Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Youtube Advertising The Almighty Buck The Courts The Internet

YouTube's New Kids' Content System Has Creators Scrambling (theverge.com) 97

Posted by BeauHD from the major-changes dept.
As of Tuesday afternoon, YouTube is requiring creators to label any videos of theirs that may appeal to children. If they say a video is directed at kids, data collection will be blocked for all viewers, resulting in lower ad revenue and the loss of some of the platform's most popular features, including comments and end screens. It's a major change in how YouTube works, and has left some creators clueless as to whether they're subject to the new rules. The Verge reports: Reached by The Verge, Google confirmed that this new system was the result of a landmark $170 million settlement YouTube reached with the Federal Trade Commission in September for allegedly violating children's privacy. It's the largest fine ever collected under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which forbids collecting data from children under the age of 13 without explicit consent from their parents. In this case, the ruling means YouTube can't employ its powerful ad-targeting system on anyone who might be under the age of 13 -- a dire problem for a platform with so many young users.

The new system is already sending creators reeling over what exactly is considered kids' content and what could happen if they unintentionally mislabel videos. Some of YouTube's most popular categories falls into a gray area for the policy, including gaming videos, family vlogging, and toy reviews. [...] In theory, YouTube has always been subject to COPPA, but those restrictions have taken on new urgency in the wake of the recent settlement with the FTC. Under the terms of the settlement, YouTube is required to "develop, implement, and maintain a system for Channel Owners to designate whether their Content on the YouTube Service is directed to Children." Under the system that YouTube rolled out on Tuesday, creators who strictly make children's content can also have their entire channel designated as directed at children. Once a video is labeled as kids' content, all personalized ads will be shut off, replaced with "contextualized" advertising based on the video itself. In addition to the removal of targeted ads, child-directed YouTube videos will also no longer include a comments section, click-through info cards, end screens, notification functions, and the community tab.

"The consequences for not labeling a video as 'child-directed' could be even more severe," reports The Verge. "In its September order, the FTC made it clear that it could sue individual channel owners who abuse this new labeling system. Crucially, those lawsuits will fall entirely on channel owners, rather than on YouTube itself. Under the settlement, YouTube's responsibility is simply to maintain the system and provide ongoing data updates."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube's New Kids' Content System Has Creators Scrambling More

YouTube's New Kids' Content System Has Creators Scrambling

Comments Filter:

  • 1. Cartoon series for adults entitled "Juul Podz Flavor Racerz Adventurz In Grownup Land"

    2. Noir Care Baarz: a flea-bitten gang of teddy bears on a mission to cosplay as detectives

    3. How To Do Dangerous BMX Stuntz! volumes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5

    Obviously intended only for adults.

  • Just larp as a sub-13 year old and you're immune from bullshit and annoying adverts online? Sign me up.

    • You will still get ads, just not personalized ones. You will also not be able to view non-child directed videos.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        There is a real juicy bit in that settlement. Google might have settled for targeting children with ads, however there remains the psychological harm those children suffered as a result of being specifically targeted by harmful advertisements. So a major class action law suit, floating around out the with a settlement likely in the billions.

        All targeted ads need to be reviewed, the victims investigated and the potential harm analysed, for disclosure of all data, the targeted manipulations, the victims, the

    • I was thinking the same, but on some channels the Comments sections are an absolute wealth of useful knowledge. You know, like the internet of old, where people actually share tips and try to help each other out.

    • In this case, the ruling means YouTube can't employ its powerful ad-targeting system on anyone who might be under the age of 13

      Profile settings here I come!

  • No, it's not just the summary, folks. The linked article is as confusing as hell. What precisely does it mean

    The consequences for not labeling a video as “child-directed” could be even more severe.

    The impression I get is all videos children might want to watch should be labeled as for children. So how does this apply to a Simpson's clip showing Homer and Marge in bed? Or maybe a picture of a bear poaching a seal (violence!)? Somebody has obviously thought of the children here (and not much else

    • It isn't confusing. It means that if you generate child-directed content (things like Peppa Pig or toy opening videos etc) and you don't label them as child-directed the FTC can sue you personally.

