What's Gone Wrong With the FTC's COPPA Agreement With YouTube
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 06. 2024
- Sources:
FTC Reaches Landmark Settlement Regarding Kids’ Privacy, Clarifies Platforms’ and Video Creators’ COPPA Obligations for Child-Directed Content - Sara Collins fpf.org/2019/09/09/ftc-reache...
Commissioner Slaughter's Statement [PDF]
www.ftc.gov/system/files/docu...
Chairman Simon & Commissioner Wilson's Statement [PDF]
www.ftc.gov/system/files/docu...
Google and CZcams Will Pay Record $170 Million for Alleged Violations of Children’s Privacy Law www.ftc.gov/news-events/press...
While voluntary content flagging is useful and a good measure, and some measure of automated detection is likely necessary, CZcams’s response has been deliberately broad, utilizing their status as a monopoly in online video to force creators to bear the burdens of compliance without providing them with the tools and data to do so in a meaningful, educated manner.
Written and performed by Dan Olson
Crowdfunding: / foldablehuman
Twitter: / foldablehuman
I'm impressed by how CZcams has weaponized it's history of infamously bad communication.
Never in my life thought seame street commit crimes here on CZcams
Yeah but they are so incompetent that their dumb bot sent this video out to a ton of people so now we all know it.
@@Yipper64 To my knowledge, there is no software that can identify anti-whatever content with a meaningful level of accuracy and just not show it. If there was, China wouldn't need nearly so strict a firewall.
@Timothy McLean it's about continuing the same bad behaviour while saying it's the fault of creators when they get caught for it. If youtube provides all the tools and can prove it then they can just say "Well it's not us, they just didn't follow the instructions to prevent this from happening."
@Lucas Zhu The video shows correctly there is no problem with COPPA. The FTC was aware of the problems. CZcams makes it look like they were not. It is CZcams creating chaos
I love how the CZcams game is now "be advertiser friendly or be demonotized but not too friendly or else you're now kid friendly and now you're suuuuper demonotized."
You gotta be adult. But in a boring way! None of that horror-reviewing, true-crime-, LGBT-, and/or mental health-discussing, throwing-around-the-C-word kind of stuff.
First of all CZcams is now over and secondly of course it's not gonna work out it's now a mess everyone will get too frustrated and leave CZcams I know this cause it's just too many rules..no one can be perfect it's not possible
demonetized, all controls and options eliminated, all means for it to be seen removed with the exception of going directly to your channel. oh and it cant be in a play list and we will not tell you subscribers it exits. infact. more people will likely see it if you put it unlisted, turned off targeted ads and tweeted a link to it...
“onision is fine tho. just harass and stalk your exes and other youtubers and you’re gucci.”
@@AlisaForestHillsBrigades One issue with that idea is that CZcams has always been a mess, especially for the big channels with multiple operators that they target. Folding Ideas' VidMe video went over that a bit, I think it made the point pretty clear.
The new scariest five words you'll ever hear: "Introducing CZcams's new automated system".
MattheJ1 worse than “ENEMY AC-130 ABOVE”
MattheJ1 Lol now I have to delete the one video I have on my channel very irrelevant channel.
*visibly terrified*
I'm from the future, it's scary AF 😣
Christ...
This is extremely insidious and disgusting.
The moment I heard about this case I immediately thought about how CZcams could easily stop targeting children with ads.
It's too much of a financial loss to lose that. They don't have to give up on all of the targeted ads on children.
All they had to do was make a first time log in that says "We use information such as age, watch history, gender, and various other things to make Curated Ads for your benefit. You, or your parents, must consent to this, otherwise you cannot use our site. For more information, check out *link to moneysense*"
I don't understand how after all this, because people want to support and stay on youtube. I have to be honest, if youtube ceases to exist, I don't know if I'll be happy or sad. happy because google has tired me, it unloads the responsibilities to the users that however it treats like sl*ves, taking huge amounts of money from us all (percentages on the advertising, percentages on the donation, etc), and now in order to earn still money, it puts in danger the own users, making them risk the fine. The only thing that will make me sad will be to think of all the people who support themselves thanks to youtube.
I strongly hope that this is the end of youtube and that we find a better platform, decentralized and where users have the power (like LBRY)if possible.
@@ebbandfloatzel
That would actually be very logical.
Isn't it weird how any normal person can think of a simple and reasonable solution, but the FTC and CZcams can't.
@@Amber_Phoenix the problem is that the consent must be from the parents, not from the child. youtube has no way of knowing if the parent has accepted the contract, unless youtube forces the registration with a credit card, etc.
@@aurorareali7125 even still, how many people actuall y read the wall of legalese text that pops up when agreeing to the terms of service, and how many parents would sign up to CZcams for their own use, then let their kid use their logon?
Clickbait title: Legal Failure Spiderman Elsa FTC COPPA For Kids
excellent
Exactly why I’m here
Pregnant Elsa*
@@TriviaMania_ @Awesome Awesomeness
Those additions are necessary and I'm ashamed for missing them.
Also: Fidget Spinners.
It was a wise man who once said: "Platforms aren't your friends".
I've heard that many cycles ago. Since then I estabilished - Capital isn't your good mouthfeel. Cultivate your community and don't play with matches, maybe sell your house to aquaman.
Laughs in CD project red
@@marekwygnany924 the lyric anthem of breadtube
@@WangleLine Get me Patricia Taxxon on the line. We got the hit.
also corporation's are not your friend. when there's no money being made, then they don't care.
This is like a bad horror movie where the monster kills everybody and then itself
😂😂
It's very scary I mean CZcams is defentally over
@@krispynuggies6204 I understood that reference
This is like a drug dealer getting arrested and turning in his customers to get a reduced sentence.
