POLL: Are you willing to risk a $42K per video fine by the FTC in order to remain monetized?

[UKHypnotist]

@Jungle Explorer

If by "my government" you mean the Crown and Parliament of the United Kingdom, that is only the government of my country of residence. I was born on the south side of Chicago IL, and spent the majority of my childhood in the Third Ward of Houston TX. I was walking around Mission Control in the middle days of the Gemini programme; and sat in on a session of Congress itself in 1971.

I think that YouTube has cut some kind of deal with the FTC to prevent the levying of further huge fines like the 170 million dollar fine they were forced to pay just two months ago. And no, we don't necessarily have to "just bend over and take it either"; but I'm also afraid that since US government laws and regulations will have nationwide and sometimes international scope, this will not end with YouTube, but will spread to every existing UCV (user-created video) platform, and come into effect on any and all new ones founded in future. I still think they will have problems levying fines at international level, however. There is this matter of 'jurisdiction' to consider; and I am going to see if I can find an attorney to answer this question for me.

I think in the end, in spite of pleas and screams that "we don't have to take this and we are not going to", the only options remaining for creators of content aimed at children as the FTC sees it now, will be as follows if you are correct and they can in fact fine at the international level.

1. Stop making content aimed at children and/or featuring them as subjects and actors

2. Cease making video content altogether and leave the User Generated Content world altogether

If you think children's video creators have a substantial majority, petition your Congressional Representatives and Senators; but there is little time left in this session of Congress to either get a bill/resolution presented, or a filibuster attempt put into place to stop anything already proposed. As I no longer live on US soil, all I have the right to do is vote in Presidential elections.

I hope that since I've now 'come more into line' with the 'panic/gloom and doom' mindset everyone seems to want to adopt on this subject with my postings, those who want to either continue to panic or try to fight the behemoth which is the US Government, and which has been on a "child protection and anti sexual abuse witch hunt" along with the rest of the world at large for the past 5 years or so will just get on with it and leave me out of the picture going forward. I am a hypnotist; so I know that mob behaviour and mass panic are nearly unstoppable psycho-social phenomena. I tried to stem the tide before it could get started; but should have known it wouldn't work.

My own content type has never been aimed at children, and never will be. So all I need to do is click two buttons marked "No, set this channel as not made for kids. I never upload content that's made for kids" and "SAVE"; and I am good to go.

 

[Jungle Explorer]

I honestly, had no idea where in the world you were located, so I just said your government as a general statement.

I am not panicking. Like you, I do not produce children's content. But this is not actually about kid's content or protecting kid's, regardless of what they claim. Nothing in this FTC ruling will actually do anything to protect children online. In truth, the only thing this ruling is about is a power grab by an unelected bureaucracy in an effort to suppress freedom of speech and expression online under the guise if protecting children.

The real issue about the ruling itself is how the FTC classifies kid's content. The FTC uses the vague definition of "Child Appealing". From a legal standpoint, what this amounts to is, creating a standard based on the feelings of a third party that is not part of the discussion.

Essentially, what hundreds of millions of kid's from all different backgrounds find appealing is the standard that online content creators have to use in order to decided what is content is directed at kids.

It is an impossible standard to follow, and thus, it is unjust, and subject to the widest possible interpretation by anyone who wants to use it as a justification get any content removed they don't like.

Imaging how people might use this to go after any content they are opposed to. This ruling can be weaponized to take anyone out, and it will be used that way, mark my words.

 

[offbeatbryce]

Here is an interesting thing I just thought of. What about those license deals YouTube have with music labels or YouTube networks. You upload a video. Video gets claimed. YouTube already has a list of mainstream songs allowed on YouTube. (can change though) but if the copyright owner places ads and the copyright owner is earning the revenue and not the creator then what?

 

[UKHypnotist]

Here is an interesting thing I just thought of. What about those license deals YouTube have with music labels or YouTube networks. You upload a video. Video gets claimed. YouTube already has a list of mainstream songs allowed on YouTube. (can change though) but if the copyright owner places ads and the copyright owner is earning the revenue and not the creator then what?

First of all, that was probably done in an effort to help stave off the possible future effects of Article 17; but that is a separate issue from this one.

Nothing in this FTC ruling will actually do anything to protect children online. In truth, the only thing this ruling is about is a power grab by an unelected bureaucracy in an effort to suppress freedom of speech and expression online under the guise if protecting children.

I am in full agreement with you on everything you are concerned about.

