Current Events > The FTC attacking Youtube will effect ALL of us.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Foppe posted...

They are not allowed to put ads on clips for kids, so by making it harder to find them, people will watch other clips where they can put ads.

So instead of kids finding something appropriate to watch, they now have a far higher chance of finding some fucked up video that they shouldn't be watching in the first place.

SavageGlum100 posted...

So instead of kids finding something appropriate to watch, they now have a far higher chance of finding some fucked up video that they shouldn't be watching in the first place.

Exactly.

---

SavageGlum100 posted...

Foppe posted...

They are not allowed to put ads on clips for kids, so by making it harder to find them, people will watch other clips where they can put ads.

So instead of kids finding something appropriate to watch, they now have a far higher chance of finding some fucked up video that they shouldn't be watching in the first place.

lol thats true. YouTube has always had an astonishing lack of foresight. I guarantee in a years or two theyll be rushing out another consumer-unfriendly feature or policy in an attempt to fix it.
---

Well, just watched the old meeseeks auto tune video and all I get are kids toy videos in the up next section.... Guessing this was set for kids only? With all the brutal meeseek dismemberments?
---

It is colorful drawings so the uploader most likely put it For Kids just to be sure.

---

https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=FTC-2019-0054-0001

https://www.change.org/p/youtubers-and-viewers-unite-against-ftc-regulation
---

I think the only ones benefiting from this the most are the dying blog and media sites who hate youtube since they've been losing traffic for years because of that particular site. Especially when people are tired of those very sites like Kotaku, Polygon, i09, gizomodo, Mary Sue, CBR, etc... post nothing but bullshit articles they either woke agenda-driving pandering trash, click bait which contain some of the dumbest hot takes imaginable, or are purposely spreading misinformation.
---

Foppe posted...

It is colorful drawings so the uploader most likely put it For Kids just to be sure.

I doubt the uploader did such. The YT robots has a much much much much higher chance of doing so.
---

So here's one step that Youtube made to try to make things better. I got a notification that you can just set your entire channel to "for kids" or "not for kids" so I don't have to individually go through my hundreds of videos to set it. So that's convenient.

There's also an added option if you choose "not for kids", you get to determine if your content is 18+ or not. So I guess that's their version of mixed audience.

---

BakonBitz posted...

So here's one step that Youtube made to try to make things better. I got a notification that you can just set your entire channel to "for kids" or "not for kids" so I don't have to individually go through my hundreds of videos to set it. So that's convenient.

There's also an added option if you choose "not for kids", you get to determine if your content is 18+ or not. So I guess that's their version of mixed audience.

Which does jack shit, since the YT bots will scan everything and decide on their own if your video is for kids or not. Already had a user flag his entire channel as not for kids, yet his stadia review with star wars jedi fallen order showing in the background get marked as for kids and no way to change it.
---

LightHawKnight posted...

BakonBitz posted...

So here's one step that Youtube made to try to make things better. I got a notification that you can just set your entire channel to "for kids" or "not for kids" so I don't have to individually go through my hundreds of videos to set it. So that's convenient.

There's also an added option if you choose "not for kids", you get to determine if your content is 18+ or not. So I guess that's their version of mixed audience.

Which does jack shit, since the YT bots will scan everything and decide on their own if your video is for kids or not. Already had a user flag his entire channel as not for kids, yet his stadia review with star wars jedi fallen order showing in the background get marked as for kids and no way to change it.

Apparently, you can send in a thing to change it from what YouTube bots decide. Theres a video from YouTube about it... But in the end, does that really matter? Doesnt the FTC make the final call, even if YouTube disagrees?
---

LinkPizza posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

BakonBitz posted...

So here's one step that Youtube made to try to make things better. I got a notification that you can just set your entire channel to "for kids" or "not for kids" so I don't have to individually go through my hundreds of videos to set it. So that's convenient.

There's also an added option if you choose "not for kids", you get to determine if your content is 18+ or not. So I guess that's their version of mixed audience.

Which does jack shit, since the YT bots will scan everything and decide on their own if your video is for kids or not. Already had a user flag his entire channel as not for kids, yet his stadia review with star wars jedi fallen order showing in the background get marked as for kids and no way to change it.

