YouTube Overhauls Advertising, Data Collection On Kids Content (washingtonpost.com) 53
YouTube said Monday it is rolling out new protections for children viewing videos on its site (source may be paywalled; alternative source), an effort to satisfy federal regulators who last year fined the company tens of millions of dollars over alleged privacy violations. The Washington Post reports: The changes, which include limitations on data collection and advertising, are a step toward addressing concerns from advocacy groups who have complained the Google-owned company has run afoul of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA, which forbids tracking and targeting users 12 and under. As part of those changes, YouTube said it will seek to better distinguish which content is intended primarily for children, relying on a combination of self-identification from creators and software. That content cannot run with personalized advertisements, under the new rules that YouTube said it is instituting globally starting Monday.
YouTube said it will assume any viewer of child-friendly content is underage, treating that data as subject to COPPA rules. It has been limiting other features too, such as comments on children's videos and live chats. [...] Some YouTube content creators, however, said the changes were likely to crater their advertising business, because personalized ads tend to sell for more than contextual ads. Eyal Baumel, CEO of management company Yoola, said he is encouraging clients with more child-friendly videos to find new sources of revenue to cope with any dip in sales. "The concern is that a majority of revenue will disappear," he said. "Creators need to start thinking about selling books, selling merchandise." "A lot of creators are telling me they may quit if it's as bad as they fear," said Baumel. "There's just a lot of confusion about how this will play out, particularly among the smallest channels."
YouTube said it will assume any viewer of child-friendly content is underage, treating that data as subject to COPPA rules. It has been limiting other features too, such as comments on children's videos and live chats. [...] Some YouTube content creators, however, said the changes were likely to crater their advertising business, because personalized ads tend to sell for more than contextual ads. Eyal Baumel, CEO of management company Yoola, said he is encouraging clients with more child-friendly videos to find new sources of revenue to cope with any dip in sales. "The concern is that a majority of revenue will disappear," he said. "Creators need to start thinking about selling books, selling merchandise." "A lot of creators are telling me they may quit if it's as bad as they fear," said Baumel. "There's just a lot of confusion about how this will play out, particularly among the smallest channels."
Does this mean (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ryan gets most of his money from sponsorships and his own licensed products.
This will primarily affect the smaller content producers who were making enough from targeted ads to produce content, but were not visible enough to attract sponsorship or significant patreon (or similar) contributions.
Expect these shows to start shilling a lot harder to survive, or disappear altogether.
Can't wait to hear Blippy say "Parents, Grand Parents, Baby Sitters... If your child enjoys my content head on over to Patreon and
If they were really interested in protecting kids (Score:5, Interesting)
If they were really interested in protecting kids they would remove ads from kids content altogether. Children, especially young children, have very limited critical thinking capacity and are unable to differentiate between "shiny" and "beneficial." It's hard enough for adults to avoid being influenced into unhealthy behaviours by advertising. How is someone under 12 supposed to see through psychologically researched soft-sell and understand that having that flashy new toy, or eating paw patrol branded candy, isn't actually going to benefit them in the long run? It's a total technical and intellectual mismatch -- kind of like if the USA sent drone strikes to invade North Sentinel Island (home of that uncontacted stone-age tribe in the Indian Ocean).
Re:If they were really interested in protecting ki (Score:5, Insightful)
If they were really interested in protecting minders, they would create an entirely separate internet experience for them. Separate encrypted protocol, all content vetted, secured, monitored and controlled by people with the children's interests at heart, not just the heartless interests of junk food advertisers.
Parents who let the adult internet be baby sitters for children are shite parents. Children should not have access to the adult internet without direct adult supervision.
Governments lie about this to specifically protect junk food advertisers and crap marketing companies like google who specifically target children with peer pressure advertising attacking them psychologically every second of the day they can. Stuff like this just in your face tokenism.
A new secured encrypted internet protocol just for minors and the adults that supervise them is required, bringing schools and children together out of hours with properly targeted content and free from psychological destructive advertising, designed by psychopaths with degrees in psychology the sickest child molesters on the planet, attacking the minds of children to fee their insatiable greed.
Re: (Score:2)
If they were really interested in protecting kids they would remove ads from kids content altogether.
Two points:
First, it's not like advertising on children's content is anything new. You and I grew up with it, and so did our parents. Unless you're as old as I am, your grandparents also grew up with it. After school specials and Saturday-morning cartoons were all ad-funded. I don't know about you, but I and everyone I knew got through it okay... and I still have fond memories of that content.
Second, consider what would have happened to those Saturday-morning cartoons if ads had been removed. They'
Re: (Score:2)
First, it's not like advertising on children's content is anything new. You and I grew up with it, and so did our parents.
I saw very little advertising when I was a child. Hardly any on TV, none on the Internet and the stuff in the print media was irrelevant to me anyway.
My parents saw none on the TV, none on the Internet and the stuff in the print media was irrelevant to them anyway.
My grandparents pretty much the same.
After school specials and Saturday-morning cartoons were all ad-funded.
Not where I grew up.
