Sadly many OP holders claim even fair use videos, so saving them has become more and more common sense.


Thanks again.

==========================

To me I couldn't care less if they figure out what one kid likes and shows them that sort of ad....to me it's similar(though not as targeted) as TV ads for toys/candy/etc.

Well many weren't /aren't doing so and this law/etc could hit them regardless as the FTC/etc seem to think the things they list are ONLY for/consumed by/watched by kids.

Also I don't fully get that last bit: Are you ok with those who create ANY content the FTC seems to think is for kids(but isn't and was never marketed as such or to kids) losing money, or just those who sneakily target kids to make money?

According to the proposed guidelines if they use certain things/do certain things supposedly ONLY for kids they will get marked as "for kids" and not get much money anyways.

Don't let children on Youtube. Nuff said.

Wasn't this created in response to Elsagate bullshit (that spawn a vast conspiracy linked to pizzagate) or is this new?

Good thing you're not making the laws then because there is a vast chasm of difference between general demographic ads and specifically targeted ads to one person, with that specific person's life choices and such as a guide when that person may not understand the difference between an ad and content.
Perfectly ok with the whole Youtube itself going down in a hale of gunfire and Telletubbies. But to answer your question, everyone with targeted ads who has children viewing is a victim of Youtube's lax attitude towards enforcing their own TOS. It sucks for them, but they have been benefiting from illegal practices, whether they were aware or not. Perfectly ok with them losing revenue since that means following a law that's been there for 2 decades.
Yes, that's the idea.

That was the original idea. To have a google account (and receive targeted ads) by the YT ToS you have to be 13. Then YouTube realized that there were TONS of kids watching YT and started bragging and advertising that it was the number one place for content for kids between 2-12. And many other statements. And the FTC took umbrage with that.

What privacy? Exploiting children? Who should judge on what is an "exploiting ad" or not? And should a company dictate what my child should see or not, or should I be the judge of that and take responsibility for it?

What constitute an "ad" for children in the first place? Youtubers have been harassed and scrambled because now EVERYTHING is considered immoral, illegal, inappropriate, not-elitist, whatever.

Begging for money or showing that you drink from a certain brand, is that exploiting or inappropriate? Seriously, if begging for money is the problem, who f... is stupid enough to give a child free reign over money they can give up in the first place? Same with mobile games. That reminds me - should children in that age even have too much free reign on a phone? NO!

If you have problem - don't call the A-Team and expect state/corporate to set the restrictions for you! Children are not capable of that level critical thinking and that's basic knowledge for any parents (of course, certain level of maturity plays a role here, but again, that's up to the responsible parent to judge). Or at least, it ought to be.

USA has taken this "ad" / "inappropriate"-fixation to the extreme and most fundamentalistic. In other countries we have a more relaxed front to this, luckily. "OMG she has a my little pony in the background - shut her down and sue her for immoral conduct, exploiting children and stealing revenue from the IP owner of my little pony"!!!

You misunderstand. It's not the ads at all that are exploitation (well, kind of... but it is the far less egregious exploitation that's been going on since the dawn of advertising) but the levels of data collection on children that is the exploitation. It's not the ads themselves, but the way in which they are calculated to be delivered.

They had Youtube Kids, but I guess YT felt that wasn't the right way to go. *rolls eyes at YT*

===================

YT was making money off of ads targeted at/served to kids....they then got served a massive fine(170 Million) while some parents forced the FTC to update it's rules(COPPA) to try and stop such. YT is now "passing the buck" of this new law to content creators, as now videos marked as "targeted at kids"(under the proposed guidelines it would be anything talked about in the OP video) will get much less money/possibly get the creators fined by the FTC, and many are supposedly thinking of leaving or changing the videos they make.

So who cares if they know if timmy or judy likes a particular type of doll or toy(due to what videos they watched), and they get served an ad for such? Who controls their spending? The Parents, I would assume.

It's not like kids should be able to just take their parents bank accounts and buy whatever they please(even if some dumb parents do that very thing).

Equal blame should then be on youtube for not age gating content/allowing kids to watch such content more easily, and the kids parents for not watching their children.