Apparently, you can send in a thing to change it from what YouTube bots decide. Theres a video from YouTube about it... But in the end, does that really matter? Doesnt the FTC make the final call, even if YouTube disagrees?

It does matter, since creator's will get almost no money, the videos wont show up when searching, or have comments, or you wont even get notified if the video is uploaded.
---

LightHawKnight posted...

LinkPizza posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

BakonBitz posted...

So here's one step that Youtube made to try to make things better. I got a notification that you can just set your entire channel to "for kids" or "not for kids" so I don't have to individually go through my hundreds of videos to set it. So that's convenient.

There's also an added option if you choose "not for kids", you get to determine if your content is 18+ or not. So I guess that's their version of mixed audience.

Which does jack shit, since the YT bots will scan everything and decide on their own if your video is for kids or not. Already had a user flag his entire channel as not for kids, yet his stadia review with star wars jedi fallen order showing in the background get marked as for kids and no way to change it.

Apparently, you can send in a thing to change it from what YouTube bots decide. Theres a video from YouTube about it... But in the end, does that really matter? Doesnt the FTC make the final call, even if YouTube disagrees?

It does matter, since creator's will get almost no money, the videos wont show up when searching, or have comments, or you wont even get notified if the video is uploaded.

Sorry. I should have phrased that better. Does it matter what YouTube thinks? Because I thought the FTC made the final call. And if thats true, what YouTube thinks wont matter in the FTC disagrees... I already understand what labeling your video as for kids does...
---

LinkPizza posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

LinkPizza posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

BakonBitz posted...

So here's one step that Youtube made to try to make things better. I got a notification that you can just set your entire channel to "for kids" or "not for kids" so I don't have to individually go through my hundreds of videos to set it. So that's convenient.

There's also an added option if you choose "not for kids", you get to determine if your content is 18+ or not. So I guess that's their version of mixed audience.

Which does jack shit, since the YT bots will scan everything and decide on their own if your video is for kids or not. Already had a user flag his entire channel as not for kids, yet his stadia review with star wars jedi fallen order showing in the background get marked as for kids and no way to change it.

Apparently, you can send in a thing to change it from what YouTube bots decide. Theres a video from YouTube about it... But in the end, does that really matter? Doesnt the FTC make the final call, even if YouTube disagrees?

It does matter, since creator's will get almost no money, the videos wont show up when searching, or have comments, or you wont even get notified if the video is uploaded.

Sorry. I should have phrased that better. Does it matter what YouTube thinks? Because I thought the FTC made the final call. And if thats true, what YouTube thinks wont matter in the FTC disagrees...

Creators are getting screwed either way.
---

LightHawKnight posted...

LinkPizza posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

LinkPizza posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

BakonBitz posted...

So here's one step that Youtube made to try to make things better. I got a notification that you can just set your entire channel to "for kids" or "not for kids" so I don't have to individually go through my hundreds of videos to set it. So that's convenient.

There's also an added option if you choose "not for kids", you get to determine if your content is 18+ or not. So I guess that's their version of mixed audience.

Which does jack shit, since the YT bots will scan everything and decide on their own if your video is for kids or not. Already had a user flag his entire channel as not for kids, yet his stadia review with star wars jedi fallen order showing in the background get marked as for kids and no way to change it.

Apparently, you can send in a thing to change it from what YouTube bots decide. Theres a video from YouTube about it... But in the end, does that really matter? Doesnt the FTC make the final call, even if YouTube disagrees?

It does matter, since creator's will get almost no money, the videos wont show up when searching, or have comments, or you wont even get notified if the video is uploaded.

Sorry. I should have phrased that better. Does it matter what YouTube thinks? Because I thought the FTC made the final call. And if thats true, what YouTube thinks wont matter in the FTC disagrees...

Creators are getting screwed either way.

True. Though, even if it goes through, COPPAs going to have to make changes if they want to get anywhere with this...
---

I'm confused. Aren't we just misinterpreting all this?

If this is to protect kids or whatever that should mean you should be able to set your whole channel to NOT for kids and be 100% safe and continue making videos as usual....no kids will be allowed to view your videos, thus no worries about judgement.

