Youtube policy changes regarding children's content

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
harbinger said:
From what I’ve gathered here and else where:
  • If Phil voluntarily classifies his videos as for children (which he hasn’t), he will not be able to use targeted ads and will get less pay from YouTube.
  • If YouTube flags his videos as for children, he will not be able to use targeted ads and will get less pay from YouTube.
  • If the FTC flags his videos as for children, he will could face up to a $42,000 fine per video.
To me it doesn’t sound like whether it’s “kid friendly” or wherever, it’s more like is the video appealing to children. I imagine some long winded political essay will be fairly safe. Video game play throughs are screwed. I’m also kinda interested how this could affect Logan Paul and others like him with all of their merchandizing plugs.

I don’t know what to expect from any of this, but the next several months could be quite amusing for those of us who don’t rely on YouTube shekels to Save our Houses.
Click to expand...
Yes, but one thing to note is that on YouTube's pre-emptive passthrough YouTube marking a video as "for kids" is just a guess and has nothing to do with what the FTC will determine is "for kids", YouTube is just guessing. Also if YouTube marks something as "for kids" and turns off targeted ads by doing so channel owners are still free to manually change that marking and turn targeted ads back on.
YouTube has basically worked out an agreement where they have zero culpability in any future violations of this law by content on YouTube by pushing control of this feature into the channel owner's hands.
I would think at some point before the FTC starts to go through channels to check for compliance they would publish some kind of general list of what they will presume is "for kids", but I haven't heard anything about that yet.

Edit: So there already exists a list from the FTC regarding guidelines as to how to determine what the FTC will say regarding a piece of content. This lawyer explains the situation completely in this video. Timestamped at the FTC's guidelines list 10m24s
 
Last edited:
But why does Youtube still allow the the baby monkey torture community to prosper?

Can't post a video of a kids birthday party, but a baby monkey drowning in a river is ok?
I mean, I know animals don't actually have souls and therefore don't deserve rights, but still.
 
Last edited:
Cyber Bowling said:
Thanks, this was a pretty quick and easy to digest summary of what exactly is happening. In regards to Phil's stuff getting flagged as child friendly or whatever, does that just mean he won't be able to use targeted ads for those videos, or is there a bigger consequence?
Click to expand...

If he marks a video as "kids content" it is demonetised. Full Stop. No targeted ads, no basic ads, nuttin.

As we know if there is one thing dave would NEVER do on his own: Demonetise even one of his million videos (he cries when there is a song that will cause demonetisation on YT ffs)
 
DSPGouting said:
If he marks a video as "kids content" it is demonetised. Full Stop. No targeted ads, no basic ads, nuttin.

As we know if there is one thing dave would NEVER do on his own: Demonetise even one of his million videos (he cries when there is a song that will cause demonetisation on YT ffs)
Click to expand...

It's odd and somewhat creepy that the safest solution is to label everything as "for kids". I'm sure nothing will go wrong when a parent sees some video of puppets humping labeled for kids.
 
I don't understand why content creators are getting targetted as well. They're not the ones who decide which videos get ads on them and they're not the ones running the algortithim. Sounds to me like the FTC is run by a retard, a greedy jew, or someone who just hates youtube.
 
Notgoodwithusernames said:
I don't understand why content creators are getting targetted as well. They're not the ones who decide which videos get ads on them and they're not the ones running the algortithim. Sounds to me like the FTC is run by an exceptional individual, a greedy jew, or someone who just hates youtube.
Click to expand...
As I've said it's Youtube who put content creators in the hot seat. The FTC fined Youtube and Youtube worked out a deal where the responsibility would in the future rest on the content creators.
 
DSP claiming $42,000 fines by the FTC for a video on Youtube will never happen and that people who think it will or can happen are stoopid idiots, dood.

FTC kids content.PNG


















:optimistic: 🙏
 
Comma said:
DSP claiming $42,000 fines by the FTC for a video on Youtube will never happen and that people who think it will or can happen are stoopid idiots, dood.

View attachment 1018946

FTC wont fine $42,000 stupidity kids content Youtube.mp4















:optimistic: 🙏
Click to expand...
Lol wow. To be honest though I'm glad he's not taking this seriously. Again this is the highest possible drama choice he could have made: Ignore the FTC and mark his content for adults. Will he get the hammer? I don't know, but he sure is standing right under it should it happen to come down.
 
Also, as a PSA, it would probably be a good idea that anyone who makes TIHYDP's out of Phil's uploads to mark your content as "for kids". If the visual content of your video primarily consists of video game footage, or even his slide-show consisting of children's drawings if you really want to be safe, in my opinion you should mark them so.

This next part is important: IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU HAVE NEVER MONITIZED YOUR CHANNEL You still have to turn off the functionality, as there are other features being disabled by doing so besides targeted ads, and mark either each upload on a case by case basis or your entire channel as "for kids".

For example El Crimson King absolutely needs to mark this video as "for kids". It just occurred to me that though we have been primarily laughing at Phil, there are likely a ton of 'detractor' channels that are just as likely to be effected by this as Phil. Like for example if I were 'Snort Burnell' I would mark my old videos as "for kids", and just upload a blackscreen with Phil talking to get around that or just meme video footage of Phil if they wanted to keep them monitized with targeted ads.
This video from Dick Stroking Phil Vlogs, probably fine
If you are the channel owner of the 'Sons of Kojima' channel, even though you never monitized content, you still need to mark all your 'Let's Endures' as "for kids".
 
