware but you thinking I wasn't shows you missed the point I was making. 

 

29 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

"If only parents could do something" you seem stuck on the asinine concept. You just quoted me when i was asking how GOOGLE could verify if someone was an adult or not. Idk what the hell you think parents could do to prove to youtube that someone is or isnt an adult.

As in if only the parents could do SOMETHING. As in there is a role they could play in this beyond just age verification. Such as maybe take away YouTube if they are that worried instead of ruining careers?

 

29 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

You seem to think that its possible for parents to monitor every single second of a kids life. If thats what you expect from a parent then why dont you expect content creators to monitor everything at every second on their channel? 

Because you're the parent. It's your job to look after your kids.

 

I get that you can't watch over your kid 24/7. But hopefully you have enough control in rearing your children that you are able to take away YouTube.

 

  

12 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Its also not googles job to make sure that someone can making a living uploading to youtube and nothing else. 

It's any platforms job to actually give people a reason to upload.

 

12 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Your still not making any real distinction on what parents are meant to do? You think asshole people are finding ways around child settings? 

YouTube can deal with that should they feel like it. Expecting the government to step in is the issue here.

 

12 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Are you under the impression that people are not hiding messed up content in things classified as kid content? 

 

Again ill ask you. Since you think its fair that parents have to watch their kids every movement for every second because people go around all child setting, is it not fair that content creators have to monitor and be responsible for everything that happens on their channel? 

 

If someone uploads a video thats 20 mins long and its a my little pony video and i sit with my kid through the first 15 mins of it and its all good and i step away and all of a sudden the video cuts to a beheading of a man is that my fault? 

 

 

All reasons that you as a parent should just take YouTube away instead of expecting the government to get involved and put people in legal jeopardy.

 

12 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Again. You only have people to blame. That exact thing i was describing was/is happening on youtube (well wasnt always a beheading, sometimes it was porn, but something not made for kids either way).

I agree. We have only people to blame. You and I just disagree about who is to blame.

 

 

[Drak3]

Just now, RonnieOP said:

so they put in the right steps to abide by them.

Except they haven't. 

 

1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

If someone uploads a video thats 20 mins long and its a my little pony video and i sit with my kid through the first 15 mins of it and its all good and i step away and all of a sudden the video cuts to a beheading of a man is that my fault?

Yes. You didn't do your due diligence and make sure what your kid is watching is appropriate for them (and specifically them, as kids can develop mentally at different speeds).

 

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Its also not googles job to make sure that someone can making a living uploading to youtube and nothing else. 

It is Google's job to uphold their end of any contracts.

 

3 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Are you under the impression that people are not hiding messed up content in things classified as kid content?

That's irrelevant. It is YOUR JOB as a PARENT to ensure that YOUR KID is not being exposed to things they are not ready for.

It is not the job of government.

It is not Youtube's job.

It is not the content creator's job.

 

If YOU are inadequate as a parent, it is solely YOUR FAULT.

6 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Unless you expect parents to monitor literally every second of their kids life then idk what you are getting at.

Early on, that is EXACTLY what the parent's job is. As a kid matures, and understands enough about the world to recognize that there are things not meant for them yet, they get more freedom to make those choices themselves. If you don't explain how things work, that is YOUR FAULT.

 

9 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

It wont be easy. But people do it. If your not willing to put in the hard work when problems occur then i dont know what to tell you. 

It is not a content creator's job to ensure that your snot nosed brat doesn't watch their videos. It's not Google's job. It's not government's job. It is yours.

 

If you cannot handle it, take some personal responsibility and don't have kids.

[RonnieOP]

13 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Except they haven't. 

 

Yes. You didn't do your due diligence and make sure what your kid is watching is appropriate for them (and specifically them, as kids can develop mentally at different speeds).

 

It is Google's job to uphold their end of any contracts.

 

That's irrelevant. It is YOUR JOB as a PARENT to ensure that YOUR KID is not being exposed to things they are not ready for.

It is not the job of government.

It is not Youtube's job.

It is not the content creator's job.

 

If YOU are inadequate as a parent, it is solely YOUR FAULT.

Early on, that is EXACTLY what the parent's job is. As a kid matures, and understands enough about the world to recognize that there are things not meant for them yet, they get more freedom to make those choices themselves. If you don't explain how things work, that is YOUR FAULT.

 

It is not a content creator's job to ensure that your snot nosed brat doesn't watch their videos. It's not Google's job. It's not government's job. It is yours.