      • So, if you'd rather just block known children than bother with Compliance, can you just tag your videos as 'adults only' & pretend anyone under 18 simply doesn't exist?

        • On Youtube, you can either tag your video as age restricted (18+), targeted for kids (under 13), or not tag them at all.

          From Youtube's perspective,the age matters because of a law called COPPA which says you aren't allowed to collect information from kids without their parent's consent (no tracking). For the content creator, that's not really an issue.

          Marking your videos as 18+ does not, of course, make you immune from Youtube's policies - Youtube isn't trying to be PornHub or xvideos.com. If you want to

        • Can you just tag your videos as 'adults only' & pretend anyone under 18 simply doesn't exist?

          Annoyingly, YouTube age restricted videos require being logged in to watch.

          Personally, I don’t monetize anything I upload to YouTube, so it seems to me proper compliance with COPPA in that case should be Google’s problem - not mine. If their site is collecting information from and showing ads to kids when it shouldn’t be, that’s no fault of mine. I only upload videos; it’s Google’s task to run the damn site.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lgw ( 121541 )

        That's the clear part. The confusing part is: what if you're a video games lets-play channel. You don't intend your content to be for kids. Your demographics show kids aren't your audience, as far as YouTube can tell. But the FCC is hopelessly out of touch. If they arbitrarily decide that "video games are for kids", then you get a $42,000 fine per video.

        What if you're a Disney criticism or nostalgia channel aimed squarely at GenX? The FCC could just arbitrarily decide "Disney therefore kids", and then

        • If they arbitrarily decide that "video games are for kids", then you get a $42,000 fine per video.

          Nearly every law could be enforced wrongly by an idiot. When that happens, you appeal. Then you sue. Eventually a judge decides, by using common sense to determine if the video looks like a children's show or not.

          What if YouTube has become your full-time job, and you have a mortgage? Which way do you bet?

          Then you can afford the lawyer if it comes to that. It's the people who aren't doing it as a job who will pl

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by lgw ( 121541 )

            When that happens, you appeal. Then you sue. Eventually a judge decides, by using common sense to determine if the video

            Right, You're making say $30,000/year from YouTube. Then you get fined a few million. The government takes everything and leaves you homeless. And they you ... hire a lawyer? nd maybe get some of your money back 5 years later? Maybe?

            This is an OK system in your eyes?

          • Nearly every law could be enforced wrongly by an idiot. When that happens, you appeal. Then you sue.

            There being an extremely expensive legal remedy does not excuse a shabbily-written law.

        • Or to require anyone under 13 to have a kids account, and just not show them ads

          This would, 100% be the better choice. Unfortunately the phrasing of the court ruling seemed to imply that this was not a choice Youtube was given. It had to do the same thing that TV networks do, flagged by content instead of by user. Of course, such a scheme makes NO sense on the Internet, because Youtube videos aren't like TV networks. The Internet is not TV, it's nothing like it. Different jurisdictions could have different rules. But having a kid's account and then disabling all data collection on that

          • But having a kid's account and then disabling all data collection on that ACCOUNT? It makes far more sense!

            That wouldn't satisfy the requirements, though, since kids can watch YouTube videos without signing in. They would need to implement it the other way around, limiting every visitor to the equivalent of YouTube Kids unless they're signed in to an adult account.

            • That wouldn't satisfy the requirements, though, since kids can watch YouTube videos without signing in.

              Then that's fine, and you throw up your hands and admit that maybe it's a problem that you can't solve. But no, we have to use the ridiculously heavy handed and damaging approach here. I'd love to see sections of the law struck down, though I have a dim anticipation of success there.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by jonwil ( 467024 )

        The real problem isn't going to be videos that are intentionally made for kids (like the trailer for the new Frozen film or the Thomas The Tank Engine youtube channel or the ABC Kids youtube channel), its going to be videos that aren't made for kids but that for whatever reason happen to attract kids to watch them.

        What happens if a channel (or video) that isn't in any way targeted at or made for kids ends up getting watched by a lot of kids. Maybe a car channel or a tech channel or someone doing covers of s

      • FTC can't touch me... I don't live in the USA or anywhere that the USA has jurisdiction!

