20 ms·
Better protecting kids’ privacy on YouTube
- MisterBastahrd 7y agoGood. Most kids' content on Youtube is nothing more than long infomercials for products anyway. If that section (and the political sections) of the site could be rolled into a ball and launched into the sun, the world would be a better place.
- TazeTSchnitzel 7y agoThe suspicious thing is YouTube tries to detect children's content, not users who are children… so this means YouTube is doing ad targeting on what it believes to be children so long as they're not watching “children's content”? Or such is the impression I got from this excellent essay about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuScIN4emyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuScIN4emyo
- pkaye 7y agoHow would YouTube know the user is a child?
- throwaway2048 7y agoWhere do you think Google Analytics demographic data comes from.
- pkaye 7y agoI don't know. Enlighten me. And how accurate is the identification?
- hannasanarion 7y agoAccurate enough that they sell it to advertisers who want children to see their ads. If their demographic detection was bad, they would have no revenue and no customers since that's the flagship product that they are selling.
- lern_too_spel 7y agoThe lowest age range YouTube Ads lets you target is 18-24.
- hannasanarion 7y agoThere are plenty of age proxies that youtube happily lets advertisers target. Advertisers can tell youtube "Show my ad to fans of Peppa Pig".
- unapologetic 7y agoOh they don't. They absolutely completely have no way at all of knowing. Just ask them, no way of being sure. Course the data is all there, but they just really promise they never put it together and knowingly went after kids.
- ronilan 7y agoAssume, just for the sake of the discussion, obviously, that it may be possible, using some certain commonly accepted methods, and with some reasonable, commonly accepted margin of error, to detect that a user, signed into an account, is NOT a child. Will this help?
- pkaye 7y agoIts better to filter out content that is targeting kids.
- derefr 7y agoWhat is a "user"? Is it the owner of the account? Or is it the person using the account at the moment? When I'm signed into the YouTube app on my smart TV, and anyone who sits in front of the TV can use the app to play content, then who is the "user" of the app? Can you detect that my child is currently the one sitting there flipping through videos?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- danShumway 7y agoDepends on whether you're willing to tolerate false positives. To start with, I'm not a huge fan of the idea that the Internet as whole could be legally obligated to assume I'm a child unless I provide every site I visit with a drivers license, for example. But let's take your assumption to the next level: let's assume that there's some privacy-respecting way of doing this (I don't believe there is, but we'll temporarily pretend it exists). I'm also not a huge fan of the idea that the Internet as a whole could be legally obligated to assume I'm a child based on criteria that are outside of my control. I personally think most of our experience with filters online have taught us that they're best implemented close to the consumer, not close to the source. To be clear, both Youtube and the FTC are turning this into a dumpster fire. But the idea of filtering content that's designed for children is better than the idea of filtering consumers. It's just that this implementation of that idea is garbage and unnecessarily hurts creators.
- ogre_codes 7y agoEither they have a children's account (https://support.google.com/families/answer/7103338?hl=en https://support.google.com/families/answer/7103338?hl=en) Or Google figures it out the same way they infer any number of things about you and use it to resell advertising. If they can figure out someone is a woman between 19 and 25, I'm pretty sure they can figure out with a good degree of accuracy that a user is under 15.
- ouid 7y agoIn a similar vein, if it's illegal to do enough tracking on a 12 year old to identify them as a 12 year old, and 12 year olds exist, then it's illegal to do any tracking, right?
- derefr 7y agoYou could just turn the negative-detection into positive detection: sell hardware that you have to be 18 to buy, and then provide your service only through that hardware.
- pkaye 7y agoParents will buy said hardware for their kids.
- derefr 7y agoWell, that's fine, then; with enough clear labelling, that's legally entirely the parents' fault.
- tssva 7y agoGoogle already requires accounts with a birth date indicating they are 13 or older, thus not subject to COPA, to verify their age via charging a credit card or sending in a copy of a government issued id. Any kids that were watching either stole a credit card or their parents created the account for them. The FTC decided this was not adequate, so I don't expect they would deem your scheme compliant either.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Traster 7y agoWell COPPA (the bill that caused this) is targeting companies that are creating content targeted at children, not targeting the children themselves. And it is the content the bill is interested in. The observable (and controversial) effect of this is an outcry by content creators, I suspect the measures they take around accounts identified as children are much less obvious and entirely orthogonal.