 

If you cannot handle it, take some personal responsibility and don't have kids.

So by both your logics we shouldnt have alot of the government agencies.

 

Again. Its your responsibility to make sure the food you eat is safe...why have the health department? Why should the government have to stick their nose in and make sure your not being paid $1 an hour with no overtime?  The government shouldnt get involved in the banking system. Its my responsibility to make sure suntrust doesnt steal my savings?

 

You dont seem to understand that you can vet as much as you want as a parent...people get around the safe gaurds.

 

The sheer fact that you think its the parents fault for not knowing that someone isnt going to splice in porn on a kid video is asinine.

 

So if my kids watching PBS and im not in the room and all of a sudden PBS starts showing porn...its the parents fault? Thats just retarded logic.

 

Idk why your bringing up how to raise kids....that literally has nothing to do with the discussion. Your basically saying "hey you need to teach your 8 year old kid about beastiality in case they accidentally see it because a family friendly channel decided to upload it randomly Its your job as a parent". That logic makes zero sense. Your actually arguing that it should be legal to take advantage of kids if their parents dont catch it in time? If i come to your school and smack you and take your lunch money is that your parents fault for not standing there holding your hand?

 

I cant speak for the contractual side of the argument. So if you have that contracts to show me id love to take a look at it to learn more. But i highly doubt that google didnt put clauses in the agreement saying they can terminate the channel for whatever reason. If they did then you have a case there. But i doubt they did. 

 

Ill ask you the same question the other user fails to answer. Since its the parents responsibility to monitor every second of a kids life it should also be the creators responsibility to monitor every second of their channel right? 

 

By your logic if they dont like it they better not make a youtube channel.

[Drak3]

Just now, RonnieOP said:

Again. Its your responsibility to make sure the food you eat is safe...why have the health department? Why should the government have to stick their nose in and make sure your not being paid $1 an hour with no overtime?  The government shouldnt get involved in the banking system. Its my responsibility to make sure suntrust doesnt steal my savings?

False equivalency. I already explained why.

 

1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

The sheer fact that you think its the parents fault for not knowing that someone isnt going to splice in porn on a kid video is asinine.

On user created content, it absolutely is.

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Idk why your bringing up how to raise kids....that literally has nothing to do with the discussion.

COPPA, and the new update, were specifically created at the behest of those too incompetent or lazy to raise their own kids. The entirety of COPPA is government stepping in (and overstepping the First Amendment) to raise kids the way THEY see fit.

[Kawaii Koneko]

22 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

So by both your logics we shouldnt have alot of the government agencies.

 

Again. Its your responsibility to make sure the food you eat is safe...why have the health department? Why should the government have to stick their nose in and make sure your not being paid $1 an hour with no overtime?  The government shouldnt get involved in the banking system. Its my responsibility to make sure suntrust doesnt steal my savings?

No one is advocating no regulation at all, although I would argue that we need less government in the workplace. I'm not going to get into that. It's inherently political and not tech related.

 

But like Drak3 said, you are trying to make false equivalencies.

 

22 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

You dont seem to understand that you can vet as much as you want as a parent...people get around the safe gaurds.

 

Then take it away from your kids. You are the safeguard as the parent.

 

And no offense but to be totally frank, based on our conversation, I don't think you've really tried to vet.

 

22 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

So if my kids watching PBS and im not in the room and all of a sudden PBS starts showing porn...its the parents fault? Thats just retarded logic.

Not the first time but once you know that is a risk, it's on you.

 

Even though that is an absurd situation that wouldn't happen.

 

But using TV as an example, you wouldn't let them watch HBO would you? You know what is on there. So why should YouTube be any different?

 

22 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Idk why your bringing up how to raise kids....that literally has nothing to do with the discussion. 

This has everything to do with raising your kids. You are concerned about the content they are consuming but aren't willing as a parent to take away the offending source. You are making excuses as to why the government should step in and do this for you instead of just protecting your kids.

 

22 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Ill ask you the same question the other user fails to answer. Since its the parents responsibility to monitor every second of a kids life it should also be the creators responsibility to monitor every second of their channel right?

That was answered. The answer is NO. It's not the creators responsibility to monitor their channel's comments (I assume that's what you mean by every second) but it is your job as a parent to protect your children. 

 

It is unrealistic to expect a creator to monitor thousands of people posting but within reason to expect a parent to monitor a child/children.

