100 Replies to “You’re Wrong About COPPA (Real Law Review)

  1. Objection @33:49 – As discussed by the Bureau of Consumer Protection during the press conference, which can be seen at video code QriZF0Se0Pg starting around time marker 7:20, the intention is not innocent by any means. This is a targeted attack. The Bureau of Consumer Protection Director himself stated that the upcoming movement will be akin to "shooting fish in a barrel" – in those exact words (see time marker 13:30 in the above mentioned video for the preceding question prompting the response).

    My thoughts on this whole mess … I think a much more apt analogy would be like "shooting passengers at a train station" or "shooting attendees at a Time Square gathering" – that's essentially what they'll be doing with this loose wording and loose cannon; punishing the innocent, the hard-working just trying to live, the ones interested in enriching the world's minds and encouraging new perspectives through art.

    Worse, the effects of this are much more far-reaching than the FTC realizes. Just personalized ads being taken away on some videos will cause company revenue prospects to plummet. That means lower stock values – first slowly, and later by a landslide. Oh look, another recession.

    The FTC seeks to regulate trade – it really shouldn't be so focused on lobotomizing it.

  2. I’m 14 and I use your videos for simple knowledge that I can use in the future, you give me more important information than a school does in 2 years and I just wanted to say thank you for giving me actual law info without me having to be forced out of my home into a smelly sweaty classroom with annoying people in a stupid heiarchy system with annoying and often non important topics being taught to me in which the place I was dragged into creates little shitty plays and basically forces their parents to come to not look bad in which they charge those parents to come so they can get money as well as them doing shady shit like showing fake info on the tours they do for the place as well as the front of the school for publicity and it angers me to this day that not a single mother fucker cares enough to fix this he’ll hole we call school.

  3. Question: Minecraft. And really lets plays in general of games that are designed for audiences that are general and/or could be seen as being for children (like your Pokemon example). Lets plays mainly feature gameplay and commentary on gameplay, so if the content is decided to be for children, even in part, I don't see how the creator can do anything about it.

  4. This channel has honestly helped me get through grade 5. Thank you so much for your content that me and my friends can enjoy.

  5. I do speedrunning content on one of my channels and both games i usually run are probably kid oriented but i sometimes curse a lot in runs and talk about different topics……COPPA has made me super scared……

  6. YouTube doesn't talk with Google? Google may not be able to say for sure that Person X is a child, but I guarantee that they know that I, and you, and you… are adults based on our purchase and surfing histories – and they have that on everyone, whether you use Google or not. They know ALL.

  7. Well i already see some issues. Because your using legalese to interpret something that is written in babel. Another words English in case your not actually a lawyer. It was not created or written in legalese nor by lawyers nor by scholars of law and better yet its not even english because they create their own Vague and deceptive language. Purposefully remaining overly broad in order to collect a income from the people that cable company's no doubt lobbied for and against at the time. I've read coppa, Nor is on behalf of say you, who are not the main recipient of targeted ads, who out of the 5 company's that are involved get the smallest cut and have the smallest interest in, With the main company paying for the advert having the biggest interest followed by youtube with the next biggest. Nor do i think they could make a sound case for creators being a operator in their own language. Personally i don't like philosophy of law because its not law, and neither is this so called regulation yet, which is why i know that at some point they will get sued and be forced to rewrite this ridiculously written paper in actual law and not encompassing every single thing that exists nor to encroach on the constitution. Or they will get away with it and nothing will change at all. This will effect everyone though alot less of the people that think it will, for the main reason being they don't want to overreach to fast as that would cause protest on scales they have never saw. As a lawyer you should be telling people that a lawyer can only help in terms of trying to help you understand it with their limited knowledge of law per this issue, which overall can not be exact or even sound since it is not legalese and does not go by law. So outside of common sense no lawyer can or will be able to tell you anything really for that matter as it is all up to whatever the ftc feels like defining any given thing, therein lies the problem of this dumb azz act. So your title is correct Your wrong about coppa, well partially at least but you didn't butcher it like i thought you were based on your starting, since basically all you did was read it into philosophy of law. Btw all this info comes from lawyers who actually looked into it not just read it, and who found that it was written not as legalese or law but as its own stand alone language that has no definition outside the ones they decide to create and define as such as they go along.