Are you telling me that you can get fined for marking something as NOT for kids and if they disagree they fine you? That can't be...it makes ZERO sense because the kids are already protected because the video is marked as not for them...so how can you be fined in reverse basically? There's no way in hell they'll be able to pull something that screwed up off.

Demon1050 posted...

I'm confused. Aren't we just misinterpreting all this?

If this is to protect kids or whatever that should mean you should be able to set your whole channel to NOT for kids and be 100% safe and continue making videos as usual....no kids will be allowed to view your videos, thus no worries about judgement.

Are you telling me that you can get fined for marking something as NOT for kids and if they disagree they fine you? That can't be...it makes ZERO sense because the kids are already protected because the video is marked as not for them...so how can you be fined in reverse basically? There's no way in hell they'll be able to pull something that screwed up off.

Yes. Youll get fined if they think its marked wrong. Whether its mark for kids, or not for kids...
---

Demon1050 posted...

I'm confused. Aren't we just misinterpreting all this?

If this is to protect kids or whatever that should mean you should be able to set your whole channel to NOT for kids and be 100% safe and continue making videos as usual....no kids will be allowed to view your videos, thus no worries about judgement.

Are you telling me that you can get fined for marking something as NOT for kids and if they disagree they fine you? That can't be...it makes ZERO sense because the kids are already protected because the video is marked as not for them...so how can you be fined in reverse basically? There's no way in hell they'll be able to pull something that screwed up off.

The FTC has a stupid list of what they think is for children and what children will watch, which includes videogames, animation, bright colors, and the word Cool. Since kids will watch that stuff, it better be labeled for kids, or otherwise face a fine up to 42k per video marked incorrectly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVZsbE4E68w&list=LLoCMWgP6r8dY2b7-_5_E9Sg&index=
---

LightHawKnight posted...

The FTC has a stupid list of what they think is for children and what children will watch, which includes videogames, animation, bright colors, and the word Cool. Since kids will watch that stuff, it better be labeled for kids, or otherwise face a fine up to 42k per video marked incorrectly.

No they don't. They have a list of possible indicators that it's targeted to kids while acknowledging that not everything that contains these things are targeted toward kids. Here's what the FTC actually says in a nutshell:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2019/11/youtube-channel-owners-your-content-directed-children
---

Serious Cat posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

The FTC has a stupid list of what they think is for children and what children will watch, which includes videogames, animation, bright colors, and the word Cool. Since kids will watch that stuff, it better be labeled for kids, or otherwise face a fine up to 42k per video marked incorrectly.

No they don't. They have a list of possible indicators that it's targeted to kids while acknowledging that not everything that contains these things are targeted toward kids. Here's what the FTC actually says in a nutshell:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2019/11/youtube-channel-owners-your-content-directed-children

You think the FTC is big enough to actually go by their own rules instead of cutting corners and using bots like YT? This isn't China.
---

LightHawKnight posted...

Serious Cat posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

The FTC has a stupid list of what they think is for children and what children will watch, which includes videogames, animation, bright colors, and the word Cool. Since kids will watch that stuff, it better be labeled for kids, or otherwise face a fine up to 42k per video marked incorrectly.

No they don't. They have a list of possible indicators that it's targeted to kids while acknowledging that not everything that contains these things are targeted toward kids. Here's what the FTC actually says in a nutshell:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2019/11/youtube-channel-owners-your-content-directed-children

You think the FTC is big enough to actually go by their own rules instead of cutting corners and using bots like YT? This isn't China.

Using bots is quicker, but also wont get them good results. If they start going to court and losing every battle because those bots are calling out M rated games because theyre video games, thats wasted money and time on them. And that does nothing at all to help them...
---

LinkPizza posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

Serious Cat posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

The FTC has a stupid list of what they think is for children and what children will watch, which includes videogames, animation, bright colors, and the word Cool. Since kids will watch that stuff, it better be labeled for kids, or otherwise face a fine up to 42k per video marked incorrectly.

No they don't. They have a list of possible indicators that it's targeted to kids while acknowledging that not everything that contains these things are targeted toward kids. Here's what the FTC actually says in a nutshell:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2019/11/youtube-channel-owners-your-content-directed-children

You think the FTC is big enough to actually go by their own rules instead of cutting corners and using bots like YT? This isn't China.