@METATRON PRODUCTIONS LIMITED pretty much self expanatory
CZcams then: "broadcast yourself"
CZcams now: "abandon hope all ye who enter"
This is basically the Permian-Triassic extinction for CZcams. 80-90% of content creators are screwed.
@@sran438 Vimeo and Patreon is still out there.
That might be a idea if we can unbanned CZcams like this than coppa will have nothing to banned
What really gets me is that CZcams has spent the past few years discouraging creators from producing anything but all-ages content through the threat of demonitization. Now that same content might put them at risk, if the lack of swearing and adult humor allow it to be construed as specifically for children.
Reilly it’s a real conundrum
Sounds like they're just trying to get the riff-raff off CZcams so they can focus on only giving money to the big channels.
Is it a catch-22?
That's a great point.
Scott Watrous yep, making way for all the late night tv host CZcams channels, all the Will Smith-like channels taking over the platform. Channels who they’d never actually go after with this compliance.
All these efforts let me think that CZcams actually doesn't like CZcams.
They like add money, but they don't like liability and they don't like paying for actual humans to do site moderation. So they tend to put as much they can under their algorithms control and build said algorithms to prioritize getting add money.
Of course not. CZcams likes money. End of sentence
Google doesn’t really like CZcams. It’s a money sink. Even with all the ads, it’s insanely expensive to host the massive amount of content that is available on CZcams. I don’t know where they’re at now but industry experts reckon that CZcams has made a loss every year leading up to 2019.
Robby Rob supposedly CZcams doesn’t even make Google any profit, so I think CZcams like is the red headed step child of the Alphabet company family.
@@sovietcanuckistanian but the number of videos uploaded to the site hourly makes it nigh impossible for a set of humans to monitor the videos without bottlenecking the upload rate. So there is really no good solution to this problem.
10:30 : "CZcams is, in effect, trying to build a scenario where they are still allowed to gather and utilize children's data in serving targeted behavioral ads with the blame falling on channel owner for allowing them to gather that information and serve those ads."
Dang.
Yeah, not only can they continue to break the law, if they get caught they can just blame it on someone else and the creator bears the penalty instead of them.
Everyone: The algorithm is the problem, not the creators
CZcams: *More algorithm? Well if you insist*
Clickbait title: CZcams sells broken glass to kids and YOU have to clean it up!
missing a question mark
That isn't how clickbait works. Clickbait implies that it is a misleading statement.
@@DriscolDevil no lol clickbait is baiting a click not misleading
That’s not even clickbait, that’s literally all this is
@@akroblodon9449 No, clickbait is misleading for clicks. Trying to draw viewers is just how marketing works in general.
This does feel like a bad movie, so no surprise you decided to make a video on the topic.
Dude the big joel video and now here, are we going to see you on the hbomberguy video ?
@@Lrripper I am yet to watch it. What an excellent Thursday!
This has to be a bad movie, I mean there's literally a person called Commissioner Slaughter.
Careful with your channel, most great generals began their career as children and early teens.
Kings and Generals your channels is fine no one gives a f about history
The FTC should multiply the payment required by CZcams tenfold for their malicious compliance. This is a bad faith effort, through and through.
Shut up i will not lett CZcams do this
Agree, $170m is a drop in the bucket for Google.
This is probably one of the only proper, researched, level-headed videos on the topic on all of CZcams. 👍 But even then, it only tangentially stated that this is specifically protecting the _privacy_ of children rather than their innocence. This isn't about protecting children from nasty content that could traumatize them, it's _only_ about data-collection. I have yet to see any videos pointing out that distinction. :-\ Also, Google believes in having _all_ the informations, but only giving out a bit. 😒
So to sum up, CZcams lied to us about what was actually made necessary by their settlement. I already suggested this on a different video too, but tweet this at CZcams, and you know, ask them why they lied to us!
It's obvious why they lied to us: plausible deniability and shifting the blame. The FCC is a scapegoat.
@@WobblesandBeanOne, it's the FTC, and two, ya, we all know that, but the point of the comment was that we should directly ask CZcams, accusingly, so that we might be able to force them admit part of that. Like how could you not get that?
THE TIME TO ACT #STORMCZcamsHQ !!
Thank you for helping setting the record straight and reaffirming that CZcams is a garbage website
Emily Daenzer yet, here we are... 😣
He already did a video on how CZcams is garbage, but no one is going anywhere.
Try 3Speak and d.tube.
Ron Nickels Ron Nickels it’s hard to find a comparable site and get a majority to migrate. Like twitch and mixer maybe CZcams competition needs a popular spokesperson to spearhead the move. But I don’t see it happening anytime soon sad to say.
@@HeatherHolt This act affects all websites..Twitch and Mixer both so there is no running from it. I am personally afraid that my content so far hasn't been labelled for kids (since it isn't for them)and will be taken down
I'm commenting to increase engagement so more people see this
Likewise
Im liking everything i possibly can
Al Gorithm is a big meanie
i'm replying to do the same
Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me to do that
CZcams to Creators: Here, pay my fines for me.
Creators: Send infinite Waluigis from Isabelle.
I WILL NEVER PAY!!!!!
With how strict COPPA was when I had to work with it moderating the miiverse, it's insane with what CZcams was/is allowed to get away with
You moderated part of Miiverse? That's so cool!
Got any examples of such strictness that you can share?