  8. My big issue with COPPA is the fact that I'm only just now learning animation, and sharing my creations online in hopes of getting critiques from other animators, or even help inspire other new animators. Because a lot of these are animation tests such as lip syncing and walk cycles, I don't know if it falls underneath the "for kids" category. I'm almost feeling that I'll have to include segments in each of my animations where a character swears or flips the bird just to keep me safe from this. I just want to make cartoons and let people see my progress, dammit!

  9. I don't think there's any way you can defend a $42K fine for a bot thinking you're scamming children when you pay less for raping someone.

  10. Maybe parents just shouldn't let their kids all over the damn internet in adult world. It's like the one kid in school who used his phone in class, and now no one is allowed to have theirs. Thats what these children are doing, not knowing the consequences of their own actions. It's the parents fault. They've created a loop. Let kids online, kids become victim of some kind, parents want new laws, parents cause more problems. Rinse and repeat.

  11. On the upside, this whole COPPA shebang might drive Paul Logan off the site with him having an audience consisting of a majority child audience (as per his own words). Additionally I recommend that all children below the age of 13-15 be placed in …'confinement' camps that have no access to the internet. This way YT can feel safe and as a bonus people won't have to deal with children on a daily basis

  12. Wait so if I say "I'm a ten year old" I will not get targeted adds? So no more ridge wallet adds or man soap adds? Where do I sign

  13. Thank you for making this, I do youtube as a hobby if nothing is done this will kill my channel I can't afford the fee.

  14. In a perfect world, children wouldn't watch it being exposed to adult themed and or elements that could harm if not make use of their hormones into a permanent effects.

  15. Dear FTC, please please please try not to ruin these communities. There are very niche and well-meaning groups of people who have found a home here where they would have been shut down elsewhere. Adding a parent giving a child a device with access to Youtube main counting as concent would be good.

  16. Sounds like hell for channels focused on pets and other animals. Music too. Surely, there are plenty of subjects of interest to all ages. I certainly accessed adult source material as a kid under 13, like the evening news.

  17. Let's be real
    There's nearly no secuirty for children online, and, to be honest? I can't think of any way to make it any safer without sacrificing our freedom to the companies that exist online in the process, it's kind of one or the other at this point.
    Like, we kind of laugh about it and everything, but I think that a good ammount of people here that fit this criteria, the majority even, would agree that, given they had unsupervised internet access since any age up to like 14 years old, it really has warped their perception of reality in the process.
    In fact, any person that has been THAT young on the internet can tell you how seriously unsafe it is and the stuff you'll find in it.
    And the worse thing is that it is almost strictly a gen z/millenial/gen x thing, you know? Like, if you are 40/50 years old, you didn't have ANY of this, you have mostly NO idea how bad it really is, that's what worries me the most.
    By the time I hit 15 yo, to be honest, I was already gone too far down the rabbit hole.
    And I don't want this kind of stuff to happen to the newer generations.
    So we really have a compromise to get this fixed, and get it fixed fast.

  18. Any idea if this affects other countries??
    For example I'm in Mexico, can the FTC fine someone in Mexico or other countries?
    What's the scope or reach?

  19. solution: FCC do not put fines to companies but the parents for not knowing how to put parental control in their PCs, in the phones that they give to their kids, in the browser that they use and in general to every electronic device because pretty much every electronic device that access the internet have parent control…..and if you don't know hot to set up parent control to something just search in youtube "how to set up parent control to [something]". Problem solved

  20. What about Youtubers who are not American ..I'm Candian & according to Canadian law ..The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) requires parental consent for collecting personal information from children under 13. There is no such law in Canada. The Privacy Commissioner has issued guidelines that are similar to COPPA, but they are not enforceable by Canadian law

  21. the only surefire solution is to charge users a subscription fee. hopefully a twelve-year-old doesn't have access to their parents' credit card. that would undermine what you tube is, though. I, for one, will not pay for you tube. Sorry, but there is nothing on you tube worth paying for.

  22. vague rules and considering that 90% of the material being viewed requires you to be about 15 years old to purchase it, the issues of content being viewed by the under 13 is the fault of the parent..

    as for Googles ad-sense has nothing to do with the content creators that is the liability to the google and the dumb companies that produce those ads…

    you already create the legal loop hole of parent and/or guardian for social media sign-up.

    most of the content that is being consumed by the 15 and under are not of legal purchase age nor are at the legal sign-up age for social media in general ..

    sorry
    13 age rating doesn't not apply for:
    ghost recon
    fortnight
    sniper elite

    faming simulator
    ats/ets2
    anime/cartoon
    black lagoon
    gundam
    urosukidoji
    patlabor
    you're under arrest
    and the list goes on and on

    all have m/m 15+ AGE RATING ON THEM FOR PURCHASE..