 

There are things you can do as a parent to block YouTube you know. Sure, your kids might find a way around it but if you made it clear they aren't supposed to use it and they do anyway, you have a discipline problem on your hands. Don't expect the government or anyone else to have to deal with it for you.

 

22 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

 

By your logic if they dont like it they better not make a youtube channel.

That's pretty much been one of your arguments this entire time, not mine. 

[RonnieOP]

7 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

False equivalency. I already explained why.

 

On user created content, it absolutely is.

COPPA, and the new update, were specifically created at the behest of those too incompetent or lazy to raise their own kids. The entirety of COPPA is government stepping in (and overstepping the First Amendment) to raise kids the way THEY see fit.

Its not a false equivalency at all. And you didnt explain anything. Your ok with the governemtn coming in and making sure your not eating bad food, or that the banks wont run off with your money. But making laws to protect kids is where they overstep their boundries? How so?

 

Seems like your ok with government intruding in your life and choices when you agree but when they do something you dont like then then its bs.

 

COPPA isnt overstepping the first amendment at all. You do not have a constitutional right to make a youtube video. Idk if you understand the first amendment if you think that.

And COPPA isnt doing anything to change the way anyone raises their kids. Your logic in both those points makes zero sense.

 

Funny how COPPA has been around for over two decades and you had no problem...but when it starts involving something as petty as some guy making videos on youtube its the worst thing in the world lol.

 

Basically if the creators dont like it i understand and thats fine. They dont have to make youtube videos. They dont have a right to make youtube videos.

 

I cant stop washing my hands are work and tell the health department im still going to cook and serve food.

 

I get it sucks for some creators. But thats life. If it ruins your youtube channel that sucks. Find a new job.

 

If your trying to tell me that someone has zero skills in life and cant do anything for income outside of youtube....then they have much much worse issues they need to figure out that has nothing to do with youtube.

[RonnieOP]

3 minutes ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

No one is advocating no regulation at all, although I would argue that we need less government in the workplace. I'm not going to get into that. It's inherently political and not tech related.

 

But like Drak3 said, you are trying to make false equivalencies.

 

Then take it away from your kids. You are the safeguard as the parent.

 

Not the first time but once you know that is a risk, it's on you.

 

Even though that is an absurd situation that wouldn't happen.

 

This has everything to do with raising your kids. You are concerned about the content they are consuming but aren't willing as a parent to take away the offending source. You are making excuses as to why the government should step in and do this for you instead of just protecting your kids.

 

That was answered. The answer is NO. It's not the creators responsibility to monitor their channel's comments (I assume that's what you mean by every second) but it is your job as a parent to protect your children. 

 

It is unrealistic to expect a creator to monitor thousands of people posting but within reason to expect a parent to monitor a child/children.

 

There are things you can do as a parent to block YouTube you know. Sure, your kids might find a way around it but if you made it clear they aren't supposed to use it and they do anyway, you have a discipline problem on your hands. Don't expect the government or anyone else to have to deal with it for you.

 

That's pretty much been one of your arguments this entire time, not mine. 

Hows it not the channels resppnsibility? They create the video. They allow comments. Etc.

 

I agree its 100% unrealistic. Just like its unrealistic to expect a parent to never leave a kids side 24/7.  If youtube/ a content creator wants to publish kid content and advertise it towards kids then parents should be able to somewhat trust it. 

 

If a movie is rated G. Is it fair for a parent to assume its safe for their kids? Of course. If someone in the movie studio decided to slip in porn in the middle of toy story and my kids see it thats not the parents fault.

 

Like i said. They need to be more specific on the rules and what not. I agree 100%. Its fair to be critical of that. But if you want to be critical of their being a government agency to protect children from fucked up people....thats a dumb argument. And again by that logic there should be no epa, health department, fda, etc. Because thats the government protecting people.

 

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

Your ok with the governemtn coming in and making sure your not eating bad food

False.

I'm okay with government stepping in with a regulation that food producers cannot knowingly sell dangerous food (issues like the E.Coli outbreaks are a case by case topic). It still gives me the freedom to produce my own food and consume it, regardless of how dangerous it is, or for me to eat all the unhealthy food I want.

3 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

that the banks wont run off with your money.

That would be theft. Something that is uniformly illegal.

 

4 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

But making laws to protect kids is where they overstep their boundries? How so?

These laws actively infringe upon the rights of content creators, specifically the First Amendment: free speech. It is literal government censorship.

 

5 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

You do not have a constitutional right to make a youtube video.