@@ZipplyZane broadly speaking we were responsible for all content on the Miiverse, including monitoring for any underage accounts not flagged as such. We also received and processed COPPA requests where parents signed off on their 12 and under kids' Nintendo accounts allowing them to use normally age restricted network features. Also it was before my time working there, but apparently the WiiU video chat was an absolute nightmare to deal with for reasons I can only let you speculate about.
@@thelegalsystem Whoa that's awesome. Did you work for Nintendo America? How long did you work there? I'm a big Nintendo fan so it's cool to hear from a real employee.
Same, I was the Abuse department for a pretty large Webhosting company (no, you read that right, just me, doing ALL the DMCA, COPPA, court order seizures, etc.) and I shit you not, people were carted to prison and their hard drives impounded as evidence for waaaaaay less.
CZcams is one of the worst monopolies of the internet age.
Google in general is creepy and unsettling as fuck when you start to think about it.
@@Donnerbalken28 I wish their company mottow hadn't been changed and that it was actually stived for
Does anyone have a halfway decent alternative? besides pornhub?
@@runecowman I recommend LBRY.
decentralized(p2p), direct exchange of money between user and creator, without percentages taken by third parties.
there is both the application for linux / windows / mac / android / IOS and the web version.
I don't think it makes sense to opt for a youtube clone (centralized, no power to the users, a company decides for you).
maybe it will be difficult at the beginning, but over time these new platforms will grow and surpass youtube.
opt for a CZcams clone is easier at the beginning, but over time we will find ourselves in the same current situation.
@@aurorareali7125 And P2P models like that are destined to run into the RIAA using DMCA to shut it down. That is always been the death of decentralized video models
Who's ready for a class action lawsuit against CZcams?
@Fatelyne : Seriously. They took 8chan from us, we should take CZcams from them.
What money did you lose from youtube, what damages were done warranting a payout? Dont say stupid shit
Says the person still using their platform.
Keep celebrating that you are going to blow your own foot off.
@Fatelyne then stop using it.
@@kafkabigmon Look at the idiots you are talking to, they think they are owed money for everything.
Thank you for this video. I was under the misconception (like CZcams wanted) that there was a problem with the FTC's law, rather than how CZcams decided to maliciously implement it. Don't know how CZcams managed to dupe me so good. I feel played. As an animation channel, how CZcams impliments this COPPA thing will spell disaster for myself and the rest of the animation community, and that frustration needs to be redirected to where it belongs: CZcams.
This is a routine feature of American industry: any kind of financial or enviornmental regulation or labor protection is always retaliated against with a deliberately dysfunctional implementation designed to make the lives of workers and consumers miserable thereby discrediting the very concept of regulations and protections.
December 31st, 2019 11:59pm should have been a moment of celebration, but there I was, in a darkened living room, lit only by my PC monitor as I removed 24 animation based music videos from my non-monetized channel. Only days before, the copyright owners of AC/DC's "Who Made Who" had cleared my video for worldwide display. The bad news for the video was the choice of a dancing, prancing Buzz Lightyear. The other 23 removed videos featured either Just Dance green screen animated dancers or psychedelia oriented animated GIFs. It was difficult enough to forget about the couple of hundred hours that went into producing the videos. But what really got my worry warts itching was the threat of huge fines from a right-wing government out to control the message & the messengers, fanned by corner-stone financial sources important to the political party in power and fronted by the FTC's boiler room monitoring staff, out to prove their worth and out for the easy kill.
What went through my head when this hit my feed: "FINALLY... someone who will talk about the thing by actually explaining the thing."
As someone who hangs out in gaming communities where people have Let's Play or review CZcams channels, you have NO IDEA how much panic I've been subjected to in the past couple weeks with people claiming that the jackbooted thugs of the FTC are going to destroy all gaming on the Internet and that users need to mark all video games as "for kids" or suffer fines of $40k per video just because ALL video games are "for kids" in their imagined version of a government regulator. Could you please try making a shorter version of this video that front-loads that message about "CZcams is deliberately stoking panic and directing it at the FTC" to make this easier to show them?
The FTC carries some fault here because they do define "content aimed at children" as including "video games, jokes, music, and bright flashy colors/graphics".
That said they're unlikely to go after creators as individuals instead of just focusing on youtube and google as those two are the ones doing the actual data collection.
+
@@sunn7615 They don't, though. Like. That's one of those ways youtube has been intentionally obfuscating the point. Those things are factors to be considered, but none of them by themselves make the video qualify as content aimed at children. They're just considered to be more likely to be.
A human being has to make the determination to issue fines, and they're going to do that based on non-automated reviews of offending content, a human who is able to understand such things as context. And if challenged on it they need to be able to get it past a court.
There's no way most of the people panicking about this would actually get hit by fines if they don't flag their stuff correctly.
@@daredaemon8878 I agree that it'll mostly be humans making the determinations, but the actual -legal definition- guideline defintion is outdated and does need to be updated. Not because it's inherently wrong, but because new information and new ways of thinking about content production have popped up since it was made. This is one of those cases where fixing something that isn't broken is a good idea (as long as you do it right).
And in this case the ftc does carry blame because the legal definition of "content for kids" is being passed around and assumed (based on faulty logic and extreme disinformation) to be the be-all-end-all for what is and is not for kids.
If nothing else, it's what youtube's algorithm is most likely using for the flagging process.
And thus, it needs updating (even though it's not broken)
EDITED: to fix some words
@@sunn7615 There's no such thing as a 'legal definition of content for kids' there's what youtube is trying to pass off as such.
But the FTC just has a list of guidelines that are neither all-encompassing nor conclusive. The more of such factors your video includes, the more likely they think it is to be for kids.