- iamaelephant 7y agoI suspect Google doesn't want to tip their hand and show just how unreliable their demographic data is. There's a perception among the public that these companies siphoning up so much data must be able to know everything about individual users, and in fact Google's largest revenue stream relies on this perception. If I'm right, then when the house of cards falls on this Big Data Bubble it will be painful for a lot of tech companies, Facebook and Google especially.
- TazeTSchnitzel 7y agoFair, Google may not trust their inferences to the point of them becoming a legal liability.
- iamaelephant 7y agoDo you believe that relying on their creators to be honest about the content is a better bet?
- robbrown451 7y agoI would imagine Google's legal team would answer that with a resounding "yes."
- iamaelephant 7y agoI'm not talking about Google's legal team. We already know which way their going due to the article. I'm talking about reality.
- robbrown451 7y agoOk but the post you replied to was speculating on Google's motivations, and therefore talking about legal liability. I guess if you are speaking of "what is best for society", ok, but that's a completely different thing. It sure seemed like you were debating the post above, but I guess not.
- mobjack 7y agoMy daughter uses my YouTube account to watch children's videos. She has zero interest watching anything targeted towards adults. Content is likely the strongest indicator determining if someone is a child or not.
- danShumway 7y agoThe problem is there is no good way to tell if a user is a child without violating their privacy. You can't ask their age, they'll lie. Targeting content aimed at children is... I'm not going to pretend it's good, or even long-term viable (malicious videos are still going to slip through). But it passes the extremely low bar of being better than age-verification gates.
- dwild 7y ago> The suspicious thing is YouTube tries to detect children's content, not users who are children… Theses whole changes are happening because they were tracking childrens (well they were tracking everyone, which included childrens). They can't store any data from a child, none at all. That means that they can't detect if it's a child, and even if they had a magical way to do it, storing the "isChildren" variable set as true would be illegal in itself. COPPA decided that a video targeting child was a proof that they knew child were watching, and thus tracking them. So instead they move the responsibility to the content creator to say whether the content is for kids or not (thus not storing data on the child, while still being able to not track the user which is now assumed to be a child). The only way they can store data about a child require parent permission.
- mdorazio 7y agoWhile this is good, am I missing something or is there no incentive for bad actor content creators to actually mark their content as for kids now? I’m under the impression that the recommendation algorithm would probably still point kids to a lot of the creepy garbage on there now.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Kalium 7y agohttps://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/01/youtube-decides-its-easier-to-treat-all-watchers-of-kids-content-as-kids/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/01/youtube-decides-... > Individual video creators themselves are also now personally on the hook for penalties of up to $42,350 if they fail to explicitly mark their videos as for children, the FTC said in November. This draws concern from creators who consider their content family-friendly but not necessarily child-directed. The Google blog doesn't go into it, but there are potentially significant fines attached.
- bscphil 7y agoI can think of all sorts of interesting cases here. As art, it's perfectly acceptable to remix clips from different children's shows together to make the characters swear or put them in otherwise inappropriate situations. If I made something like this, I would mark it as targeted at adults. Because it is targeted at adults, it's not meant for children. But if bright colors and recognizable characters in the automatically generated thumbnail attracted a child audience, would I be on the hook with the FTC? The bad actors here are doing something similar, but they're deliberately trying to attract children to their videos. It's understandable to hope they get nailed by the FTC for this, but it seems (to me) to require discerning intent, which is always hard.
- zozbot234 7y agoYou could mark it as NSFW content, specifically to prevent kids from watching it. A bit of a blunt solution, but then no one sane would argue that you're "targeting" kids!
- Rebelgecko 7y agoSome of the features that get disabled for "children's content" are a bit surprising: Playback in the Miniplayer Save to playlist and Save to watch later Likes and dislikes on YouTube Music Donate buttons I guess it's hard to do these in a way that is compliant with the privacy rules, or they're worried that kids will donate $1000 to their favorite Youtuber with Mom and Dad's credit card? It will be interesting to see how good their machine learning is at identifying "kid's content". From reading the FTC page, the delineation seems a bit arbitrary. I suppose we'll see if there's a financial impact on Youtubers that are borderline (is someone playing a video game considered children's content? What if the videogame is rated M? Will the tiebreaker be statistics about their actual viewers?)
- jacquesm 7y agoCYA. It's either that or denying kids access to youtube altogether and that is very hard to implement, so better to disable those features that might lead to legal exposure.
- ngold 7y agoGoogle seems to opt for the nuke it from space option as a 1st response. Let god or whatever sort it out.