1. COPPA isn't limited to youtube.
2. I have the right to make and share videos. Publishers have the right to refuse to host it.

8 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Its not a false equivalency at all.

Even if you can't recognize these false equivalencies, they're false equivalencies.

 

8 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

And you didnt explain anything.

Yes, I have. Twice now.

 

But I'm only responsible for what I say, not for what you don't understand.

[Drak3]

Just now, RonnieOP said:

f a movie is rated G. Is it fair for a parent to assume its safe for their kids? Of course. If someone in the movie studio decided to slip in porn in the middle of toy story and my kids see it thats not the parents fault.

False equivalence.

 

Movies are professionally reviewed and rated.

 

 

User generated content is not. It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to verify that it is safe.

[RonnieOP]

7 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

False.

I'm okay with government stepping in with a regulation that food producers cannot knowingly sell dangerous food (issues like the E.Coli outbreaks are a case by case topic). It still gives me the freedom to produce my own food and consume it, regardless of how dangerous it is, or for me to eat all the unhealthy food I want.

That would be theft. Something that is uniformly illegal.

 

These laws actively infringe upon the rights of content creators, specifically the First Amendment: free speech. It is literal government censorship.

 

1. COPPA isn't limited to youtube.
2. I have the right to make and share videos. Publishers have the right to refuse to host it.

Even if you can't recognize these false equivalencies, they're false equivalencies.

 

Yes, I have. Twice now.

 

But I'm only responsible for what I say, not for what you don't understand.

You do not have a first amendment on youtube. You never have. The first amendment does not cover a private company. There is absolutely no constitutional infringement going on. If youtube tomorrow makes a rule saying you cant speak about "x subject" they can. your first amendment right does not extend to youtube.

 

Your logic behind liking the health department and not like COPPA still make zero sense. People can still make content even with COPPA. Its been around for two decades and they have been making content. They just have regulations when it comes to children. Again. you have literally made no valid argument as to what the difference is. Both are government agencies that regulate certain aspects of our lives (well atleast in the countries that have these agencies).

 

 

[Kawaii Koneko]

31 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Its not a false equivalency at all. And you didnt explain anything. Your ok with the governemtn coming in and making sure your not eating bad food, or that the banks wont run off with your money. But making laws to protect kids is where they overstep their boundries? How so?

 

It is. The FDA regulates food products so you don't unknowingly buy something and get sick or die. The government has laws in place to protect your money from outright theft. Both those make sense and actually protect you from something beyond your control.

 

You can't possibly put a video on YouTube in the same league. Something which you as a parent can choose to wall off from you child.

 

31 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Seems like your ok with government intruding in your life and choices when you agree but when they do something you dont like then then its bs.

No because protecting me from food poisoning or some situation where the bank "runs off with my money" isn't intruding in my life.

 

31 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

You do not have a constitutional right to make a youtube video. Idk if you understand the first amendment if you think that.

 

When it comes to the government, yes, we have that right under the First Amendment. Freedom of expression isn't just limited to writing, public speaking, or traditional forms of video.

 

We aren't protected by it in terms of YouTube's own policies but we are from the government.

 

31 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

And COPPA isnt doing anything to change the way anyone raises their kids. Your logic in both those points makes zero sense.

It's making it easier for parents who don't want to take any action or personal responsibility for their kids.

 

31 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Funny how COPPA has been around for over two decades and you had no problem...but when it starts involving something as petty as some guy making videos on youtube its the worst thing in the world lol.

Because not all of COPPA is objectionable, obviously.

 

31 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

I cant stop washing my hands are work and tell the health department im still going to cook and serve food.

Yeah, because we are talking about a real health issue with unaware patrons vs an aware parent who doesn't want to just take away what they deem to be a risk to their child/children.

22 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

I agree its 100% unrealistic. Just like its unrealistic to expect a parent to never leave a kids side 24/7. 

 

No one expects that. They do expect you to take YouTube away if you don't like it. That is very reasonable to expect you to do.

 

22 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

If youtube/ a content creator wants to publish kid content and advertise it towards kids then parents should be able to somewhat trust it. 

 

 

And if they can't, then they should just leave the platform.

 

Also, you are oversimplifying the issue again. The problem is that the FTC may look at content such as a Mario video that isn't market as being for children because maybe the content creator targets adults and has foul language in their video but the FTC will look at Mario as a kid thing and fine the creator for targeting kids with adult content.