That's all those guidelines mean. If your content is obviously not for kids, then you don't need to worry; no matter whether or not some of the guidelines (not rules, much less laws) apply to your video.
so basically
what we were lead to believe:
youtube: HELP! BIG BAD government trying to mess with innocent content creators just trying to make a living!
what really happened
CZcams: LET'S TAKE THE BURDEN OF COPPA COMPLIANCE... AND PUSH IT SOMEWHERE ELSE! and by that we mean our content creators
This is maddening; but what is also maddening is that for youtubers like myself who DO NOT WANT TO MONETIZE their channel there is no way to turn off the ads. Casual and amateur video makers like myself who made youtube possible in the first place (from before 2011 or so when the ads started) now just get exploited in service of a bottom line that is oppressive and greedy.
CZcams can't help themselves. Even when warned against implementing yet another algorithm and instead told to have a system for creators to self identify, YT says "Okay, we'll do the thing you say we must... but we're also going to do the algorithm thing that'll have wide reaching negative side effects."
And there is actually even a somewhat easy fix if they still want to go the stupid-algorithm route. Have uploaded videos be scanned by the algorithms _before_ going public, the creator then is notified of any possible problems the idiot-AI detects and can have the video reviewed by a person. And then, finally, the video can be made live once it's all-clear, to get the revenue and such that it'll get without unexpected interruption. It would put a potentially lengthy delay in the process between when a video is finished and when it's actually available. And of course there's still the terrible copyright claim system that a lot of channels that cover popular media or news or even create original content deal with and which I've seen recently get abused by newscorps like NBC and CNN falsely claiming copyright on reputable channels using public domain C-SPAN footage.
No good. The majority of videos are already out there.
@@EsotericBibleSecrets
Majority of lost money is on new videos
Lengthy unpredictable delay before a video posts will hurt creators whose posting is time-sensitive because it relates to recent events or recently released products there is strong but short-lived interest in.
Yes, or better yet, turn the whole approach on its head: allow 13-and-under accounts but sandbox them into YT Kids which acts as a whitelist for curated content, then make the rest of YT as not available for kid accounts. Any content that is bound for kids goes through a manual application process to be approved. When a regular/adult YT account begins exhibiting signs of being used by a child (eg watching something that the vague guidelines the algorithm reviews for flagging as POTENTIALLY for kids, having been watched on repeat tens of times or more, which is generally a surefire indicator) it should present a sanity check to ensure that the user isn't a kid that is using mommy's phone without permission (eg demanding a passcode that the adult owner of the account had created) and should the passcode be entered in the event of child use (eg parent giving up after being nagged relentlessly by child) then the entering of that passcode with subsequent use by a minor is construed as parental consent. Done and dusted.
The big benefit of their current method is shifting liability to creators. They aren't incentivized to make things good for creators, especially when they will just take whatever youtube craps out.
I honestly feel this video could be presented in court as-is in order to argue for further changes YT should make, under legal coercion.
More than likely this video will get flagged and deleted when the crack down begins
@Victor Valencia could you get this guy to testify as a witness? I'm a law student, but I'm not from the US and I've been wondering what could be done here. I know how you could handle this in my country, but I'm interested in your solution.
THE TIME TO ACT #STORMCZcamsHQ !!
Someone, please download this video, make copies of it. And send it to the FTC. CZcams might take it down.
Please send this to Legal Eagle, I've already emailed him to beg that je cover this because everything I've been seeing before this seemed to be missing something. Everyone that makes adult content that could be mistaken for kid targeted have been whipped into a panicked feenzy, which is always a red flag.
“When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”
A law that effectively summarises why CZcams’s automated crap does not work. Additionally, people at Google should have been taken to jail for this shit; that is the only language they will understand.
You are the first person that has pointed out the reality that CZcams wants to be able to keep tracking data above all else and wants to shift onus of compliance to creators just to cover their own butts.
Rachel B shift onus. Cover anus
I was waiting for this one specifically because when CZcams starts messing up and everyone is confused/scared you can never really tell who's got the right story
As a content creator, I am deeply grateful for this video. There has been so much conflicting information flying around about this topic, and having Dan to cut through the noise with a succinct explanation is a godsend.
Problem: "You collect too much personal data"
Solution: Collect less personal data
CZcams&FTC solution: Destroy content instead
I have some suggestions for youtube:
General Reminder, you have to be 13 years or older to make an account Ergo only teens, adults, and seniors can have one
-First, make comments, notifications, likes. ALL require an account to be signed in to even view regardless of video rating. This would protect our children from seeing inappropriate comments without a parent or older sibling being signed in.
-Second. Add some account settings to control what the VIEWER can see/ interact with. i.e DISABLED Comments, Notifications, Likes. JUST Comments. and ALL Enabled.
This would allow parents to protect their child from inappropriate
comments and their childrens data being collected, while also allowing
adults to still comment/read comments on toys for possible unmentioned
defects such as toxins or choking hazards. Or even to enjoy fan made
content or kid content themselves, since the data could only be
collected with it enabled by the adult. Of course the DISABLED feature
would be enabled by default. Maybe even make enabling it harder, like
requiring a long randomly generated security key that is sent to the
parent's email to be manually typed in not copy and pasted.
-Third, leave it up to the Viewers Discretion whether a video is kid
friendly or not. Since Bots can miss flag It happened with tumblr where
you can STILL find porn despite the bots, something could seem kid
friendly but contain profanity or inappropriate content. Or the content
creator could mislabel it on accident or because they KNOW it's not just
for kids. WHICH youtube could still be sued over by the FTC for
"failing to abide by COPPA". My idea is, Add a new button before the like thumbs up icon to flag a video as kid friendly. Then have the bots just count how many times it was toggled on, and ONCE it reaches a certain number BAM video flagged as kid friendly. Then to override the flag, the creator would only have to provide proof that video isn't for kids or just for kids. Even a simple statement or swear word in the video would do. Then once it's flag is removed, the threshold number for the video is DOUBLED to make it harder to abuse Much easier and less prone to mistakes from the bots.
-Forth. Allow kid friendly videos to be added to playlists, since some
parents would like to make a playlist for their child for them to view
while they are busy or away. This way to avoid an inappropriate video from being shown by mistake
If you agree, PLEASE let the CZcams, FTC and COPPA officials know about my suggestions and please share.
Coppa may be right, but CZcams isn't handling it properly.
I have some suggestions for youtube:
General Reminder, you have to be 13 years or older to make an account Ergo only teens, adults, and seniors can have one
-First, make comments, notifications, likes. ALL require an account to be signed in to even view regardless of video rating. This would protect our children from seeing inappropriate comments without a parent or older sibling being signed in.
-Second. Add some account settings to control what the VIEWER can see/ interact with. i.e DISABLED Comments, Notifications, Likes. JUST Comments. and ALL Enabled.
This would allow parents to protect their child from inappropriate
comments and their childrens data being collected, while also allowing
adults to still comment/read comments on toys for possible unmentioned
defects such as toxins or choking hazards. Or even to enjoy fan made
content or kid content themselves, since the data could only be
collected with it enabled by the adult. Of course the DISABLED feature
would be enabled by default. Maybe even make enabling it harder, like
requiring a long randomly generated security key that is sent to the
parent's email to be manually typed in not copy and pasted.
-Third, leave it up to the Viewers Discretion whether a video is kid
friendly or not. Since Bots can miss flag It happened with tumblr where
you can STILL find porn despite the bots, something could seem kid
friendly but contain profanity or inappropriate content. Or the content
creator could mislabel it on accident or because they KNOW it's not just
for kids. WHICH youtube could still be sued over by the FTC for
"failing to abide by COPPA". My idea is, Add a new button before the like thumbs up icon to flag a video as kid friendly. Then have the bots just count how many times it was toggled on, and ONCE it reaches a certain number BAM video flagged as kid friendly. Then to override the flag, the creator would only have to provide proof that video isn't for kids or just for kids. Even a simple statement or swear word in the video would do. Then once it's flag is removed, the threshold number for the video is DOUBLED to make it harder to abuse Much easier and less prone to mistakes from the bots.
-Forth. Allow kid friendly videos to be added to playlists, since some
parents would like to make a playlist for their child for them to view
while they are busy or away. This way to avoid an inappropriate video from being shown by mistake
If you agree, PLEASE let the CZcams, FTC and COPPA officials know about my suggestions and please share.
Coppa may be right, but CZcams isn't handling it properly.
@@electrobob992 you should make your comment on the ftc website. They are taking comments until dec 9th. Idk how to include direct links into cmts but if you find the vid nerdecrafter where she talks about coppa and has link to ftc website where you can copy and past your comment
I mean, if you don't have any content, you can't collect personal data anymore, right?
So it’s like Tumblr’s algorithm for mature contents, but in reverse.
Never trust a robot, EVER!
This is going to harm the speed running community too. Adults playing children's games in technical way that is not for children.
Let's Plays of kids games are hurt by this too. I wish Dan went into the definition of kids content from FTC and CZcams points of view.
Speed runners are good at getting around restrictions. Personally I'd recommend that they start every run with some racial slurs.
@@iamfunnyface I've jokingly stated that I am tempted to just drop a loud, unmissable F-Bomb RIGHT before my videos for anything rated Teen and up, JUST to make sure CZcams knows what kinda game it's getting into.
I doubt it.
@@iamfunnyface I'm guessing this was a joke, but even so, having content not appropriate for kids doesn't mean that content isn't also being directed at kids. Probably wouldn't work.
This video is like sequel/spin-off to the video "Weird Kids' Videos and Gaming the Algorithm
"
Spiderman vs Elsa
Whoever Wins, We Lose
My favorite part of this was the couple of days (weeks?) when almost every Panty and Stocking clip on youtube was marked as “for kids”.
Can we place something like:
"This video is not for kids, or of persons 13 years and under. Your data will be collected by youtube. By continuing to view this video, you or your guardian explicitly give permission for youtube to collect data.
The creator of this video is not liable for any information or data that might be collected from you."
Yeah the smarter and saner option
That makes way more sense. Only CZcams the company should be fined
Kids can’t legally consent to that.
Eh, there's strict liability. I don't think this would work.
Ali the Heep +
God they really went for the worst way to fix this, youtube can actually push youtube kids. Then make stricter rules for people who are actually aiming for kids. Keeping the check if it is for kids then for those who do check it, then that content would be analyzed. Or you know, not target kids.
or they could have literally dumped all their non-compliant data and remade the system so that it never happens again within reason, but here we are
In your first sentence, does "they" refer to the FTC? Because it sounds to me like the FTC is basically in the right here. As quoted in the video, they said youtube's algorithmic solution was trash, for the exact same reasons Dan also said they're trash.
@@Dorian_sapiens I'd assumed "they" referred to youtube but upon re-reading it does seem to refer to the ftc instead.
Dorian sapiens I do mean CZcams, however I see how it can be seen as the FTC. Although the FTC also should update what they see as child content
@@cookie_keko2422 OK, now I see what you mean, and I agree! Thanks for clarifying.
I hate how likely it is that the cheeky “happy fun time” music at the end well might make the algorithm label this video as “for kids”
I love how likely it is that the cheeky “happy fun time” music at the end well might make the algorithm label this video as “for kids”
Good. Hope they get scarred and realize that not everything on the net is for those kids.
Mod 1: I dunno, Boss. This is really dry, is mostly a guy looking at the camera without overt-the-top graphics, and uses words like "granular" and "commission", are we sure this video is for kids?
Mod 2: He said the words "Hasbro" and "Disney" and showed 3 seconds of that superheroes linedancing animation, how much more explicit does he need to be for you to get it?
Theres literally a Commisioner Slaughter working on this, god rest our souls
6:59 That is a perfect explanation for CZcams's mindset on pretty much everything nowadays, I gotta quote that. The FTC is barely to blame for all the problems going on here, as we all should've damn well expected.
Dollightful is one of my favorite CZcams channels (if not my favorite, since I get so excited when she uploads!) and I love that many of these COPPA explanation videos are using her as an example of family friendly, NOT FOR KIDS doll customizing. She does some gnarly transformative stuff with those dolls, man. Even I’d need my Dad’s help and I’m well into adulthood! Yet she could be penalized just for her choice of medium and colorful tendencies. Messed. Up.
Danielle C god, the whole 'colour' thing is just frustrating. Colours. Only for kids. No adult likes colour. Only beige.
watson483 1984 Orwell Grey only
watson483 Every adult is a business man in a Gray tweed suit. There is no outlier.
"Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter"
Rebecca Slaughter
SLAUGHTER
That's the most metal naume ever
Rebecca Sugar's evil twin
I honestly think a shorter, more clicky video would be good for this. Or at least rename this one to "CZcams lied about COPPA" to get it trending.
I mean, I didn't see your title and realize at all that it was going to contradict every other video I've seen. I only came because I knew you would have the scoop and I could trust you, while not so much anyone else.
But this video needs to get to the people who normally don't watch your vids.
Plus I like the irony of using clickbait to exploit the algorithm for good instead of evil.
Can we get this in trending so we know why youtube has an apocalypse in like 3 months?
In order to do that, all of us would have to share if to get it trending
3 months? Try literally right now since people are already deleting their channels out of fear that something worse than losing their entire channels could possibly happen to them.
@@mjbridges People I know from other sites. Not anyone I actually watch.
I know it's probably spelled Slauter or similar, but Commissioner Slaughter sounds like a Batman villain.
Rognik Actually, it sounds like a wrestler-turned-G.I.-Joe-character, Sergeant Slaughter.
Slaughter yeah as in killer and she's gonna slaughter this platform to death.
Check the description, it actually is spelt Slaughter.
@@peterprime2140 that can't be right. I've seen some bad last names, and I can't believe someone would have the last name spelled Slaughter outside of cartoons or comic books.
It's apparently a real surname.
"a CZcams channel is an operator."
already a bullcrap claim, but when did I tell CZcams to data collect?
Thank you for addressing this. This is a great break down of the nuances of why the terms of the settlement are unreasonable. I've consumed a lot of content on this subject and this is one of the best.
It's a good day when Hbomberguy and Dan drop videos on the same day.
gonna go buy pathologic2 then?
Let's be honest, Hbomberguy dropped a feature film...
And it's not even the 30th!
Truth
i actually came to a similar conclusion on my own given the evidence, and like you, i am confused as to why the FTC is going after individual youtubers rather than google adsense, and i can only assume that the people that complained to the FTC only complained about youtube and weren't familiar with google adsense.
In conclusion:
don't trust youtube
complain to the FTC about targeting youtubers and go after google adsense instead
BetterThanYouXuD That’s interesting idea I will look into it
Who are the CZcamsrs which the ftc has gone after? I haven't heard of any actual cases of this, just vague fears of what could happen (as discussed in this video)
@@smickles not specific youtubers; youtubers in general. And they haven't actually done it yet; they said that they _would_ do it. The exact quote from one of it's representatives was "not only can we sue google and youtube, but also individual channels and youtubers". Naturally, they would more than likely sue only the worst offenders (i would imagine the ones that get people the most upset), but i feel that would still be crossing a line since youtubers don't actually have much of a say in who's information gets collected and subsequently sold. In addition, since he didn't mention specifically Google AdSense and I can't find anything about the FTC sueing them yet, it feels really up in the air about whether they will do so at all; but then again i am uncertain of the connection between Google AdSense and youtube (it might be that youtube collects the information, then immediately passes it off to AdSense to be processed and sold. if this is the case, then the grounds they have to sue might not be there at all (though I haven't done enough research into that and am not a lawyer so i can't say for sure either way, but considering they can sue youtubers i would presume that they would))
This is just a backdoor to subtle censorship. For now it's child directed content but who knows what it will be in the next decade or so ?
Probably because they decided it in a settlement and not in an actual trial.
So in other words, CZcams forces compliance (and repercussions) upon its content creators -- the life blood of its very business -- and yet gets to continue skimming revenue off mis-targeted ads along with collecting and analyzing said mis-targeted data to further its ad business model. Typical corporate profit-friendly manipulation for rules compliance.
fun fact: the donald duck cartoon "der furhers face" is marked as YT kids
there really needs to be a youtuber union
YA9 We have one! It’s called FairTube; the channel Jeorg Sprave hosts FairTube info videos.
You can only join a Union as an employee, if independent creators Unionize it's called a Trust, which is highly illegal.
I'm pretty sure it's not "highly illegal" to collectively bargain just because you technically don't have an employer.
See, the issue with a hypothetical CZcamsr union, even if it were only applied in the US, is that not every place has the same laws regarding union protections.
I live in North Carolina, where we have a ton of so-called "right to work" laws that effectively neuter any collective bargaining power unions could potentially have, so a union of internet contractors (which is the closest thing to what you could legally classify CZcamsrs as) would run into a TON of logistical issues as far as how to effectively implement it.
this is some good stuff dan, hoping more engagement on this will get it bumped up a bit
This is the calmest, no-nonsense smackdown I've ever watched.
Wow
It is almost as if CZcams shouldn’t have forced its creators to make child friendly content
Oh golly gee gosh darn
I knew this would happen as soon as the CZcams Kids app came out. I knew there was no way to ensure the content was child appropriate unless actual humans were monitoring it and there was no way that would happen. It was inevitable they'd get in trouble.
Thank you for answering the question I've been having, why can't CZcams just turn off ads for kids. I guess the answer is obvious though.
With several of the creators I watch going off about this COPPA development, I was starting to get very worried about what the future of CZcams might be. I’m still worried, but this is almost reassuring because it feels less like creators are being targeted by the FTC for creating content that shares broad definitions with children’s content and more like CZcams’s general automated fuckups.
I've spent the past couple of days looking at many different videos speaking on this issue. Yours is by far the best one, followed by a social media lawyer whose name slipped my mind.
Thanks!
I want to thank you for taking the time to cover this topic. And also i want to thank you for taking the time to add in CC to your video. I rely on CC to understand a video far more then I should and automated CC is confusing at best when it's working. So thank you.
Can't make algorithms for art. At least laws require interpretation.
algorithms are the enemy of the art.
Algorithms for art are theoretically possible, but there's a substantial risk that CZcams would need to pay it a salary and give it time off.
@@timothymclean I'm curious how they are theoretically possible. Sure you could give an algorithm metrics by which to create art, but those metrics are heavily skewed by the metrics given.
IE - An algorithm is never going to create a new style or genre of art because there's no way for it to act outside of its given parameters.
@@AdeptusForge How do you teach a human to identify and interpret art? If nothing else, make an AI and do that. You could probably take some shortcuts, but everyone remotely qualified that I've heard of agrees that humanlike artificial intelligence is theoretically possible.
@@AdeptusForge There was this one video I saw about a bunch of different AI's and them of them was one in which you gave it two images and it drew one of the images in the style of the other. The things you can do with AI (especially machine learning / deep learning) is mind-boggling.
I can see why the issue is frightening now.
Also terrible timing given the recent "Commercially Viable" scare.
read the TOS
This is the most informative breakdown of this I've seen yet!
Gods, thank you for making this. Other videos I've seen weren't nearly as plain and clear with the issue, and to some degree implied that the list of topics of what is considered "child-friendly" was a creation of the FTC and not an intentionally vague document by youtube.
so, again, thank you, and I hope this engagement helps.
Thank you for making this dude.
*sees dollightful footage*
You have good taste in doll customizers
*Giant shitbag companies like Hasbro and Mattel:* _"You'll never catch me alive, COPPA!"_
*Innocent bystander content creators, being run over by speeding getaway vehicle:* [thump] _"Ow."_
This is hands down the best video I've seen about the whole COPPA situation on CZcams. Its clear, straight-forward, and takes the situation seriously, but does not engage in fear-mongering. Great stuff man!
You're out here doing the Lord's work as always, thank you
Regarding the issue of recommendations, how does the algorithm go forward recommending videos for child viewers if metrics that typically determine viewership are limited to videos that are not for children? Will children be more likely to be recommended adult content due to these measures?
I'd imagine content marked as "for kids" would get put in some kind of special playlist made by youtube('s algorithms because let's face it youtube is averse to having humans work on content sorting/flagging) but this is an interesting question that needs a more concrete answer from youtube itself.
Kid: *watches Baby Shark*
The Algorithm: Next up - Deadly SHARK Attacks BABY at Western Australian Beach (DISTURBING FOOTAGE!!!!!)
@@katejay9786 Responsible parent: "That's enough youtube for today, back to kidstube!"
@@katejay9786 Bought to you by Channel Nine Fearmongerin- Channel Nine News!
I suspect that they aren't allowed to collect individualized data, but they could still collect anonymized data about how many viewers from one video go watch another video. Hence why that last line wasn't crossed out at 6:07.
I mean how can they know if people are "watching multiple videos" if they can't collect any data at all?
I am going to be linking to this video so many times in the coming days and weeks. Thank you for making it, Dan.
Easily the clearest & most thought-out response to this whole thing I've seen. Thank you for constantly folding our ideas :)
You're still one of the best CZcamsrs reporting on social/content platforms and their evolution!
I'm a huge fan of doll repainting videos (as well as a costomizer myself) so thank you for making this
Excellent video!
Covers everything I've been thinking and more with eloquence and detail.
CZcams absolutely has the power to remove information collection from users deemed under 13.
Thank you for putting this in a succinct format, Folding Ideas. I appreciate having a video that can accurately explain the situation and be easily understood. Keep making great stuff!
With every new way CZcams does to screw over content creators, i must ask:
Why are we still here? Just to suffer?
Because, as yet, no one has made a better alternative.
No. You are here because CZcams remains the best place to distribute videos to lots of people, because it's basically the only video website frequently visited by lots of people.
sadly youtube is the best of the best when it comes to video hosting and distribution, even when it sucks... big f
@@timothymclean you're forgetting p0rnhub
The content I've lost... the revenue I've lost... won't stop hurting
CZcams's gotten it's own lootbox controversy I see
Surprise Engagement
Thank God finally a resonable video about the COPPA settlement. Thank you, Sir!