- dodobirdlord 7y agoYouTube is politically popular to attack, so they know they aren’t going to get the benefit of the doubt. And when regulators come after Google they seem to like aiming their fines in the billions of dollars range. So it seems prudent to respond to any inkling of having given a regulator an excuse to investigate by burning the entire thing down and vowing never to go near the wreckage ever again.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- vageli 7y agoI don't understand the prevention of adding to a playlist. Now I can't make a custom playlist of children's content for my kid?
- lukejduncan 7y agoTangential, and only kind of related, but a personal pet peeve -- I like YouTube kids, but really dislike that half of the videos are "unboxings" of toys. These aren't really ads, but man they act like them and they end up in the recommended feeds kids see. There's also no way to get rid of them. YouTube Kids has some of the best parental controls relative to other streaming services, but this one ended up being a deal breaker for us.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y agoI get it, I really do, but I feel like you have unreasonably high standards here. It used to be that kids would watch TV, and about a third of the time would be real ads that also couldn't be gotten rid of.
- sitkack 7y agoLook at how disgusting the LOL toy line is, the toy itself is plastic garbage, wrapped in layers and layers of plastic garbage to provide that "unboxing rush". Children shouldn't be trained to be Wall-Es, they should be experiencing the beauty and pain of Charlotte's Web. Capitalism wants your children to be mindless, programmed consumers.
- mikepurvis 7y agoHatchimals are this too, though in fairness, "surprise mechanics" have been a thing basically since forever— at least in my day you graduated from kinder eggs to magic the gathering booster packs.
- sitkack 7y agoBecause triggering a dopamine response in a child in the procurement path of a toy has become normalized in the toy industry, doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize it and try to contain it. I realized with embarrassing dread when my child opened an LOL, that opening any package in front of them has trained them in ways that shouldn't be trained into a child, let alone anyone. The weekly stream of skinner boxes has us de-evolving. I'll also limit the amount of online shopping I do in front of children, it has the same issues.
- sjc27 7y agothis is a leap, but I hope we get to a point where kids are afforded some basic privacy rights that protect them from parents who, intentionally or not, exploit their kids on social media.
- hirundo 7y agoThere's a certain immunity to ads that we develop over time. To the extent that we protect kids from them we could make them more vulnerable to them. Like a peanut allergy. I bought crap when I was a kid based on cheesy ads in the back of magazines. One was a Real Submarine for $5. Spoiler, it wasn't a real submarine. That's a good lesson to learn before you go shopping for cars and houses.
- kibwen 7y agoOn the other hand, it's also good to demonstrate to children that advertising is not some utterly inevitable and inescapable phenomenon, and that an experience without ads can possibly exist (and is more pleasant to boot). Don't just teach your kids to ignore ads; teach them to explicitly recognize their mentally-manipulative properties and outright oppose ads.
- hirundo 7y ago> teach them to explicitly recognize their mentally-manipulative properties The most effective way to teach them that is to let them spend their own hard-saved money on stuff-they-really-want-that's-actually-garbage. To do that they need to be exposed to the minor league con artists behind so many ads. Anything short of that will be mere theoretical knowledge, inconsistently applied.
- kibwen 7y agoI don't think that's enough, because not all advertisements seek an immediate purchase. Furthermore, learning the explicit levers in your brain that marketing execs seek to pull can then be usefully applied to becoming more cognizant of implicit manipulation elsewhere, such as in the case of political propaganda. Theoretical knowledge should be applied in addition to first-hand experience; there's no need for people to reinvent all this from scratch solely for the sake of experiential learning. Even without ads on children's content on YouTube, I'm not at all concerned about a child's ability to thoroughly experience advertising in their formative years.
- facethrowaway 7y agoUntil the richest YouTuber isn’t an adolescent set up to prey on his peers with unboxing videos, these measures are all half-hearted attempts at keeping the cash flowing. More regulation is probably needed.
- hackinthebochs 7y ago>prey on his peers with unboxing videos What exactly is predatory about it?
- CryptoBanker 7y agoThey are literally video-length advertisements
- derefr 7y agoI dunno, unboxing videos often satisfy (part of) the urge that made me want to get the thing in the first place. It's like the psychology finding that telling people about your goals makes you less motivated to achieve them. Part of my motivation to buy the thing was to get the experience of unboxing it; now I feel like I've already gotten that.
- angryasian 7y agoall cartoons that were aired were ads to sell toys.
