Thoughts on the adpocalypse 2020?

[Jungle Explorer]

Sure if you are doing Cocomelon tier stuff your stuff may be eligible for YT Kids. However dont get too excited, too get in YT Kids they put in place extremely strict filters, that's why there's barely any content there. So chances are your content will not qualify.

Also the problem is in the huge middle ground between 12 and 13 yo content. A lot of content creators are scared and are going to mark their stuff as "for kids" and their content will never qualify to be on YT kids because it's "too edgy" or has some content that can be a bit inappropiated (like a character giving a middle finger, or some memes or whatever) however since its Minecraft or cartoony looking, you are by default at risk so a lot of people will mark it as "for kids", and all this massive amount of content will be stuck in a limbo where it's not promoted since it's marked as "for kids", AND has 0 chances to be on YT Kids, so yeah, you are screwed, and all this middle ground is all that 8+ years old watch. No kid of 8 and up will ever go into YT Kids because of what im saying, so if they remove all of this content or scare creators into marking it as for kids themselves due the FTC fines and getting your channel closed, kids will end up watching inappropriate content since like I said before they will stick to main YT.

You need to read my plethora of the previous posts on this subject because I get really tired of having repeat what I have said a many times over. I have stated what you have said here MANY times. You are Right. The "MIDDLE" ground is in great danger. It is in great danger because it is MIXED in with true kid's content like Cocomelon. If we moved all of the true kid's content off of YT main, there would be no reason for little kids to come to YT main, reducing the problem of YT showing targeted ads to children exponentially.

Right now, all the content is mixed together and this creates an environment in which those that produce Edgy, or Family Friendly content are at risk. People that produce mature content are not at risk, and people that produce kid's targeted content are not at risk (unless they lie). It is only the "Mixed Content" creators that are at risk. Because the COPPA law covers kids up to 13 years old (12yrs and 364 days), it is impossible to determine what they will want to watch. When I was 12, I loved Fred Astaire and John Wayne type movies.

No matter how hard YT tries to create a mixed content category, it will never work and it will be a constant battle, with endless options that will get more and more complex. Why? Because13-year-old kids watch adult content! My 13-year-old neighbor's son fathered a child with an 11-year-old girl. Kids these days watch a lot of stuff that would make even their parents blush. I know this because I am a computer tech and have (in the past) provided monitoring services for parents that wanted to see what their kids were doing online. I had to stop, because the stuff these, apparently normal kids, from middle-class families, were doing online was downright sinister and evil.

YT main has some really bad stuff on it that kids do not even need to see anyway. Just as a test, open a private browser window and go to YT without being logged in. Type the word "Sexy" in and see what comes up. Just the thumbnails are way more than any kid should be able to see. I could not even post those thumbs to this forum. To see the videos only requires you to click that you are over 18, with no verification system. Honestly, this is criminal in my opinion and YT needs to be sued over this. First, pornographic thumbnails showing nude breasts should not even be allowed. Watching these pornographic videos should require that you be logged in to an Adult account that has been verified through a credit card or Government-issued ID.

But instead of really trying to protect kids from real psychological damage, the idiots at the FTC think that kids seeing a targeted ad is REALLY BAD FIR KIDS!!!. I think the FTC's priorities are really screwed up. Think about this little intellectual quandary. The law allows walmart to place Maxim magazine in the checkout aisle where kids can see it, but the law says it will fine content creators 42K if the let a targeted ad for a toy be placed on their video for a kid to see. So our wonderful FTC has no problem with kids seeing this:

maxim magazine - Google Search

www.google.com

But God forbid they should see a targeted ad!

 

[Jungle Explorer]

My question is? What about the thousands of people that uploaded content years ago and left youtube for good. And they are no longer present. They still get fined for not complying with the new rules?

Well, first off. YT has their own machine to designate things as "For Kids", so all that old orphaned content will get automatically classified by the YT AI system. The real liability only comes into play if you disagree with the YT AI and say, "No it is not for kids" but the FTC says it is. The FTC sees this as you trying to DECEIVE the system.

Second, the FTC will have to know who you are before they can go after you. Most people have shadow accounts that are not linked to their real person (or at least they should to reduce the risk of identity theft). So, in order for the FTC to find out who an old account belonged to, they would need a court subpoena to request the sever data from Google to track down your IP address. That, of course, assumes that you are not using a Dynamic IP address routing service or a VPN. Of course, they could find out who you are through the Bule Kava digital fingerprinting service, but that would also require a court subpoena. Then again, most YouTubers stick their faces as close as they can to the camera lens and state their name as many times as they can in a video, so those people are easy to track down.

 

[moshi]

Well, first off. YT has their own machine to designate things as "For Kids", so all that old orphaned content will get automatically classified by the YT AI system. The real liability only comes into play if you disagree with the YT AI and say, "No it is not for kids" but the FTC says it is. The FTC sees this as you trying to DECEIVE the system.