        Suck on that Uncle Sam!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tepples ( 727027 )

          How much, do you estimate, would it cost for a U.S. resident to legally move to your country?

    • So how does this apply to a Simpson's clip showing Homer and Marge in bed? Or maybe a picture of a bear poaching a seal (violence!)?

      That is not illegal. It is tracking and collecting personally identifiable information that is illegal.

      If you make content for kids, COPPA compliance is a serious issue. Read the law. Comply, comply, comply.

      odd to be all worked up about preventing the real world from impinging on our bear cubs' innocence

      That is NOT what this is about.

      • If you make content for kids

        But, who decides if it is content for kids or not?

        That's the clincher.

        I mean, you might do toy evaluations, but you are doing them for parents for them to see what to buy for kids.

        What if you produce cartoons...not all cartoons are meant for kids....who decides if your cartoon/art is for kids? Doesn't that enter into freedom of speech (if the govt is going to be suing people for labelling it wrong)....?

        Geez, when can we stop with all the fscking "Think of the children" bull

      • odd to be all worked up about preventing the real world from impinging on our bear cubs' innocence

        That is NOT what this is about.

        yeah yeah, tell it to the judge pervert.

    • No, this has nothing to do with that. One of the most lucrative channels on youtube is one for toy reviews. It's an unboxing channel that is very obviously targeted at children (toddlers in particular). Toddlers tend to watch the same videos over and over again.

      Once that channel gets labeled as such, it will lose most of its ad revenue because ad revenue is much higher for targeted advertising than generic advertising. The difference can be as much as a factor of 10.

      Expect those channel creators to be very

  • One of the best aspects of the Internet (Score:3)

    by Chromal ( 56550 ) on Wednesday November 13, 2019 @06:25PM (#59411714)
    A lack of age-based discrimination was one of the best and most uplifting aspects of gaining access to the Internet in 1994. Everyone just assumed you were at least a college freshman. Treat all Internet denizens equally and protect our privacy regardless of our age. Also, denying young people the opportunity to participate in discourse via the comments section is a threadbare attempt to deny them their voices. In a liberal democratic system, what could be more degrading than having one's own voice silenced, one's own perspective disenfranchised?

    • Treat all Internet denizens equally and protect our privacy regardless of our age.

      Any website is still free to do that.

      Also, denying young people the opportunity to participate in discourse via the comments section is a threadbare attempt to deny them their voices.

      Who is a "young person"? COPPA only applies to under 12. So 13-year-olds are not covered.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Chromal ( 56550 )
        All people's privacy should be protected to the highest standards achievable without regard for the predilections of economic activity in a liberal democratic system. Stated differently, economic activity does not trump civil liberties or Universal Human Rights regardless of whether you are two, twelve, thirteen, twenty-one, forty-two, or one-hundred and twenty-eight years old. Your privacy and your freedom of expression should be equally protected whether you're one of the estimated two-billion youtube use

    • In 1994 there were barriers to entry to get on the internet. You could assume any kid who got over them was above his peers.

      Today, children are an unwelcome distraction. Having to walk on eggshells because they're around is a big turn-off. Moreover they get exposed to radical ideologies online, and don't have any adults around who know better.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Chromal ( 56550 )
        That's really up to the parent, and there are plenty of parental remedies to their children using the home Internet connection in an unauthorized fashion. Sure, "it takes a village to raise a child," and I think there should be some place to meet in the middle as a matter of good social responsibility for Google/ABC/YouTube. Perhaps for parentally-restricted youtube user accounts, there could be some way to limit access to curated playlists of approved content. One should imagine at this point all due dilig
        • This isn't a case of an adult product in the hands of children; the problem is that YouTube attempted to "meet in the middle" by creating a children's focused YouTube Kids, but failed so badly [netsanity.net], that it practically invited the regulatory hammer to come down upon it. Google created what was supposed to be a curated system, but they tried to curate through algorithms and took the approach they did with regular content where benefit of doubt is given to content providers, and things are flagged for removal if i
    • One of the best aspects is that kids can find illusive video channles which will both entertain and educative at the same time. Channels like : Amar Chitra Katha - https://www.youtube.com/user/a... [youtube.com]

  • Can we start labelling everything online as 'for children' and have all those trackers turned off?