Using bots is quicker, but also wont get them good results. If they start going to court and losing every battle because those bots are calling out M rated games because theyre video games, thats wasted money and time on them. And that does nothing at all to help them...

And yet YT keeps using bots for some reason.
---

COPPA is backed up by the Government, ESRB is not.

---

LightHawKnight posted...

LinkPizza posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

Serious Cat posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

The FTC has a stupid list of what they think is for children and what children will watch, which includes videogames, animation, bright colors, and the word Cool. Since kids will watch that stuff, it better be labeled for kids, or otherwise face a fine up to 42k per video marked incorrectly.

No they don't. They have a list of possible indicators that it's targeted to kids while acknowledging that not everything that contains these things are targeted toward kids. Here's what the FTC actually says in a nutshell:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2019/11/youtube-channel-owners-your-content-directed-children

You think the FTC is big enough to actually go by their own rules instead of cutting corners and using bots like YT? This isn't China.

Using bots is quicker, but also wont get them good results. If they start going to court and losing every battle because those bots are calling out M rated games because theyre video games, thats wasted money and time on them. And that does nothing at all to help them...

And yet YT keeps using bots for some reason.

Yeah. And? All it does is mark it what it thinks it should be. You can change it if you dont agree. And in the end, what their bots think doesnt matter. Also, because theyre using them doesnt make them any less dumb. It just means youtube is dumb, as well. And thats something we already know. And just because the bots are wrong doesnt mean the FTC wont use them. Most of them are stuck in the Stone Age, apparently...
---

Foppe posted...

COPPA is backed up by the Government, ESRB is not.

That may be true. But if something is rated M, it probably has stuff in it that wouldnt be kid friendly. Like if you decapitate someone with you bare hands, and its more gore than cartoony, its probably not for kids. But I dont think the FTC can says its for kids based on animated video game. Either way, theyre going to have to get more specific if they want to win any money. And even then, most people couldnt pay, anyway...
---

I'm still just seeing a whole bunch of baseless fear mongering.
"What makes you think the FTC will follow its own rules?" Pfft.

Throwing around fees and lawsuits based on false premises will get the FTC into HUGE trouble that I'm pretty sure they don't want to deal with. They're taking this seriously, yes. So taking it seriously means taking every case seriously and seeing if it's actually worth pursuing.

---

So tell me why FTC talked about shooting fish in a barrel and saying that the fish is the content creators?
Why does youtube make it like this instead of making an age-gate and a link on every page saying that you must be above 13 years to use this site? Why does youtube blame the content creators when it is youtube that fucked up?

---

Foppe posted...

So tell me why FTC talked about shooting fish in a barrel and saying that the fish is the content creators?
Why does youtube make it like this instead of making an age-gate and a link on every page saying that you must be above 13 years to use this site? Why does youtube blame the content creators when it is youtube that fucked up?

YouTube does have something that says you have to 13 to use YouTube. You have to say youre 13 when signing up for an account. But people lie about their age or use heir parents/siblings/relative/friends account.

And if they can blame the content creators instead of getting saddled with the blame, then theyll do that. They already paid over 100 million. They dont want to do that again...
---

LinkPizza posted...

YouTube does have something that says you have to 13 to use YouTube. You have to say youre 13 when signing up for an account. But people lie about their age or use heir parents/siblings/relative/friends account.

And if they can blame the content creators instead of getting saddled with the blame, then theyll do that. They already paid over 100 million. They dont want to do that again...

Youtube cant get hurt if people lie about their age, because they dont know if people lie.
Youtube got hurt because they sold ads to kids below 13, which proves that they knew people lied about their age.
Then they made a deal with FTC saying that it is the content creators fault that youtube collected data from children, and that FTC should sue the content creators if youtube collect data from children.

---

Foppe posted...

LinkPizza posted...

YouTube does have something that says you have to 13 to use YouTube. You have to say youre 13 when signing up for an account. But people lie about their age or use heir parents/siblings/relative/friends account.

And if they can blame the content creators instead of getting saddled with the blame, then theyll do that. They already paid over 100 million. They dont want to do that again...