 

22 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

If a movie is rated G. Is it fair for a parent to assume its safe for their kids? Of course. If someone in the movie studio decided to slip in porn in the middle of toy story and my kids see it thats not the parents fault.

Movie studios don't rate their movies. The MPAA does. So that scenario would never happen.

 

 

  

3 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

You do not have a first amendment on youtube. You never have. The first amendment does not cover a private company. There is absolutely no constitutional infringement going on. If youtube tomorrow makes a rule saying you cant speak about "x subject" they can. your first amendment right does not extend to youtube.

 

No one was arguing about YouTube violating this right. Actually, I didn't even see the part where the First Amendment was brought up but the government in this case is creating a policy which will effectively limit your freedom of expression by fining people for making adult videos with themes that may appeal to children. 

 

[Drak3]

Just now, RonnieOP said:

The first amendment does not cover a private company.

COPPA is intervention from the US Government.

 

1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

Your logic behind liking the health department and not like COPPA still make zero sense.

Only to you.

 

1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

People can still make content even with COPPA.

Technically yes. But the new update infringes upon their capability capitalize on it. It also bars ANY content creators from notifying subscriber, being recommended by the publisher, having end cards, having comment sections, and from showing up in search results.

 

The right to free speech on public platforms is being limited, undermined, infringed.

 

And this is for videos DEEMED to be targeted at kids, ultimately by the FTC, on ALL US based platforms and publishers (not just YouTube). This it NOT the audience that the content producers are actually targetting. This is not what the actual audiences of said content producers are.

 

And the NEW rules that are being voted on dictate this:

The use of "child focused language," such as "cool," or "games"

ANYTHING appealing to children: music, games, cartoon characters, stories, etc.

 

That second point is where a huge issue arises: EVERYTHING is appealing to kids. Kids want to learn about new things. Just about everything sparks their interest.

17 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Its been around for two decades and they have been making content.

That's because THEY ARE TRYING TO INTRODUCING NEW SUBLAW.

 

18 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

you have literally made no valid argument as to what the difference is.

Yes. I have.

 

But, again, I'm only responsible for what I say. I'm not responsible for what YOU don't understand.

17 minutes ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

The problem is that the FTC may look at content such as a Mario video that isn't market as being for children because maybe the content creator targets adults and has foul language in their video but the FTC will look at Mario as a kid thing and fine the creator for targeting kids with adult content.

It doesn't even need to be Mario. Wolfenstein: The New Order, a game with what is arguably softcore porn in it, is content targeting kids, because Wolfenstein is a game and games are appealing to kids.

[RonnieOP]

11 minutes ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

It is. The FDA regulates food products so you don't unknowingly buy something and get sick or die. The government has laws in place to protect your money from outright theft. Both those make sense and actually protect you from something beyond your control.

 

You can't possibly put a video on YouTube in the same league. Something which you as a parent can choose to wall off from you child.

 

No because protecting me from food poisoning or some situation where the bank "runs off with my money" isn't intruding in my life.

 

When it comes to the government, yes, we have that right under the First Amendment. Freedom of expression isn't just limited to writing, public speaking, or traditional forms of video.

 

We aren't protected by it in terms of YouTube's own policies but we are from the government.

 

It's making it easier for parents who don't want to take any action or personal responsibility for their kids.

 

Because not all of COPPA is objectionable, obviously.

 

Yeah, because we are talking about a real health issue with unaware patrons vs an aware parent who doesn't want to just take away what they deem to be a risk to their child/children.

No one expects that. They do expect you to take YouTube away if you don't like it. That is very reasonable to expect you to do.

 

 

And if they can't, then they should just leave the platform.

 

Also, you are oversimplifying the issue again. The problem is that the FTC may look at content such as a Mario video that isn't market as being for children because maybe the content creator targets adults and has foul language in their video but the FTC will look at Mario as a kid thing and fine the creator for targeting kids with adult content.

 

Movie studios don't rate their movies. The MPAA does. So that scenario would never happen.

 

 

  

No one was arguing about YouTube violating this right. Actually, I didn't even see the part where the First Amendment was brought up but the government in this case is creating a policy which will effectively limit your freedom of expression by fining people for making adult videos with themes that may appeal to children. 

 

I have said it before and ill say it again. The rules need to be more specific. and they will be. This isnt the first law that was vaguely worded and not specific and then had to be adjusted. It happens. And in this case itll happen again. But that doesnt make COPPA this evil agency that some are making it out to be. Just like basically everything the government does its just not great at things. so like i said. the law will be readjusted like plenty of regulations before hand.

