Kids' Cartoons Get a Free Pass From YouTube's Deepfake Disclosure Rules

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Wired: YouTube has updated its rulebook for the era of deepfakes. Starting today, anyone uploading video to the platform must disclose certain uses of synthetic media, including generative AI, so viewers know what they're seeing isn't real. YouTube says it applies to "realistic" altered media such as "making it appear as if a real building caught fire" or swapping"the face of one individual with another's." The new policy shows YouTube taking steps that could help curb the spread of AI-generated misinformation as the US presidential election approaches. It is also striking for what it permits: AI-generated animations aimed at kids are not subject to the new synthetic content disclosure rules.

YouTube's new policies exclude animated content altogether from the disclosure requirement. This means that the emerging scene of get-rich-quick, AI-generated content hustlers can keep churning out videos aimed at children without having to disclose their methods. Parents concerned about the quality of hastily made nursery-rhyme videos will be left to identify AI-generated cartoons by themselves. YouTube's new policy also says creators don't need to flag use of AI for "minor" edits that are "primarily aesthetic" such as beauty filters or cleaning up video and audio. Use of AI to "generate or improve" a script or captions is also permitted without disclosure. [...]

The exemption for animation in YouTube's new policy could mean that parents cannot easily filter such videos out of search results or keep YouTube's recommendation algorithm from autoplaying AI-generated cartoons after setting up their child to watch popular and thoroughly vetted channels like PBS Kids or Ms. Rachel. Some problematic AI-generated content aimed at kids does require flagging under the new rules. In 2023, the BBC investigated a wave of videos targeting older children that used AI tools to push pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, including climate change denialism. These videos imitated conventional live-action educational videos -- showing, for example, the real pyramids of Giza -- so unsuspecting viewers might mistake them for factually accurate educational content. (The pyramid videos then went on the suggest that the structures can generate electricity.) This new policy would crack down on that type of video. "We require kids content creators to disclose content that is meaningfully altered or synthetically generated when it seems realistic," says YouTube spokesperson Elena Hernandez. "We don't require disclosure of content that is clearly unrealistic and isn't misleading the viewer into thinking it's real."

I don't get it

[Mononymous]

What's the concern?
A cartoon can't be a deepfake.
Are you worried about someone depicting Bugs Bunny doing something he never actually did?

parents cannot easily...keep YouTube's recommendation algorithm from autoplaying AI-generated cartoons after setting up their child to watch popular and thoroughly vetted channels like PBS Kids or Ms. Rachel.

Yes, you cannot leave your child unattended in front of the firehouse of online video.
No, AI hasn't changed that at all.

Re:

[Mononymous]

*firehose...sigh.

Re:

[Barny]

It happens. I work with a lot of new writers, and some get discouraged at the amount of corrections they need on first drafts. I tell them "Even Stephen King has an editor that corrects him."

Back on topic, you hit the nail on the head. Someone is trying to create a storm in a teacup. Fixing the magic babysitter box is not the aim of this.

Re:

[Powercntrl]

I think that's a perfectly cromulent Freudian slip. It was actually common at one time to leave unwanted children at the firehouse.

Reasonable

[Geoffrey.landis]

Seems a reasonable policy to me. Cartoons aren't pretending to be reality, they can't be deepfakes.

(Also, cartoons these days often have a lot of computer generation anyway; the actual animators only do some of the frames, and a lot of automation is done interpolating between scenes.)

All those SAG-AFRA negotiations and *POOF*

[Seven Spirals]

Nobody cares what the old content creators are crying about. They are about 15 minutes away from being laid off as technology is making whole movies from AI engines and meanwhile celebs, agents, key grips, and anyone else in that industry is going to be out in the cold and hawking cookware on TikTok. With the absolute garbage coming out of Hollywood, nobody is even going to notice. All that whining, "rule" changing, and crying by the "guilds" and their "craftspeople" is about to mean jack-shit. Anyone who w

Animation

[Dwedit]

Animation is generally not realistic, so there's nothing to disclose. The policy applies to things that are realistic in style, and are things that could be misleading.

Re:Animation

[mysidia]

The author of the OP clearly wants forced disclosure NOT because they are against dishonest, But because they are against the Concept of creators using AI at all.

The original post is 99% chock full of bad faith arguments against AI usage in non-realistic content. In fact, Non-AI generated content has the same issues. Whoever wrote that clearly has some sort of bone to pick with AI in general.

Notice how Upset they are that minor edits such as beauty filters are exempted:

YouTube's new policy also says creators don't need to flag use of AI for "minor" edits that are "primarily aesthetic"

Re:

[timeOday]

Animation hasn't been any one particular technology since at least 1937:

https://www.thedisneyclassics.... [thedisneyclassics.com]

Really?

[grep -v '.*' *]

YouTube's new policies exclude animated content altogether

Really? I'm an adult, but that's exactly WHY I watch anime -- I know that none of it is real, EVER. Parents should make sure kids their know that Mickey Mouse isn't real, even those he has a theme park or five named for him.

If I wanted something even partially near to reality I'd watch the news.

Kids' youtube is already a sewer

[BeaverCleaver]

There are loads of AI nursery rhymes already on youtube, with weird computerised voices and slightly altered lyrics (for copyright reasons?)

Yeah, it's gross and I wouldn't want my kid to watch it... but the alternative is equally disgusting, like those weird kids' shows on youtube with real actors, but all the actors do is unbox toys or receive piles of candy.

I'm not giving parenting advice here, but if you need to entertain a toddler with video (for whatever reason) your local public broadcaster probably h

Re:

[DarkOx]

we have PBS Kids - most of it is pretty good. There are messages clearly borne of 'wokeism' that give me some pause. You compare the work of Fred Rodgers to them and its the difference between:

Some people are different, that might be ok and they might have good ideas, be open accepting and tolerant.

and

Your culture is boring, these people are different that's always better!

There is also a fair amount of shows that leave you wondering what is these even supposed to be, it seems to be just random flashes of c

Re:

[BeaverCleaver]

Hey, if 80% is "really very good" then it's a million miles better than youtube. And if the other 20% is "random flashes of color set strange synth-pop with words that make no sense at all" then you're still in front of youtube. Add in the absence of commercials for stuff that is irrelevant at best, but more likely to be subversive or at least just nauseating consumerism that you see on youtube, and yeah, I will stick with the public broadcaster.

And I haven't even got on to the insane "suggestions" that you

Ads of course are exempt

[ConstantineXI]

Which Google won't say of course!