Youtube cant get hurt if people lie about their age, because they dont know if people lie.
Youtube got hurt because they sold ads to kids below 13, which proves that they knew people lied about their age.
Then they made a deal with FTC saying that it is the content creators fault that youtube collected data from children, and that FTC should sue the content creators if youtube collect data from children.

Yeah. That's why they got in trouble. They knew people lie. But it wasn't just that. They were bragging about it, apparently. Saying that youtube was the number one site for kids and shit. Porn sites know that everyone on there isn't off age, but sure isn't bragging about it...

And they just shifted the blame to the content creators because it gets them out of trouble. I don't know anything about a deal. But lots of people will shift blame if they can... And in this case, they could. Even without a deal. People don't always have to make a deal to shift blame. They sometimes do it to just stay out of trouble...

In the end, it still has the age 13 being a part of the terms and conditions, which kept them safe for a while...
---

Foppe posted...

So tell me why FTC talked about shooting fish in a barrel and saying that the fish is the content creators?

Because in the very next sentence: "It's a place where this content is centralized and essentially it is easy for us to find it." They're not going to and can't go after everyone wholesale using computers and algorithms.

Foppe posted...

Why does youtube make it like this instead of making an age-gate and a link on every page saying that you must be above 13 years to use this site?

Because they screwed up by claiming not to collect personally identifying data on children under 13 then turned around and marketed themselves as targeting ads to them. Also because YouTube likes to use algorithms to enforce policy.

Foppe posted...

Why does youtube blame the content creators when it is youtube that fucked up?

Because apparently creators also failed to identify their content as being directed to kids.
---

Foppe posted...

Fighting them in court is not directly cheap.

Goes both ways. If you take them to court there's a good chance they suddenly drop the fine / don't show up.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Goes both ways. If you take them to court there's a good chance they suddenly drop the fine / don't show up.

Agencies of the United States government normally gets too scared to show up in court?

---

Foppe posted...

Agencies of the United States government normally gets too scared to show up in court?

Either

1. They decide it's not worth the effort (a lawyer costs more than the $42,000 fine they'd get)
2. They just don't show up at court due to incompetence / red tape
3. They realize they might lose and that sets a bad precedent so more cost effective to fine people who just pay it.

People did this during the Vietnam draft and while lots of people went to jail, far more got away with it.

---

This is what happens when you wlect shit head greedy out of touch boomers to handle something like internet regulation ffs.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Either

1. They decide it's not worth the effort (a lawyer costs more than the $42,000 fine they'd get)
2. They just don't show up at court due to incompetence / red tape
3. They realize they might lose and that sets a bad precedent so more cost effective to fine people who just pay it.

People did this during the Vietnam draft and while lots of people went to jail, far more got away with it.

42k per video, and they most likely got some lawyers on their salary waiting to jump into the action.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Foppe posted...

Agencies of the United States government normally gets too scared to show up in court?

Either

1. They decide it's not worth the effort (a lawyer costs more than the $42,000 fine they'd get)
2. They just don't show up at court due to incompetence / red tape
3. They realize they might lose and that sets a bad precedent so more cost effective to fine people who just pay it.

People did this during the Vietnam draft and while lots of people went to jail, far more got away with it.

There's also the issue of foreign youtubers, who are out of the US Government's jurisdiction.
---

Bat178 posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

Foppe posted...

Agencies of the United States government normally gets too scared to show up in court?

Either

1. They decide it's not worth the effort (a lawyer costs more than the $42,000 fine they'd get)
2. They just don't show up at court due to incompetence / red tape
3. They realize they might lose and that sets a bad precedent so more cost effective to fine people who just pay it.

People did this during the Vietnam draft and while lots of people went to jail, far more got away with it.

There's also the issue of foreign youtubers, who are out of the US Government's jurisdiction.

Maybe they'll try to get youtube to delete their channels... Since the FTC won't make any money from them...
---

Foppe posted...

42k per video, and they most likely got some lawyers on their salary waiting to jump into the action.

42k is the maximum it's unlikely they would get it and even if they could they have a Small amount of finite lawyers and time. They can't prosecute every case.

---