 

In order to infringe on your freedom of speech (theres no such thing as freedom of expression) they would have to make a law making it to where you cant speak. This action will not force anyone not to speak. Arresting someone for making threats is not infringing against your freedom of speech even though its punishing you for your speech. Theres a difference.

 

you claim the other things arent bad because they dont "intrude on your life" yes they do. but you see it as a positive so you dont care. but that doesnt mean its not an intrusion on your life.

[RonnieOP]

Just now, Drak3 said:

COPPA is intervention from the US Government.

 

Only to you.

 

Technically yes. But the new update infringes upon their capability capitalize on it. It also bars ANY content creators from notifying subscriber, being recommended by the publisher, having end cards, having comment sections, and from showing up in search results.

 

The right to free speech on public platforms is being limited, undermined, infringed.

 

And this is for videos DEEMED to be targeted at kids, ultimately by the FTC, on ALL US based platforms and publishers (not just YouTube). This it NOT the audience that the content producers are actually targetting. This is not what the actual audiences of said content producers are.

 

And the NEW rules that are being voted on dictate this:

The use of "child focused language," such as "cool," or "games"

ANYTHING appealing to children: music, games, cartoon characters, stories, etc.

 

That second point is where a huge issue arises: EVERYTHING is appealing to kids. Kids want to learn about new things. Just about everything sparks their interest.

That's because THEY ARE TRYING TO INTRODUCING NEW SUBLAW.

 

Yes. I have.

 

But, again, I'm only responsible for what I say. I'm not responsible for what YOU don't understand.

It doesn't even need to be Mario. Wolfenstein: The New Order, a game with what is arguably softcore porn in it, is content targeting kids, because Wolfenstein is a game and games are appealing to kids.

Which is 100% dumb as hell. i agree. that doesnt mean COPPA as a whole is a bad thing. And like i have said. just like many half ass law before this it will be adjusted. it happens all the time in various categories of the law.

 

And tbh i think alot of you are expecting the worse without any real evidence to show that it will happen. Just that theoretically it could happen.

 

For example in my state technically cohabitation is illegal. if you are a man living with a woman and you are not married that is illegal. Dumb right? Do you think that the cops have actually arrested anyone and charged them with cohabitation?  No they havent. but in theory they could.

 

Family guy is an adult cartoon. cartoons are appealing to kids. Do you think Fox/Seth Mcfarlen are going to be fined millions for making family guy?

 

You see the new rules and automatically expect the worse. its not bad to be aware and skeptical. but you make it out like 100% that a creator is going to stream a game and be fined millions. Do you honestly believe thats going to happen?

 

Again. its very vague and will be adjusted. The second a fine is even mentioned for something so stupid the ACLU, and every half assed lawyer in the country is going to get in on that. I doubt it will even make it to court before they re specify the regulations.

[weeblord]

6 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

better put more swears and blood in your videos so the FTC wont think its for kids then 

But then the video will get demonetized for swearing and gore. You lose either way.

[Kawaii Koneko]

13 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

It doesn't even need to be Mario. Wolfenstein: The New Order, a game with what is arguably softcore porn in it, is content targeting kids, because Wolfenstein is a game and games are appealing to kids.

True. Basically, this has a large potential for misapplication.

 

We haven't even gotten into intentional abuse to silence critics or those of the wrong political persuasion.

 

13 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

I have said it before and ill say it again. The rules need to be more specific. and they will be. This isnt the first law that was vaguely worded and not specific and then had to be adjusted. It happens. And in this case itll happen again. But that doesnt make COPPA this evil agency that some are making it out to be. Just like basically everything the government does its just not great at things. so like i said. the law will be readjusted like plenty of regulations before hand.

And you really think that will happen? You honestly trust the government to work this out? You honestly think once all the profits from those massive fines start rolling in that they are going to try to do the right thing?

 

13 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

(theres no such thing as freedom of expression) 

Freedom of expression is perfectly interchangeable with freedom of speech. Same thing.

 

13 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

n order to infringe on your freedom of speech (theres no such thing as freedom of expression) they would have to make a law making it to where you cant speak. This action will not force anyone not to speak. 

 

This law is essentially doing that. If the FTC issues fines for a video in which you express your opinion or make some stupid crude animation regarding a topic that will have cross interest between adults and children, then that is a violation of your First Amendment right because it has the effect of restricting your speech.