    • You can. But then you will make less money. So content producers won't do that.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dmt0 ( 1295725 )

        Vast majority of content doesn't get enough views to even qualify for monetization - and that's by the rules that Youtube set somewhat recently.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tepples ( 727027 )

          Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if a video does not qualify for monetization, it loses its comment section if it is marked child-directed or child-attractive. Many uploaders rely on this comment section for feedback.

  • Blippi videos about how a bakery works will roll ads for flour and ovens; wheels on the bus will advertise tires and replacement windshield wipers...
  • Just put up a one of those boxes where you ask the persons age and deny them if they put anything below 16 or whatever.
    Kids lie and get to see what they want.
    Companies get plausible deniability. Everyone wins.
  • EVERYONE and I mean everyone is getting this wrong. The most of the issue is tracking kids and using that to advertise to them. That is illegal in some places. So if they disable all the offsite google ad network tracking and just simply use the keywords and title of the video to determine that they're under 13, they can advertise based on those alone in an "island" of localized, timely interest-based ads that is still legal. There's the law about properly labeling ads differently in childrens' content to w
  • Remember this one [youtube.com]? I first learned about it from a similar Slashdot article a long time ago.
    • That has over 39 million views and I haven't seen it yet? Damn.
    • Same as it would for a tv show/movie NC17/PG13 min. would be my guess..its not rocket science. TV has the v-chip,and a rating system. Same for music, same for games,Same for movies. The internet has nothing that i am aware of.
  • I can see YouTube dying in the next several years.
  • YouTube's about to lose a ton of ad revenue views. They'll still want to sell those ads. Other more adult channels might benefit from this as their sales people look for new revenue.
  • We need a publicly funded online video hosting provider. Place it under the UN with countries providing funding for it. Esssentially a BBC for the world.
    • The Internet is about a DECENTRALIZATION of information. The whole point of the Internet was the idea that ANYBODY can host their own content. We don't need a "BBC for the world". You just need to host your own shit.

      • You just need to host your own shit.

        In another comment [slashdot.org], I calculated that if you stream from Amazon S3 at 1 Mbps (typical 480p video bitrate) for 4,000 viewer-hours a year, your bandwidth bill will be roughly $162 per year. If a video goes viral, it could get even worse, as you're on the hook for paying for all that bandwidth. How would a video producer go about recovering that cost without using personalized advertising? I calculated that it would take four $5/mo pledges through Patreon to cover it, but a reply to my comment [slashdot.org] states that even

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DogDude ( 805747 )
          I'm confused. Are you saying that $162/year is an insurmountable burden?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tepples ( 727027 )

            Are you saying that $162/year is an insurmountable burden?

            Yes. Many people who produce video for the public to view would stop producing such video when faced with the prospect of having to pay out of pocket upwards of a hundred dollars per year for bandwidth. This goes double for video producers in countries whose local currency can't buy a lot of dollars.

            You appear to disagree. In this case, I'm interested in methods that you recommend to surmount this burden.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by DogDude ( 805747 )
              I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that if somebody doesn't pay Amazon to host video, then it's not possible to host video on the Internet? If that is what you're suggesting, then that's unequivocally false. I have video on my site. My hosting bill is approximately $10/year for my entire web site. If I wanted to, I could just turn on a web server at home or work and host it there for more money then I'm already paying for my Internet connection. I'm paying about $10/year so that I

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by tepples ( 727027 )

                Are you suggesting that if somebody doesn't pay Amazon to host video, then it's not possible to host video on the Internet?

                Not exactly. I imagine there exist other hosts that charge less for outgoing bandwidth. S3 is just the service whose prices I happen to know off hand. So let's find another:

                I have video on my site. My hosting bill is approximately $10/year for my entire web site.

                Which host are you with? About how many viewer hours per year do you serve?

                If I wanted to, I could just turn on a web server at home or work and host it there for more money then I'm already paying for my Internet connection.

                This fails if your home or work ISP puts subscribers behind carrier-grade NAT because the ISP (or even the whole country in some cases) lacks enough IPv4 addresses to go around. It also fails if your home ISP terminates your service for violating the acceptable us

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by DogDude ( 805747 )
                  I still don't get your point. Internet access costs money. Hosting things on the Internet cost money. Are you suggesting that large volume high speed video hosting should be extremely cheap for some reason...?