- thrwaway69 7y agoExactly what kind of regulation are you looking for if this is not enough?
- dean177 7y ago> prey on his peers with unboxing videos How is an unboxing video predatory?
- mkl 7y ago
- annoyingnoob 7y agoI made my kids stop watching YouTube. Problems solved. This is what happens when the content on your platform is almost entirely crap. YouTube is like the sewer and I don't let my kids play in the sewer either.
- robbrown451 7y agoI'd argue YouTube is more like a city. It's got its sewers, and it's got its seedy areas, but it also has its museums.
- mc3 7y agoIt's a city where you are teleported into the sewer, and you have to click back or close to get out of it again, but you've still smelt the sewer.
- robbrown451 7y agoOk. I seem to have less trouble using it while staying in better areas. Same goes with hanging out with my 5 year old in our city (San Francisco). Lots of ugly stuff here, and I wouldn't set her loose without me to guide her, but the good stuff makes it worth it.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y agoI don't know what YouTube y'all are using. The recommendations on my end are pretty great. Gaming replays from my favorite video game, woodworking videos, cooking videos, the latest piece from Jonathan Blow, a review of Blade Runner 2048, a video about gardening, and some Star Wars criticism. Ten videos above the fold that exactly suit my interests, any one of which I'd probably be happy to watch, and some of which might even be edifying.
- annoyingnoob 7y agoApparently, my kids like the corner store that is run creepy people and has over-priced candy. Looks mostly like seedy areas to me. The museums can be found elsewhere, they aren't limited to YouTube as a platform/medium.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- crtlaltdel 7y agopaywall
- bashinator 7y agojust use a private browser window
- BelleOfTheBall 7y agoLiteral 'baby steps', hah. The fact that they disable 'save' features might be because they don't want it to mess with their statistics, I guess? Like, they want to see how many people are leaving stuff to watch/rewatch later or something like that. Do they track that? The rest makes a lot of sense and I'm glad that something is being done.
- duxup 7y agoHow about just no ads on children's content...at all?
- mkl 7y agoAs far as I can tell, most "children's content" on YouTube is thinly disguised ads. My nieces watch it, then play pretend "making a video" showing off products and "unboxing", and want to buy the things they see.
- duxup 7y agoNot far off outside obvious non ad content like Sesame Street and such. I gave it a run curating stuff for my kids....gave up and YouTube is simply off limits now.
- ping_pong 7y agoI think this is overall better, but will this disincentivize people from creating good children's content? My kids have learned things like American Presidents and Astronomy from decent videos on Youtube kids.
- angryasian 7y agoThey can still make ad money, just not targetted ad money. The reality is that if theres money to be made someone will do it. Youtube is just another marketing channel, they'll be able to move into merchandising and other money making option
- jedberg 7y agoThis doesn't solve the number one problem of kids content on YouTube -- they are leaving it up to the creator to decide if it's kids content. It's still not human curated. The nice thing about Netflix/Hulu/Amazon/PBS/etc. is that a human decides if the content is for kids. YouTube is still trying to get away with "letting the machines do it", which works for most aspects of their business, but not this. I used to let my kid watch YTKids while I supervised. But no more. Even with my supervision it just jumps to some insanely inappropriate video, too quick for me to shut it off in time, and it's already done damage. When a scary clown jumps out and screams, that's traumatizing, even just for a moment. I have no trouble letting them watch all those other platforms. Heck, I let them watch PBS unsupervised. But YouTube Kids will never play in my house again until I know that every piece of content on there has been reviewed by a human before it goes live.
- Traster 7y ago>YouTube is still trying to get away with "letting the machines do it", which works for most aspects of their business, but not this. Citation needed. I mean, they do use AI for lots of stuff, but let's not describe it as working. It has routinely caused massive aggravation for their biggest content creators, it has been one in a group of changes that has basically made Youtube an unsafe monetization platform and driven the creation of places like Patreon, Sure, this is the only AI fuck up that is going to get them sued in federal court and face charges of exploiting children, but it's not like the other AI stuff is working well. Basically, their AI is doing a bad job everywhere, it's just that this area is where they face legal liability and so they can't pull out their usual "but the machines told us to!" defence.
- jedberg 7y agoHeh, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. They've been running on "algorithms" since 2005, and are still around, so I assume it works for them for some definition of working. But you have a point. YouTube and Google get a lot of flack for things that are emergent properties due to their lack of humans.
