Back to Today's Deal

Stop COPPA and the FTC from ruining youtube

youtube

#21

I recommend this video as well


Edit: I know that Mr Enter hasn’t got the best reputation but for issues like this he’s surprisingly great. I also recommend his Technocracy series

#22

i watched the video and didn’t like it/the guy because of some partial bullshit
it took me less than a minute to find other articles than the verge, dating before the verge, mentioning the same 42.000$ figure (not that it means it’s true since none source the figure)
he says he don’t know where chadtronic had the FTC video cuts from when he says and it’s linked in the video description. And it’s over 40 minutes long, so i understand the jumpcuts. Not that it doesn’t (potentially intentionally) make it/change it to highlight his specific narrative, can’t say, i’m not gonna watch 47mins of FTC conference to confirm. (and overall his complaints about the jumpcuts seem slightly pedantic in today’s media use)
and most importantly, people aren’t protesting coppa or childrens protection, but the FTC’s implementation and extremely vague "rule"set and planned revision that potentially has the impact of making it even more sensitive/broader defined than how massively vague it already is.

I get he want’s to downplay it a bit, and to do so to calm some hysteria, which could be good. But it comes off “wrong” like the method doesn’t fit the goal or situation at all.
If all others suggestions are just partially true, it’s bad for creators, this alone is worth the attention. People aren’t trying to disassemble coppa, but since they only have until dec 9th, they are trying to be heard and create awareness to help get it better, and more reasonable, defined than how the FTC rules/guidelines is currently laid out, that they got direct from the FTC . Which i can understand if this was my livelihood. (the way i understand it)

While this might be different/“worse” than the FCC net-neutrality, it doesn’t deserve less “hysteria” since the focal point is much smaller and specific: YouTube Creators directly. Which would potentially change things a lot for creators, and viewers that watch videos/won’t have their content to watch.
The revenue cut alone is already a hard pill enough for some to overcome. With people mentioning they can’t sustain a YT career/content creation, as they used to, on the new adrevenue if they get hit with "content for kids"claim, that’s before potential fines/liability alone.
So i see more wrong in trying to downplay this like so/"wait and see"attitude, than highlighting the “shooting fish in a barrel”/we will sue narrative

anyway, that’s my take from it :man_shrugging:
Buuut i’m also a doom and gloom kinda guy, so i probably prefer panic stage 11 with everyone else also sharing my armageddon bunker prepping :blush:


#23

That’s fine. At least you explained it clearly.
Save us some space


#24

I left my comment as well, I took a screenshot of it too, just in case anyone felt like reading it:


#25

Here’s the other side of the story:

I guess it’ll be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Maybe I will keep making videos, but not hold back on my language, as I have done up to this point. If Wanderbots is correct about it, then at least maybe game videos might not have any effect. I also don’t have directed advertisements and I don’t plan to monetize anything right now, so maybe it won’t affect me. I have some copyright claims on some of my videos, presumably for audio content in the videos, and I have ignored those, those have ads and the persons/companies that have placed those copyright claims on them have ad revenue, so I can just go and hide those handful of videos.

I can just keep making content, take away the music, keep sound effects, and just try my best to keep talking like I normally do.

This video has made me feel a bit better about this whole situation.


#26

From my understanding, the definitions are broad enough that games could be included. And that’s the problem, the definitions are extremely broad.

I watched the first four minutes. It sounded like he said FCC not FTC (FTC are the ones who made the rule). I feel like he’s glazing over the heart of the issue and just dismissing it completely because “I’m not affected” (yet). Maybe he explains better further on, but I already got a bad vibe and don’t really wish to watch the rest.


#27

Yeah, I noticed that he said FCC as well, it’s okay, I am just saying there are people who are on the other side of the coin as well.

I do think that a lot of content is too vague and thus it can be argued for or against one way or another.

I am still going to keep recording videos for now, and see what ultimately happens. I will just keep my videos as “Not For Kids.”


#28

I only watched a few minutes of a few of these since it really doesn’t affect me.


#29

What if I told you the people that are trying to change this may be trying to literally keep their job?

What if I told you that this is about getting fucked by the FTC, not Youtube? The FTC has stated they will go after the content creators, NOT YOUTUBE.

What if I asked you to name one other video hosting website? The first one I can think of is Pornhub.

How much money do you sincerely think it takes to run a video hosting site? I honestly don’t know, but I do know that server equipment costs in the thousands and the network needed to fully accomplish such a thing is flipping huge. Even with as large as youtube and Alphabet is, I believe Youtube is actually a net loss.

This is about the FTC modifying the COPPA rule (it is already a rule in place, they are just updating it.) it is entirely the FTC’s rule, not youtube’s. Youtube is required to comply. What is stopping the FTC from applying this to just about every other service if and when they exist?

I feel like this may be an issue with people not understanding that the problems lives within the fact the new rules are vague to the point of covering just about fucking everything. This isn’t about Youtube itself, this is about protecting those that use youtube to bring YOU quality content and the FTC’s rule that could hit them with up to $42,000 PER VIDEO. For something you may be more aware about, that is more than the average student loan debt in America. That is also approximately the same amount as a freaking hospital bill for something minor. Imagine getting getting 3 or 4 hospital bills because you legitimately do not know if your content constitutes as “primarily directed towards children” because you can’t interpret the law since it’s vague.

To understand the creator side. Imagine if you got told you were going to lose up to 90% of what you make at your job because of a new proposed rule. Would you be upset?