Second, the FTC will have to know who you are before they can go after you. Most people have shadow accounts that are not linked to their real person (or at least they should to reduce the risk of identity theft). So, in order for the FTC to find out who an old account belonged to, they would need a court subpoena to request the sever data from Google to track down your IP address. That, of course, assumes that you are not using a Dynamic IP address routing service or a VPN. Of course, they could find out who you are through the Bule Kava digital fingerprinting service, but that would also require a court subpoena. Then again, most YouTubers stick their faces as close as they can to the camera lens and state their name as many times as they can in a video, so those people are easy to track down.

If the machine does not flag you but you mark it as not for kids, you are still in danger of the FTC suing your a**, its not only disputing YT's decision... so yeah.

Also, if they really put EVERYTHING not marked as anything as "made for kids" by default come dec 10th, then it proves this "made for kids" thing in reality means: put in a limbo/shadow banned.

I suppose they will pick a tiny amount of that stuff that qualifies to be in YT Kids app and scrap the rest... this is terrible.

 

[Jungle Explorer]

If the machine does not flag you but you mark it as not for kids, you are still in danger of the FTC suing your a**, its not only disputing YT's decision... so yeah.

Also, if they really put EVERYTHING not marked as anything as "made for kids" by default come dec 10th, then it proves this "made for kids" thing in reality means: put in a limbo/shadow banned.

I suppose they will pick a tiny amount of that stuff that qualifies to be in YT Kids app and scrap the rest... this is terrible.

You are panicking. There is no need. There is a lot of unknowns and uncertainty right now, this is true. But one thing is for certain, the advertisers still have products to advertise and money to spend, and YouTube wants that money. They will find a way to keep the golden goose alive. While I can't say with absolute certainty that no YT content creator will ever be sued by the FTC, I feel with great certainty that if this ever does happen, it will be only a select few top YouTubers and that the case will be thrown out of court. Even the FTC is starting back down in their comments because they have realized that they have way overstepped their legal authority here.

There is nothing in the COPPA law that says that a creator has to designate their content as "Directed to kids". That wording comes from the settlement that YT made with the FTC, which is only legally binding for YT. Since the creators did not agree to or sign that settlement, it is not legally binding for YT creators. COPPA actually has nothing to do with CONTENT. It only governs the COLLECTION of data on children, regardless of the nature of the content. YT creators do not collect or even have access to the data the YT collects on children, so, therefore, it is impossible for a YT creator to be in violation of the COPPA law. When the FC said they were going to fine creators for not appropriately designating their content as for kids, they were making that statement, not on the authority of the COPPA law, but on the authority of the settlement that YT signed, which is NOT a law, but a contractual agreement exclusively between YT and the FTC.

Now don't misunderstand me. There area lot of idiots in this world and a bunch of them work at the FTC. Just because I say they have no legal standing to sue a YT creator, does not mean that they won't try it. People in a position of power have a tendency to always try to stretch the limits of their authority. It also does not mean that the FTC cannot get to you through YT. YT has agreed to make sure the content is appropriately designated. So, if the FTC thinks a person is deceiving the system they certainly could order YT to close your account.

Realistically, I don't see the FTC ever going after a YouTuber directly in court. I think this is a bunch of hoopla about nothing. With the real atrocities going in the world, a kid seeing a targeted ad, is pretty far down on the totem pole of importance. Hopefully, there are still some intelligent people in the world in positions of authority that will call BS on all of this. Regardless though, I still think that all kid's content should be taken off of YT main.

 

[offbeatbryce]

What happens if say a copyright owner places ads on a video for someone's video and say Sony music is making the money? Will sony get hit the with FTC fine if they are targeting ads to children on a non child video?

 

[MarkRodriguez2012]

What happens if say a copyright owner places ads on a video for someone's video and say Sony music is making the money? Will sony get hit the with FTC fine if they are targeting ads to children on a non child video?

Probably not. All of these large companies are always gonna be above the rules.

 

[offbeatbryce]

Probably not. All of these large companies are always gonna be above the rules.

Would the youtube user get fined even though they didn't put the ads on the video?

 

[Jungle Explorer]

Would the youtube user get fined even though they didn't put the ads on the video?

I doubt very seriously any Youtuber will ever get fined over COPPA, as there is no possible way for a Youtuber in any niche to actually violate the COPPA law on YouTube. The FTC has made "Threats" but the threats are not based on actual laws. What they are doing is taking advantage of people's ignorance to use their fear to control them, even though there is no enforcable law they can use to directly fine YouTubers.

What they can do is command YouTube to delete your account. That they can do.

 

[offbeatbryce]

I doubt very seriously any Youtuber will ever get fined over COPPA, as there is no possible way for a Youtuber in any niche to actually violate the COPPA law on YouTube. The FTC has made "Threats" but the threats are not based on actual laws. What they are doing is taking advantage of people's ignorance to use their fear to control them, even though there is no enforcable law they can use to directly fine YouTubers.

What they can do is command YouTube to delete your account. That they can do.

That's interesting. YouTube's terms claim you can't make another youtube channel once it's deleted but a few of my friends have been able to make new ones after theirs were deleted. I wonder how they did it?

 

[Jungle Explorer]

That's interesting. YouTube's terms claim you can't make another youtube channel once it's deleted but a few of my friends have been able to make new ones after theirs were deleted. I wonder how they did it?

I have a couple dozen youtube accounts. They do not require ID verification to create one.