- NotATroll 7y ago
- hartror 7y agoIf you are interested in the FCC law/regs that brought about this change then check out Legal Eagle's video covering the subject. Very detailed and well presented, makes it clear that YT's hands are pretty tied on this matter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3Q48dwopVU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3Q48dwopVU
- jedimastert 7y ago+1 to Legal Eagle in general. He's had great coverage of all kinds of stuff (like the entire impeachment...thing) in what I would consider a reasonably objective law-based point of view (although IANAL). He also has very entertaining videos about laws in movies and TV, like explaining all of the lawsuits and laws broken in Jurassic Park.
- ineedasername 7y agoI think identification of what constitutes kid's content, or content predominantly viewed by people under the legal drinking age if 21, is really borked. To provide one example of many, my son (under 12) likes a channel Dope or Nope. It's sort of a quick drive-by review of a bunch of products that share a theme, but they are almost always toys, games, or gadgets that skew to a younger audience. And yet it's not uncommon for alcohol-based ads to appear. Which, just, no, not at all okay. Do YouTubers have any control over this? Or is it purely in the domain of The Algorithm?
- jedberg 7y agoAnother excellent aspect of why YouTube needs humans to curate kids content. This never happens on network TV because there is always a human gatekeeper. YouTube needs to learn that you can't run your entire business on machine learning when it comes to kids. Machine learning is a tool, but they need to use it appropriately to enhance the humans, not replace them.
- alfalfasprout 7y ago...and your 12 year old is going to develop a drinking problem because of watching an ad? This is what's wrong with America... in many other countries beer ads are everywhere and you don't see children brown-bagging a beer in the playground.
- ineedasername 7y agoWho said anything about a drinking problem? But ads that glorify and make drinking seem exotic/cool/whatever can normalize underage drinking, or any activity for that matter: maybe you're aware of the massive vaping craze among the young, partly as a result of viral social media that does that same thing. Don't act like media exposure can't have any impact on expectations, social norms, and the like. And take notice of the fact that in the 80s and 90s when awareness of this sort of advertising issue curtailed such advertising in traditional media, things like incidents of drunk driving and related accidents/deaths began their years-long decline.
- UnFleshedOne 7y ago
- ravenstine 7y agoUnpopular Opinion: There shouldn't be "children's content" on YouTube in the first place.
- arwineap 7y agoCan you explain how it's different than children's content on TV?
- ravenstine 7y agoIt's a monopolized medium trying to reconcile the concept of people uploading their own videos with the idea that children should only watch safe content. I don't believe it's a good idea in the first place and it leads to rules that can be misapplied to content creators.
- jeandejean 7y agoI'm surprised it was even possible until now...
- yellow_lead 7y ago> To help us identify made for kids content, in November we introduced a new audience setting in YouTube Studio to help creators indicate whether or not their content is made for kids. So, in November they asked you to say if your video was made for kids. They likely had this intention, but wanted to first collect the data they needed voluntarily. If I were a content creator that self-identified their videos as for children, I would be angry. This just goes to show the unexpected and against-your-interest things companies will do with your data.
- gundmc 7y agoThey announced that they would stop showing targeted ads against this content "in 4 months" back in September [1]. [1] - https://youtube.googleblog.com/2019/09/an-update-on-kids.html https://youtube.googleblog.com/2019/09/an-update-on-kids.htm...
- akersten 7y agoWhatever the intent here was, it's having a completely bonkers outcome, and a real chilling effect on content creators who have done no harm. Content creators, who are not intending to target children with their videos, are taking steps to ensure they're not ensnared by the onerous definitions the FTC has given for "children's content." The FTC has indeed explicitly said that the content creators, not YouTube, are responsible for flagging their videos as "for kids," and the content creators are personally liable to pay a $40,000 fine if the FTC thinks they made a mistake [0]. So videos where adults dress up in costumes, producing videos for other adults, but that a kid might like? Yeah, they don't wear those costumes anymore, because the FTC might consider it targeted-to-kids. Meanwhile, actual garbage aimed specifically at children, like Elsa-gate and animated shorts with instructions for viewers to commit suicide, go untargeted by this non-fix. [0]: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/01/the-ftcs-2020-coppa-rules-have-youtube-creators-scared/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/01/the-ftcs-2020-coppa-r...
- jdlyga 7y agoThey're trying to automatically detect content that's aimed for kids. So creepy Elsagate stuff should end up being flagged.
- akersten 7y agoI'm assuming you're referring to this [0]. Looks like the two options are either the video is removed, or put behind an age gate. Isn't the FTC's issue here that they simply don't believe YouTube when it comes to an account's age? A kid could be watching the targeted-to-kids content and still be on their older sibling's account, or they may have lied about their birthday (who didn't?) - either way, their argument is that YouTube and content creators are violating COPPA if the content itself is what they consider targeted to kids, and a kid watches it - regardless of what YouTube claims their account age to be. So, putting the creepy videos behind an age gate - seems to not be a valid defense in light of the FTC's reasoning that age gates are not reliable. Which is why their silence on this side of the issue is confusing to me. Unless there's some kind of tunnel vision going on here, and they're worried about the ad metrics or whatever that YouTube is generating from minors - and the FTC just doesn't care about the actual content of the videos, so long as you're very careful about what data you collect and how you monetize videos a kid might watch. [0]: https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/11/5-ways-were-toughening-our-approach-to.html https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/11/5-ways-were-toughenin...
- p1necone 7y agoThis seems to presume that "childrens content" is a binary yes/no thing. This is certainly not the case. I know as an adult I still watch many of the same kinds of things I enjoyed as a kid. I wonder if something like openly drinking alcohol on your channel, or having scantily clad assistants or something could be a way to ensure you don't get classed as childrens content.
- drdeadringer 7y agoOff the top of my head: A magician show. A circus performance. Summer Olympics. Will some algorithm deem a full-body swim suit, or sparkling bikini outfit, or an ad-laden sports bra as "not for children"? What if my kid is into gymnastics, volleyball, swimming, stage magic more complicated than Blues Clues and Smiley The Clown? Will I get my entire Google existence snuffed if I log in as myself and let the kid watch anyway? As an adult, will I no longer be allowed to watch clips from "Legend Of Korra" [an example]?
- p1necone 7y agoThe obvious solution to me is to just ask users how old they are. Parents should be supervising enough to do this for their young kids. Maybe let you lock an age restricted account logged in. If you're not supervising enough to notice your kid clearing history/cookies to get "adult" access then that's on you. It's not clear to me that youtube should be expected to police this very strongly, especially when sites like pornhub or liveleak are a few keystrokes away.
- drdeadringer 7y agoI agree on a lot of this. The sceptical and possibly modernly-ignorant part of me is stuck in 1997 clicking "Yes I Am Over 18". I must be missing 20 years of Internet Technology Advancement somewhere and am open to edification.
- dodobirdlord 7y agoThey do/have. You have to be 13+ to make an account. This was apparently not enough to avoid a $170 million dollar fine [0] and now it's apparently time for absurdly vague but extremely threatening regulatory guidance [1]. Doesn't seem like there is much option at this point other than massive disaster response. [0] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/09/google-youtube-will-pay-record-170-million-alleged-violations https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/09/googl... [1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2019/11/youtube-channel-owners-your-content-directed-children https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2019/11/...
- wyoh 7y agoHow do you determine what is kids content and what is not? Is a Pewdiepie video on Minecraft qualify as kids content?
- sergiotapia 7y agoGood, now where will all these elsagate creeps flock to? Youtube had this stink about it for years, hopefully they can wash it off.
- drdeadringer 7y ago... is this retroactive? Say I have any number of videos uploaded to YouTube. Do I have to devote so much time for this new "(not) for kids" flag?
- tomaszs 7y agoFingers crossed that it also means 99% of YT ads budget wont be spent on baby clicks.
- info781 7y agoNow they have to move kids programming off of regular YouTube, so kids will not go on there.
- fma 7y agoHere's my solution. Purchase PBS shows and stream at home. On the road, a DVD player with PBS shows. Daughter is only 3.5...lets see how long it works.
- gundmc 7y agoSesame Street is on HBO now, just let her loose on the HBO vod library, what's the worst that could happen?
- ourcat 7y agoSome kids (and their parents) are making a fortune on YouTube with kids content. I can't imagine they'll be too pleased.
- koonsolo 7y agoFor parents withs kids who like Pepa Pig, watch out for some nasty videos on YouTube. It's hard to make the distinction between the official one, and your kid doesn't need to see how pepa pig gets eaten by a dinosaur. I wonder if these "parodies" will be correctly labeled by their authors.
- acd 7y agoRemember the scissors cut the eye of toy doll recommendation video when my kids watched video on youtube. After that only supervised youtube watching. The recommendation algorithm is made to keep people hooked coming for more content.