YouTube is no different. Remove advertising entirely, and you'll remove the content. While many forms of content will be created and uploaded even without remuneration, I think little or no kid content would
Remove advertising and you'll lose the ability to fund the hosting costs, and that's what would lose the content. People will produce it anyway.
Me, I say remove the advertising. I'll take th
Re: (Score:2)
I saw very little advertising when I was a child. Hardly any on TV, none on the Internet and the stuff in the print media was irrelevant to me anyway.
Where did you grow up that TV was ad-free? The UK and you only watched BBC?
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible, though difficult: US has PBS, and in the early 90s Disney was a premium channel with no ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Pledge breaks are more obnoxious than commercials....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: If they were really interested in protecting k (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ookla ain't got nothing on Gloop and Gleep.
Re: (Score:2)
Good old Robotech. As a youngin' it was weird watching a cartoon where a main character can (and did) die (RIP Roy Fokker, Ben Dixon, Captain Gloval, and the Bridge Bunnies...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Riiiight, dude WTF do you think we grew up with from the 50s-90s? Ad supported kids TV. I bet most of the people here can sing the theme songs to the toy commercials...err "kids cartoons" they grew up with and those were literally designed around the toy lines. I remember the themes for Spiderman, Superfriends,etc hour after hour we had on Saturdays of nothing but glorified TOY COMMERCIALS and the closest you can come to say it "did harm" is now I have some useless trivia stuck in my brain like the lyrics to 70s kid show theme songs.
This is quite the conundrum. How do you break it to someone who is absolutely sure they have not been brain damaged by cheesy commercials that in fact cumulative effects of traumatic brain damage suffered as a kid has rendered it impossible for them to accept reality of their condition today?
Re: (Score:2)
If they were really interested in protecting kids they would remove ads from kids content altogether.
It's already illegal in some jurisdictions.
Is there any actual proof of damage to kids? (Score:3)
Are there any research papers that have actually proven that kids are physically or mentally damaged by having data about them recorded, or by seeing targeted ads? I watched tons of TV as a kid (on my 3 channel TV) and was never damaged by advertising.
All of this sounds like junk science made up by adults who think they know what they're doing and it's going to cause real economic harm to the great creators on YouTube and other platforms. And that will be bad for the kids who won't have good content to watch and learn from anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
So, how do Children under 13 have their own Channels?
Re: (Score:2)
They're actually FBI agents.
Re: (Score:2)
Are there any research papers that have actually proven that kids are physically or mentally damaged by having data about them recorded, or by seeing targeted ads?
I don't know the answer to your question, but it makes me wonder -- where do you draw the line between (1) parents should parent, by deciding what's appropriate for their kids, rather than leaving it youtube or other parties to decide; (2) parents should be overruled in cases where research or an independent body finds their choices harmful to the child; (3) parents should be overruled in cases where research finds their choices, although not harmful, aren't beneficial.
Your post sounds like it's headed towa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say I'm actually for option 1. Parents should absolutely be in control of what their kids watch. I just don't believe kids are really being harmed at all by having their viewing habits recorded by YouTube. If you don't know somebody is recording your viewing history, how can it hurt you? YouTube should be neutral and just provide the service without deciding what content or ads are good or bad. Individual parents should do that for their own kids.
As for the targeted advertisements, if parents don't li
Re: (Score:1)
I'd say I'm actually for option 1. Parents should absolutely be in control of what their kids watch. I just don't believe kids are really being harmed at all by having their viewing habits recorded by YouTube. If you don't know somebody is recording your viewing history, how can it hurt you?
I completely agree with you. Why can't I stalk little girls if they don't know I'm following them around and monitoring everything they do? How can it hurt them?
Re: (Score:2)
"User BillieJoeJimBob watched a lot of Toy Unboxing videos, but we don't have images of him/her doing so" is NOT the same a pervert following and staring at kids. What bullshit
Re: (Score:2)
Long before the internet patents used to let their kids play alone all the time. It's a normal part of growing up.
There is research showing that this stuff can be harmful, and more over we don't want kids to grow up thinking that being tracked is normal. It's creepy and should stay that way.
Protecting children is the job of the government, as well as their parents and everyone else around them. It's a complex subject that defies simple rules.
Food advertising has been linked (Score:2)
There probably isn't enough research, but we've had a gov't under heavy regulatory capture non-stop since Reagan so good luck with that. You'll note most of the research I cite above is before 1984....
Kids know more brand slogans than (Score:2)
actual children's stories or famous historical characters.
It's beyond doubt that kids' minds are poisoned by advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
Give creators a choice... (Score:2)
YouTube has a feature where an uploader can mark a video as "Age-restricted video (requested by uploader)" and if a video is marked as such, anyone under the age of 18 (at least I think its 18) can't view the video (as well as anyone where YouTube can't identify the age of the viewer).
Why not have an option where a YouTube creator can mark a video (or a channel) as "not for kids" (regardless of content) and then if someone under the age of 13 (or where YouTube can't identify the age of that viewer) goes to
Re: (Score:1)
This clears out all the profit taking content, allowing "approved" profit making content to be the only content.