Then how do they make money? By making mature content/etc I would assume, and perhaps cutting kids off from potential content they can enjoy in the process.
======================================
======================================

More comments for all:

Child: looks at car
FTC: Sorry, automotive industry, you can't make money anymore.
------------------------------------------------
"Sir your boat is sinking!"
"Indeed it is..."
"You wanna patch that hole to prevent sinking?"
"Do what?"
-------------------------------------------------
Content creators: Youtube, can You please help us?
Youtube: Yes, but actually no.

*laughs in depleting company value*
==================================
And a more serious comment:

This is about Youtube collecting data on children. That's the violation of the law. Somehow, YT has passed the buck to creators to tell them if the video is likely to attract any children, because they aren't going to stop data-mining.
==================================

I do not wanna be that person to say this, but I have a theory as to why youtube is having this occur now. Look at how many are cord cutting & also look at what Disney launched recently. Don't you think lobbists from cable companies pressured the FTC to do something to keep them in business? This is going to kill youtube and it is only youtube now but maybe twitch is next? The stupidity of the FTC is calling people "channel owners" when they own NOTHING-they don't control the metrics or advertising. The ruling is designed to KILL people who use twitch as income and force them into regular 9-5 jobs.

The only way YT knows their age is via a Google account, or any account info for that matter. Last time I checked, minors under 13 are not allowed to create accounts online. Been awhile since I read about it, but that have illegal since late 90s. Also, Googles algorithms can try to "guess" who's a child, but it's still not youtubers problem.

Past that; well, still parents fault for allowing these children free roam with an account without any supervision/guidance.

No check online or algorithms are problem free and we all know what chaos these "3-srikes" have already caused.

Think about it - would you like to have an algorithm auto-decide if you need some jail-time or not, or should receive medical care? Nations are already destroyed by allowing algorithms decide if people can have medical care / insurance, we shouldn't continue that path just because it's convenient for some.

No, Google owns the platform and have contracts with several parties. Google should be getting 1 mill fine a day until they manually filter ads directed at children. I mean, Facebook is getting fines because of their lack of security/privacy so why not Google/YT? What FCT are doing here is bypassing the glorious Google, and backstabs youtubers, which makes absolutely no sense. YT is the problem here for allowing ads directed at children, NOT youtubers.

Actually, it is on YouTube, and YouTube is implementing new policies to protect themselves by not allowing targeted ads on content for children. Where I find the gray area is that content creators can be fined by the FTC if their content significantly targets children AND serves targeted ads. So because YT serves targeted ads, the user will be fined? I think the only defense here is that people who try to circumvent the rules/law will be fined (intentionally targeting children while not marking it so they can make money from targeted ads).

It is telling that YT? won't stop data mining and will allow its creators to bear fines for its own malfeasance because MONEY!!!

Exactly. Most people are too techno-illiterate to understand what's what.

Speaking of lobbying: It's the same kind of people/companies behind this that "speaks" for the movie, music and art industry that are pulling a fast one over streaming sites.

Net-neutrality in America got killed that way.

As been mentioned before - content creators don't own anything, and can't do or choose anything except choose from what Google/YT is allowing them to do.

Circumvent the rules/law? Do you even know how ads work on YT? Sure, one could say it's immoral of the content creators to abuse it, but Google/YT is serving the list like a PIMP :P

Seriously, that's like allowing a police officer to continue to abuse victims because he/she is "serving the common good" (or it says so on paper), and judge common people harder to fill up the gap. O_o

EDIT: Yes, there's two types here, the one that content creators have directly with 3. parties, and what YT are showing. I spoke only about the one YT is serving. The former one is of course a bit more problematic...

I don't think "protection" really works.

Although as a filter it is welcome, filter doesn't guarantee protection. Suicide etc stuff is banned in Russia, and what was used by internal russian "liberals" as argument how "anti-democratic" Russia is.

What really works is "pre-firing" (or "pre-ignition") by the parent, works like vaccine - children know what it is, why it is, don't lock into it by own interest - go ask the parent for advice or click away, may research on themselves, but already with definition of "sane" under feet. Means topics like rape, drugs and suicide must be explained to child by parent pre-emptively.

In same situation, "locking" does the opposite, - child thinks that it can finally research the stuff freely and it might've been nice (forbidden fruit is nice). Could also be used as argument by the manipulators. If child has been spoken to on topics, it even perceives the lock not as freedom reduction, but as protection (which it can freely remove if it understands connected dangers).