They issued a blog post about it. Here’s their response:

In text

HOW CHANNEL OWNERS CAN DETERMINE IF THEIR CONTENT IS DIRECTED TO CHILDREN

Under COPPA, there is no one-size-fits-all answer about what makes a site directed to children, but we can offer some guidance. To be clear, your content isn’t considered “directed to children” just because some children may see it. However, if your intended audience is kids under 13, you’re covered by COPPA and have to honor the Rule’s requirements.

The Rule sets out additional factors the FTC will consider in determining whether your content is child-directed:

the subject matter,

visual content,

the use of animated characters or child-oriented activities and incentives,

the kind of music or other audio content,

the age of models,

the presence of child celebrities or celebrities who appeal to children,

language or other characteristics of the site,

whether advertising that promotes or appears on the site is directed to children, and
competent and reliable empirical evidence about the age of the audience.

The determination of whether content is child-directed will be clearer in some contexts than in others, but we can share some general rules of thumb. First, unless you’re affirmatively targeting kids, there are many subject matter categories where you don’t have to worry about COPPA. For example, if your videos are about traditionally adult activities like employment, finances, politics, home ownership, home improvement, or travel, you’re probably not covered unless your content is geared toward kids. The same would be true for videos aimed at high school or college students. On the other hand, if your content includes traditional children’s pastimes or activities, it may be child-directed. For example, the FTC recently determined that an online dress-up game was child-directed.

Second, just because your video has bright colors or animated characters doesn’t mean you’re automatically covered by COPPA. While many animated shows are directed to kids, the FTC recognizes there can be animated programming that appeals to everyone.

Third, the complaint in the YouTube case offers some examples of channels the FTC considered to be directed to children. For example, many content creators explicitly stated in the “About” section of their YouTube channel that their intended audience was children under 13. Other channels made similar statements in communications with YouTube. In addition, many of the channels featured popular animated children’s programs or showed kids playing with toys or participating in other child-oriented activities. Some of the channel owners also enabled settings that made their content appear when users searched for the names of popular toys or animated characters. Want to see the FTC’s analysis in context? Read pages 10-14 of the YouTube complaint.

Finally, if you’ve applied the factors listed in the COPPA Rule and still wonder if your content is “directed to children,” it might help to consider how others view your content and content similar to yours. Has your channel been reviewed on sites that evaluate content for kids? Is your channel – or channels like yours – mentioned in blogs for parents of young children or in media articles about child-directed content? Have you surveyed your users or is there other empirical evidence about the age of your audience?

It’s still vague in my opinion. I understand they want to make it flexible, but this is also very open ended.


#30

Oh my. I read this. Does anyone see the funny irony in this? Youtube has been banning all sorts of adult/mature/real content saying it wasn’t advertisement friendly. Now this is to stop content that is child/young/unreal saying advertisements should not target children.

COPPA - Too childish! >>>Youtube safe zone (news corporations)<<< Adpocalypse - Too mature!

puts on conspiracy hat

Google just wants youtube to die and become a news outlet for corporations. “YouNews?” Or “NewsTube?”

takes off conspiracy hat

Thankfully, writing to the government WILL have them react. It’s not a private business like youtube where they can ignore you and nothing gets done.

Good luck!


#31

Pretty sure FCC pulled that stunt. Just in a more roundabout way involving bots, fraud, and ISPs.


#32

I’ll try to get back to you later today about this.


#33

No internet get back to you tomorrow


#34

@Pylinaer since I didn’t want to make this a 4-reply chain and further destroy this thread (max shitpost overlord must be used wisely) I’m editing this and PM’ing you about it.

Aigh, let’s start with what I agree.

Absolutely agree with this. COPPA itself was vague from its cornerstone, and this will only further deepen that aspect. I’m 100% with you on this, man.

Absolutely ties with your previous point and I agree that’s daunting to say the last! As a tiny side-note I think it’s not the focus of the discussion but worth mentioning: healthcare in the USA sucks. As someone who doesn’t live there but works with healthcare, I’m devoted to thinking of ways of circumventing the healthcare lobby, as it’s starting to become a trend here too. I’m sure getting a big COPPA fine won’t help no-one.


Your questions

Glad you asked! Here are some. And hold on cause they answer your next point as well!

https://www.vidlii.com/

Alright, first off: I’m a big nerd. So please don’t imply I wouldn’t know this information and wouldn’t take it into account while making my post. Just… don’t. Now, as I said the above websites answer this question! Here’s how, for Peertube:

Peertube is federated, which means anyone with the know-how can host their own instance of peertube where they can upload videos to, and anyone on another peertube instance can find their server/account and view their videos. For an example of a federated service already in use, look no further than Email.

It’s decentralized and open-source too! And guess what? Here’s a script for people like @YQMaoski to ship their videos over to Peertube quickly, easily and painlessly! (link scrolls down to the relevant part):

The fact loads of services and websites aren’t hosted in America and therefore are out of American laws! Ye-haw! Always keep an eye out to see if a service (like VPN) is inside the 5 EYES or the 13 EYES or none!

As for the FTC, that’s why I said to our fellow Muricans:

What I disagree with

Not if you’re hosting your own content on a federated website like Peertube! Don’t get me wrong, we need to call/e-mail/smoke signal the FTC but also start thinking of alternatives. Money talks and we need to be ready to jump off the big Obra Dinn when the time comes.

As for how content creators will continue to make money (you were gonna point that out next, weren’t you? I gotchu!):

  • reviveAds, which is FLOSS and could integrate with Peertube
  • crypto
  • patreon, as we already do
  • other ideas on the thingy I linked above

Sorry it took me so long to reply, had to gather all my info to make my points. Let me know if it makes sense and what you still disagree with!