So watching another video here, which I'll link below, it's from another lawyer and he kind of touches on what Youtube may do or what the masses may get youtube to do. The thing is: fighting COPPA is stupid. It's been a law forever and it's a good common sense law to protect children from being spied on by google like we all are. That said how Youtube is handling this is pants-on-head exceptional. Putting the responsibility on the content creator is asking from trouble from all sides. All they have to do is put a simple "Are you over 13? YES NO" prompt before their videos (which can be stored as a response once someone clicks yes as google can then create a cookie on them). You know, like every social media site has had since COPPA was introduced in 1998. Youtube are just being lazier than Phil. Seriously you could code that in seconds, they already have an interface and text over their videos, the rest is just writing out a single script. Bam, liability goes to the user and everyone's good.

So yeah, COPPA is actually a good thing imo, but the way Youtube is telling the FTC to enforce it is fucked up. Mind you how Youtube abused COPPA in the first place literally telling children's advertisers that their products were fine to use targeted ads on because "Youtube users are 13 and up" is fucked up, and is how Youtube got caught in the first place. I wonder if these business tactics are straight from big daddy Google?

 
Last edited:
TheKatIsNowGone said:
Putting the responsibility on the end users is asking from trouble from all sides. All they have to do is put a simple "Are you over 13? YES NO" prompt before their videos (which can be stored as a response once someone clicks yes as google can then create a cookie on them). You know, like every social media site has had since COPPA was introduced in 1998.
Click to expand...

They don't want to do that. They want to somehow fuck their users out of even more money than they already do.
 
They better hope youtube aren't the ones deciding who is children's content and who isn't. They have been notoriously lazy with this type of stuff and I could see them just tossing all gameplay videos into the "Children's section.

Phil will get blindsided because of his need to ignore actual changes that could effect him and his desire to be a contrarian to anything mainstream. I doubt he will be financially effected to any real degree, but he'll play it up once all of those Minecraft, and Pokemon videos he's made for adults gets flagged as for children.

Honestly, I see this whole thing biting youtube in the ass. If they start flagging random shit as children's content then that will make their Kid's section an even weirder place than it already is. You'll see DSP's videos recommended alongside those weird ass Elsa x Spiderman videos.
 
Prince Lotor said:
The reason YouTube got in so much trouble is that they were selling ad space to advertisers directly saying they could put those ads in front of children and they were using account data gathered to target specific ads to these accounts that they completely fucked all plausible deniability of them not knowing these accounts belonged to children.
They used to ignore this law by saying 'Wink Wink there is no one under 13 on our site because our TOS says you have to be 13 and over to create an account'.
In response to this the FTC is cracking down on YouTube, but YouTube worked out a deal with them to put the onus on channel owners whether or not to turn off targeted ads.
The FTC has made such statements as "the audience will be presumed to be 12 and under", so even in the case of say an unboxing video of a $300 collectable statue of Sagat, because it is a 'toy unboxing', the FTC will presume the audience does consist a children 12 & under i.e. "for kids". If you make edgy videos using puppets or animation, because those are 'puppet shows' or 'cartoons', the FTC will presume the audience does consist of children.
The FTC has said they already 'have ways to go through the 23 million channels' and it's certainly not going to be with a fine tooth comb.

I'm starting to ramble, but to answer your questions: The FTC isn't going to look at accounts watching to make a determination, they are going to categorize videos and presume the audience contains children. . .because YouTube massivly fucked-up and flushed their 'Wink Wink Nudge Nudge Those aren't children because they said they weren't' deniability down the toilet.
It doesn't matter who your audience actually consists of, and it doesn't matter what your intended audience was, it matters whether the FTC will presume your audience consists of children based on an extremely shallow overview of your content. It also doesn't matter if you have restricted your videos as "mature content", it only matters what the FTC presumes and whether you have turned targeted ads off or not under the misleading label of "for kids" or "not for kids".

I'm just going to wait and watch and get a few chuckles from the sidelines hopefully. The more people try to spell this out for Phil, the more stubbornly he will refuse to listen. No one can navigate this correctly for him, and if he gets bit in the ass by this it will be hilarious.
Click to expand...

there's no way the ftc would have the man power to do anything manually, they might review a handful of reports, or the most serious reports, which will be the basis for a new algorithm

the responsibility will probably go to youtube to make that algorithm

and we all know how shit their algorithms are
 
tzgnilki said:
there's no way the ftc would have the man power to do anything manually, they might review a handful of reports, or the most serious reports, which will be the basis for a new algorithm

the responsibility will probably go to youtube to make that algorithm

and we all know how shit their algorithms are
Click to expand...
So just to clarify and I've posted videos that cover this, but the FTC have said they will be doing sweeps. I thoroughly doubt that Youtube will do anything involving enforcement outside of the algorithm Youtube has already introduced to set certain videos automatically to kids videos (which the user can choose to bypass). Now does the FTC have the manpower to sweep Youtube effectively? Probably not, but it's the US government so if they wanted to they could make a whole division just to sweep Youtube, probably depends on how big they see the problem.

The question, as I've said before, all comes down to how well they can enforce this thing. I have doubts they'll crack down on the whole site, but could they go after the more notable cases? Yeah, they absolutely could.

Will this affect Phil? I mean he does have a crazy amount of videos on Youtube, if the FTC are searching around Phil has dropped enough videos in the well to be encountered just on pure chance. That said it sounds like the FTC don't want to go after what are termed "Mixed content" videos, videos with content both for children and adults, it's mainly that Youtube in their all or nothing approach have made it so there is no mixed content. Will the FTC end up going after mixed content channels even though that's not their intent just because Youtube has made it black and white? I would guess not, but I'm not the FTC so I don't really know.

Still one thing to keep in mind that I'd really like to make clear is this will not be Youtube enforcing this in any way, Youtube is leaving it up the FTC and giving them permission to sweep the site, and the FTC have said they will sweep Youtube. Take that as you will but keep in mind this isn't just something Youtube is doing (which seems to be what DSP thinks).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom