3 ms·

There is a precedent for regulating this sort of thing. Advertising to children is regulated to some form or another just about everywhere. What's new and chal

There is a precedent for regulating this sort of thing. Advertising to children is regulated to some form or another just about everywhere. What's new and challenging here is that when a person simply posts a video they made on YouTube, that's freedom of expression. If I want to post videos of me unboxing things, there's nothing morally or legally wrong with that. The grey zone is the money being traded between toy makers and video makers. As soon as money is exchanged, that should logically be considered sponsorship and be subjected to advertising laws. Just because it's on YouTube doesn't change that a company is paying money to an entertainer to promote their products to children. There are already laws in place about this. It's only a matter of time before prosecutors get involved. Of course, the toy companies know this and have factored in the legal risks into their calculations. YouTube will be able to skirt the issue because they're just a platform for other people's stuff, and they're not being paid for these sponsorships. The real risk is being taken by the content producers, who almost certainly don't realize how liable they may find themselves to be.

Wowfunhappy 8y ago
> The grey zone is the money being traded between toy makers and video makers. As soon as money is exchanged, that should logically be considered sponsorship and be subjected to advertising laws. This strikes me as the obvious solution and really not all that gray. Kid posts video on Youtube? That's free speech. Kid posts video on Youtube and company pays them? That's now an ad, and can/should be regulated. Throwing a wrench into all of this somewhat is Citizen's United saying money is speech... but that's a stupid ruling so let's interpret it as narrowly as possible.
- sjg007 8y ago
  This will be a fun supreme court decision when it happens in the next 10 years.
sjg007 8y ago
The third option is where Youtube runs ads on top of the unboxing videos or in line with it. You also have the issue where parents have to sign up children under the age of 13.
- nickelcitymario 8y ago
  I could be wrong, but my understanding of most laws regarding advertising to kids is: It's OK to run ads on media consumed by kids (so long as those ads aren't for inappropriate things like alcohol or cigarettes or adult chat, etc). It's NOT OK to try and pressure/trick/cajole/persuade/influence or otherwise actually target those kids in the ads. It's a weird distinction, but it's what allows ads to still run on daytime television and during children's programming. For example, you can have an ad that happens to show a toy being played with (I think). You can't have an ad that tells kids to ask their mom and dad to buy it right away. There's a lot of nuance in between, but I've never bothered to master it because as a matter of principle I refused to be involved in any marketing aimed at kids. Life's too short to feel that kind of guilt.
  - sjg007 8y ago
    I find that my kids get inappropriate ads on iPad games. Even though they have age restricted accounts per Apple, it looks like 3rd party ad providers are violating the law. I'm not sure how to address it..
tinus_hn 8y ago
Wasn’t there already some rule requiring people to disclose if they’re being paid?

Wowfunhappy 8y ago

> The grey zone is the money being traded between toy makers and video makers. As soon as money is exchanged, that should logically be considered sponsorship and be subjected to advertising laws. This strikes me as the obvious solution and really not all that gray. Kid posts video on Youtube? That's free speech. Kid posts video on Youtube and company pays them? That's now an ad, and can/should be regulated. Throwing a wrench into all of this somewhat is Citizen's United saying money is speech... but that's a stupid ruling so let's interpret it as narrowly as possible.

sjg007 8y ago
This will be a fun supreme court decision when it happens in the next 10 years.

sjg007 8y ago

The third option is where Youtube runs ads on top of the unboxing videos or in line with it. You also have the issue where parents have to sign up children under the age of 13.

nickelcitymario 8y ago
I could be wrong, but my understanding of most laws regarding advertising to kids is: It's OK to run ads on media consumed by kids (so long as those ads aren't for inappropriate things like alcohol or cigarettes or adult chat, etc). It's NOT OK to try and pressure/trick/cajole/persuade/influence or otherwise actually target those kids in the ads. It's a weird distinction, but it's what allows ads to still run on daytime television and during children's programming. For example, you can have an ad that happens to show a toy being played with (I think). You can't have an ad that tells kids to ask their mom and dad to buy it right away. There's a lot of nuance in between, but I've never bothered to master it because as a matter of principle I refused to be involved in any marketing aimed at kids. Life's too short to feel that kind of guilt.
- sjg007 8y ago
  I find that my kids get inappropriate ads on iPad games. Even though they have age restricted accounts per Apple, it looks like 3rd party ad providers are violating the law. I'm not sure how to address it..

tinus_hn 8y ago

Wasn’t there already some rule requiring people to disclose if they’re being paid?