Finally someone who says what I've been thinking and says it in a clear concise way I'm so glad I found this video you thank you so much for mentioning the doll modding I've been so concerned about them glad to hear someone finally mention them in a video. Hope this gets spread around .
Based on everything I've read into this, including the settlement agreement and the current iteration of COPPA, Channel Owners are not defined as operators in either COPPA or the Settlement agreement. If the FTC has clarified this elsewhere, I would appreciate being directed there.
As of right now, all I'm seeing is a lot of people getting certain parts of the current issue wrong. I'm not seeing anywhere that child-attracted content and child-directed content are the same. Per the agreement and COPPA the issue is with child-directed content and does not currently envelope child-attracted content. Meaning most channel owners would not fall into the scope of the FTC.
Now that being said, many channel owners may still experience issues with CZcams and their automated system. That's another issue entirely and should not be directed at the FTC.
Reading the complaint on the FTC website, it doesn't say outright that channel owners are operators according to COPPA, but it seems like that's implicit in the logic.
Since CZcams itself ISN'T child-directed, establishing that CZcams acted as operators of a child-directed online service required that CZcams knowingly collected data via operators of other, already established, child-directed online services - i.e. Hasbro etc.
Therefore if Hasbro etc are operators of child-directed online services (their CZcams channels), Jo CZcamsr must be an operator of an online service.
Maybe a loophole not intended to affect Jo CZcamsr, but the danger is pretty clear
@@katejay9786 Thanks for sharing that information with me. I hadn't thought of it in that way.
In this case, we definitely need the FTC to clarify further whether channel owners are in fact operators. I feel clarification on this would do a lot towards clearing up the confusion we're currently facing.
This video is great, and all CZcamsrs should watch it.
I saw a mashup of WAP and Take Me to Church flagged as children’s content once. I think that’s proof enough that something in this system is still deeply flawed.
Holy shit, the only video on this platform that looks at this problem with a clear lens and not shitting on the FTC out of habit.
I always wondered: why can't channels (say, channels above a certain size, to prevent abuse) allocate themselves as "not for kids, i promise" such that when a video is flagged from them as such it is automatically sent for human review. This would achieve CZcams's technological backstop, while also preventing adult-focused content that discusses children's media (and similar such channels) from being utterly fucked by this system.
because that would make too much sense
That's work for a human and CZcams is spending too much money on design changes to hire actual staff. /Joke
CZcams may be making profits for all we know of their disclosed financials, but the popular conception is that it's losing money on the day and if that's true they definitely wouldn't want to waste their money on even basic human moderation when they get anywhere from roughly 100-500 hours of video uploaded a minute. That and it's a tech company and all their models exist on using algorithms and tech to replace humans if at all possible and CZcams needs to present stability in its technocratic systems abilities to do the job well
So youre telling me if CZcams thinks im a kid they arent going to steal my data and spam me with ads anymore? How can I flag everything as for kids?
You don't have to. Go into your Google account, and you can disable Ad Personalization. myaccount.google.com/data-and-personalization
It doesn't stop ads though. It only stops *targeted ads*.
On an end-user level? Oh, you are missing the point entirely....
@@AceMcCrank I do not get it then. Surely, it is better to either have children accounts that allow you to register your age if you are under 13 or have "child mode" on parent's accounts and have a seperate password for getting out of the child mode and disable the personalized ads in those cases, right? What is the problem with that?
@@taylorford1689 This is actually close to what I considered for a solution. Parent account can create "child" accounts for their children to watch on. That account is now NOT being tracked, and can only get G-rated ads, and cannot comment on videos, nor are any particular videos recommended on CZcams or using the CZcams Kids app (CZcams App would default over if the signed in user is under 13). As per the agreement between the FTC and CZcams, Children's content would have to be marked by the content creators, and ONLY videos marked as targeted for under 13 would be allowed to be shown for the CZcams Kids app or an under 13 account on PC. Repeated violations of letting your kid use your ADULT account to make comments or watch videos could get your account terminated if reported and found to be true.
In my vision, Kid's accounts would not need any identifying information. You could even give these accounts aliases if you wanted to. There would be a tool where a parent can upgrade a Kid's account to a Teen account which would then need to have its information updated. Passwords at every step. Switch back to parent's account? Password. Upgrade to Teen account? Password.
CZcams's current system they are implementing is overstepping and is going to cripple creators until CZcams becomes just another Netflix; no user-created content will exist anymore in favor of the corporate agenda in the name of freedom of profitability for Google.
Thank you for talking about this, I've seen a lot of panic about this.
I've been worried, given the automatic flagging of things associated with kids (not to mention lots of fans of kids' media making things for other fans in the spirit of the canon, picturing those fans as fellow adults, and being upset that their work is marked as for children). This is a very good take on the issue.
Folding Ideas is one of my favorite channels. It's an art film in essay format with cited sources masquerading as a youtube channel.
The Profit Motive is inhumane!
Also comment for the algorithm
People blamed the regulators but the reason for its enforcement and the terrible implementation that passes the burden to innocent content creators that do not make content for kids in the first place is all You Tube's fault.
Thank you for this video - it really needed to be said. I thought the FTC was being ridiculous, but then I read the examples they listed in the lawsuit and realized it was pretty clear cut.
If CZcamsrs all form a union it should be called Younion. Just wanted to share that thought
Ian Statham there already is one
RsDefcon Yah it’s already got a name, FairTube! Not as cool, but it works :)
Folding Ideas is the hero we need.
Thank you Folding Ideas. You bring up some really interesting points that I wouldn't have otherwise thought of and I appreciate this video.
Thank you for laying it out so cleanly, and thank you for reminding us once again that corporations cannot be trusted and will only do things if it improves their profit margins.