I simply think that we can do nothing about it; except those of us who are able, lobby the appropriate legislators. Citizens can only influence government bodies up to a certain point, and even this takes time. Is this thing just a proposal, or is it already set to go into effect?

You also seem to have made the common mistake of thinking that "freedom of speech" under the Bill of Rights, applies to the average citizen; it actually doesn't. Here is a video I produced three years ago explaining this matter.

 

[offbeatbryce]

First of all, that was probably done in an effort to help stave off the possible future effects of Article 17; but that is a separate issue from this one.

I am in full agreement with you on everything you are concerned about.

I simply think that we can do nothing about it; except those of us who are able, lobby the appropriate legislators. Citizens can only influence government bodies up to a certain point, and even this takes time. Is this thing just a proposal, or is it already set to go into effect?

You also seem to have made the common mistake of thinking that "freedom of speech" under the Bill of Rights, applies to the average citizen; it actually doesn't. Here is a video I produced three years ago explaining this matter.

but is the FTC part of the congress?

 

[UKHypnotist]

but is the FTC part of the congress?

No; however, any new regulation the FTC wishes to pass needs Congressional approval. This is part of the Checks and Balances system of the US Governement's legislative arm.

 

[Jungle Explorer]

No; however, any new regulation the FTC wishes to pass needs Congressional approval. This is part of the Checks and Balances system of the US Governement's legislative arm.

So I just found this video that I believe blows the lid off of this whole thing. This real lawyer exposes what I have been trying to get across this whole time. This whole thing does not pass the legal smell test and if ever did wind up in court, would never stand up to judicial scrutiny. I have said many times that "The FTC does not have a legal leg to stand on", and this lawyer proves that I was correct. But the thing that I also have learned that I did not know is that YT was not FINED by the FTC. YT ran to the FTC as fast as they could with and out of court offer and negotiated this settlement that they are trying to pass off as something that the FTC imposed upon them. The truth is, they agreed to the stipulations that THEY proposed. They were trying to pass the buck of responsibility onto the creators to get the FTC off their backs, but as this lawyer accurately points out, Creators cannot be held liable for an agreement that YT signed with the FTC that they (the creators) were not a party to and did not agree to.

 

[offbeatbryce]

So I just found this video that I believe blows the lid off of this whole thing. This real lawyer exposes what I have been trying to get across this whole time. This whole thing does not pass the legal smell test and if ever did wind up in court, would never stand up to judicial scrutiny. I have said many times that "The FTC does not have a legal leg to stand on", and this lawyer proves that I was correct. But the thing that I also have learned that I did not know is that YT was not FINED by the FTC. YT ran to the FTC as fast as they could with and out of court offer and negotiated this settlement that they are trying to pass off as something that the FTC imposed upon them. The truth is, they agreed to the stipulations that THEY proposed. They were trying to pass the buck of responsibility onto the creators to get the FTC off their backs, but as this lawyer accurately points out, Creators cannot be held liable for an agreement that YT signed with the FTC that they (the creators) were not a party to and did not agree to.

I've been wondering about this and if they were really fined or not. I had a suspicion they weren't.

 

[offbeatbryce]

There is one thing I'm confused about. Let's say I have 3 videos out of 100 that are for kids content. Will that mean I lose notifications comments etc on all videos or only the 3 videos that are set as made for kids? Seems very confusing how one could lose the stories and community tab feature for marking some videos for kids and others not for kids if the channel itself is marked not for kids.

 

[UKHypnotist]

@Jungle Explorer

I don't see what quoting my statement about the FTC having to go to Congress to get approval for new financial regs has to do with Hoeg Law's video. What I said is true. The FTC has to go to Congress to pass any new regs pertaining to financial conduct.

Your own favorite, Derral Eves, also had a lawyer talk to FTC Commissioners. He has at least the statement from that video about "shooting fish in a barrel" in his as well. I didn't have time to sit through over an hour of split-screen interview; but he also brings up the fact that this was an out of court settlement. Does the video you've embedded also bring up the additional fact that complaints could still be filed against YouTube by individual state jurisdictions?

Creators cannot be held liable for an agreement that YT signed with the FTC that they (the creators) were not a party to and did not agree to.

Whether or not you think that is so doesn't matter. According to the video linked above, compliancy sweeps are in fact set to be done by the FTC starting December 10th; and as individuals, what can we do to stop it other than choose to leave YouTube in favour of another platform, or cease being video creators altogether is the question I ask you today.