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by tepples ( 727027 )

                    I'm saying that people have used YouTube because it offloaded the cost of hosting the video to another party. With YouTube becoming less viable, people faced with having to host video themselves have to either find an affordable option or cause the video to become no longer available to the public.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by DogDude ( 805747 )
                      That's true. Well, if the videos they make are worth hosting, I'm sure they'll find a way. If they can't find a way to pay for their cat videos... well, that's a shame?
  • She runs a YouTube channel with professionally produced content for toddlers and young kids. It's a mix of live actors and CGI, so her expenses are not insignificant - her channel has a full-time staff of about 15. Her YouTube income was in the millions, but she's estimating she'll lose 80% of that due to the new ad policies (even though it's the parents selecting which videos to play, not the kids, the fact that kids are watching it now prohibits YouTube from targeting ads at the parents). She saw this
    • Well, then maybe she'll learn to not be a small business with a single customer ever again. That's almost universally a terrible idea. Your friend is going to learn that lesson the hard way, it sounds like.

      • Well, then maybe she'll learn to not be a small business with a single customer ever again. That's almost universally a terrible idea. Your friend is going to learn that lesson the hard way, it sounds like.

        Especially relying on someone elses platform than can and does change rules on a whim with little or no notice.

      • She already knew that lesson and prepared for it, like the person said she has a deal with Netflix.
        Did you not read the whole post?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ledow ( 319597 )

      Sounds like the best plan is to simply uproot all that content, move it elsewhere and - if you can spare the effort - tell YouTube why they lost it all.

      Stupid policies shouldn't be tolerated if they are going to materially affect your business, and they are highly unlikely to ever be the last stupid policy while you continue to use their service after having been treated like this.

      Sure, it's significantly risky, but if the choice is 80% less revenue for a staff of 15, then 12 of those people are going to be

    • Well boo fucking hoo. Maybe she should not target kids to make an easy buck, or million bucks in this case. Cry me a river.

      (even though it's the parents selecting which videos to play, not the kids

      I can almost guarantee you it's not. Maybe the first video but no parents sit there curating what their kids watch on youtube. I say this as a parent of one of these kids. You keep an ear out to make sure they havn't wondered onto some proper dodgy shit but for the most part they watch what they want and its stuff like ryan and fgtv and whatever else the algorithm serves up next or puts

  • Well, Baby Shark was fun while it lasted. Now it won't make you a dime.

  • Youtube asked me to confirm whether my content was 'made for kids' or not. It's not. Even the content with kids in it is made for adults.

    Kids probably watch it too, but I'm not targeting them and I don't need to comply with COPPA.

    • Except that if the FTC decides that your video does target children, they will viciously attack you.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Cederic ( 9623 )

        Oh no! Not viciously attacked!

        I got viciously attacked by a dead mouse on Tuesday. It loomed menacingly in the doorway to my bedroom, causing much consternation amongst the cat that wanted me to fix it so that she could keep playing.

        The FTC worry me less.

        • You know they have people with guns who will murder you if you defend yourself right?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Cederic ( 9623 )

            Not in this country they don't.

            • The police work for them as well and will abduct you in your own home, if you try to defend yourself they'll shoot and likely kill you.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Cederic ( 9623 )

                The police do not work for the FTC and if they do, that's cause for civil disobedience.

                Sometimes you have to take a stand.

  • This is what it looks like in practice.
    Probably not the fairy tale you imagined.
    Are you happy?

  • "The consequences for not labeling a video as 'child-directed' could be even more severe,"

    Isn't it the opposite, i.e. labeling a video as child-directed when it is not?

    What's wrong with labeling a kids show as "for adults"? Adults can watch kids shows too. And content creators can't control who is watching, just like filmmakers don't get to check IDs and block kids from entering the theater.
    For creators, I think it is more of a decision about if you prefer to let people who identify as kids in in exchange for reduced ad revenue from people who identify as adults.

  • i was reading about this days ago: https://www.newser.com/story/2... [newser.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Close