A private TV station, national broadcaster, streaming service is allowed back in.
There is No "Regardless of Content" (Score:2)
Why not have an option where a YouTube creator can mark a video (or a channel) as "not for kids" (regardless of content)
Because there is no "regardless of content" according to the FTC . . . i.e. they say they will always use content to judge whether it's "for kids" . . . or YT might, out of fear of the vague FTC rules.
This is a good vid on the issue (most relevant part starts at 4:09:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
YouTube has a feature where an uploader can mark a video as "Age-restricted video (requested by uploader)" and if a video is marked as such, anyone under the age of 18 (at least I think its 18) can't view the video (as well as anyone where YouTube can't identify the age of the viewer).
Why not have an option where a YouTube creator can mark a video (or a channel) as "not for kids" (regardless of content) and then if someone under the age of 13 (or where YouTube can't identify the age of that viewer) goes to the video, YouTube will prevent them viewing the video (or having their data collected or seeing targeted ads or etc). Anyone over the age of 13 will be able to view the video as normal.
The FCC has actually stated that requiring an account to verify age is an insufficient method of age-verification, as minors are able to lie about their age; just like I was 18 for 5 years when I found the naughty sites. Do I think it's logical? Of course not. The FCC decided it, so it's probably asinine, but that is their "professional judgement".
Re: (Score:3)
YouTube does have an "adult" checkbox, but it's for euphemistically "adult" content and you don't ads at all, so that's useless.
What they need, but don't have is a "PG-13" checkbox. Something that indicates "this is not for kids, but it's not sexual either",
The problem is, that still won't help with the FCC, as we understand things. If the FCC in their sole discretion decides your content it targeted to kids, then it is. Nothing you can do about it. And the current laws/regs are ridiculous, and very 90s
Re: (Score:2)
One Youtuber I watch decided he would curse more in videos to avoid being accused of being kid-friendly. Another jokingly suggested starting every video with a minute of political commentary, no way anyone would suggest that is kid-targeted!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind if kids view my youtube videos. One of my channels will teach them new and interesting English words but won't cause them any harm, the other is even more innocuous than that.
I don't target them though, I'm not creating content for them and I'm certainly not going to censor anything on their behalf.
So I tell Youtube that my channels are "Not targeting children" but I don't tell them that they are "Not for children" because that's exactly the situation.
If that means that Youtube limits its adver
Seems Like a Trap (Score:3, Interesting)
You can declare that your channel/content isn't for kids, which would be great except that YT might simply decide it's for kids anyway.
This all seems like it's meant to push tiny/small to medium creators (i.e. almost all individuals) further to the side and pave the way for the huge creators and corporate media to completely take over. This is most obvious with how old establishment media news and late night shows are already given extreme preference in recommendations. Commentary on current events is clearly an important thing that Google wants to rule with an iron fist.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Isn't it great that Google's put a hard limit on the number of time you can criticize a public figure? That's part of these new rules, if you haven't heard.
Wake me the first time someone like CNN gets banned, for criticizing Trump every video they make. We all know it won't happen. Not that I'm really complaining about that in particular, as calling the president an idiot is every American's God-given right! (Non-Americans can too, but we reserve the right to drone strike).
But we all know enforcement will be selective. And banning normal things and then selectively enforcing is exactly how you create a totalitarian society (and if you think corporations c
Holy Matrix (Score:2)
It suspends belief that 8 yr old Ryan Kaji ($26 million) and 5 yr old Anastasia Radzinskaya ($18 million) were two of the top 3 earners on Youtube in 2019. I don't have the wherewithal to justify the 8 digit revenue generated by pewdiepie and jeffree star, but damn, what a world we live in.
I'm just slightly in favor of letting this thing run its course, since it's the social equivalent of nothing we've seen before.
garbage content (Score:2)
Don't understand what the big deal is (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah we dont want children to be manipulated but it already hsppens all the time anway.
Are you seriously trying to justify manipulation of children by asserting it "hsppens" anyway? If this was not your intention what the fuck are you saying?
Re: (Score:2)
Adults should be able to choose when to give up some privacy in exchange for a service. Children are not developed enough to do that, same as they can't sign contracts.
The simple principal that permission must be obtained applies, and children cannot give permission.
Seems like a Huge Overreach (Score:2)
I always thought the big deal with gathering personal information from children. You know, stuff like name, age, address, etc. This feels like the simple act of knowing a child might be watching is somehow in the same vein as gathering the previously mentioned information. Am I missing something?
In the longer term... (Score:2)
It's probably better to think of Youtube as a form of free video hosting, and not at all as an income source.
Sure - the folks that can regularly pull 5+million views per video will get paid - but the demand for increased shareholder value is going to nibble that to nothingness over time too.
Basically, it's going back to an open form of public access TV, just like it kind of started out as.
The bubble is shrinking instead of popping though, unless you're making children's content for an income stream - in whi
So, overhaul advertising (Score:2)
Meanwhile, on Facebook (Score:2)