  23. While the whole COPPA situation doesn't much affect me and a few others, everyone else seems to panic like it's the end of the world

  24. All this censorship by another name is some illegal crap. Child directed content is any damn thing that exists. Does it move, does it make a sound, does it have a color? Kids will look at it. Alphabet should have just sued over this nonsense. So few people have the balls and resources to stand against "save the children" oppression.

  25. The worst standing point is to be a foreigner content creator who has to abide to US laws, as draconian as they can be.

  26. The FTC isn't even following its own regulations. As you quoted from 16 CFR S312.2:

    'A web site or online service that is directed to children under the criteria set forth in paragraph (1) of this definition but does not target children as its primary audience, shall not be deemed directed to children if it
    (i) Does not collect personal information from any visitor prior to collecting age information
    (ii) Prevents the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information from visitors who identify themselves as under the age of 13 without first complying with the notice and parental consent provisions of this part.'

    Under subclause (i), YouTube must first collect age information before a visitor may use the website and have his/her persistent identifiers tracked for advertising. Yes, children can lie to circumvent an age gate, but the age gate is unquestionably a method of 'collecting age information' and should therefore qualify for the purposes of subclause (i). S312.2 actually implies as much in subclause (ii), when they say '…visitors who identify themselves…' This recognises that the appropriate method to collect age information is for visitors to themselves represent their age, even if they could be lying.

    Needless to say, YouTube also meets subclause (ii), since those who 'identify themselves as under the age of 13' are prevented from using YouTube main.

    Therefore, the entirety of YouTube Main qualifies for the mixed audience exception. To say otherwise is not merely an unreasonable interpretation, but in utter defiance of the stated rules.

  27. So what if we just all claim to be nine years old to screw with YouTube? How much data fraud would they be able to take/filter through properly? Big Data will come and harass them for sure.

  28. What is child directed is a crazy question. Jim Sterling swears like a sailor, but talks about video games, is that child directed? It's obviously not, but it requires manual screening, which youtube is incapable/unwilling to do. You have almost 3/4M subs, are you sure none of them are children? Your content is definitely child safe, and you talk about cartoons from time to time. This is an unenforcable disaster because people lie about their age.

  29. "You should conta ct your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem" I needed to point this out since it is a disclaimer.

  30. Wow, broad unclear rules that make for a wide gray-area…and you only find out when the lawsuit gets served… almost seems like government agencies should work with individuals/groups to refine their practices by default instead of just suing and charging a fee.

  31. just out of curiosity here, if Pr_nhub collects users' viewing pattern to promote relating content or ad or whatever,
    and the fact that any 12yr old can just lie about their age and watch content on that site…..

    …..is Pr_nhub going to die too because of COPPA?
    if so, this is basically apocalypse of internet brought by under13s.

  32. If YouTube doesn't disclose viewer info to creators, then creator-operators aren't collecting data, right? Then creators are safe.

  33. What if YouTube were to inact a policy where in order to view a not for children video the user would have to subscribe to the content and at that time certify they are an adult or YouTube could do some work and actually do some real verification of user accounts.

  34. Okay so let's see in the last 20 years how 'crowd targeting" went into a crash…

    NCLB, 2002, in the educational system.

    SOPA/FIFA, 2012, in the copyright system. Suspended but held down as a possible aspiration for other projects.

    Comcast/FTC, 2016, in the information sharing system.

    now COPPA, in the audience and advertizing system.

    I am not a lawyer licensed or an expert on law, but here's my take.

    Yes, law with a lowercase L.

    The cage gets narrower ever faster, and ever more schism. Brute force audience control is never a reasonable solution when you want to "punish" content creators for having audiences in any age possible that can share "personal information" regardless of their age range or status based on the content they create, on wild dualism about guessing who they target. Not every content creator is this seriously invested in targeting a specific audience and it does not mean an authority has to control their community parameters based on speculation without any permission from the creator. I think that this upsets audiences more than creators because creators want review, that is their goal, and what is this one-sided way of saying 'a content creator published cartoons, but the audience is not allowed to review them because it could potentially incite doxxing?'. Seems like the authorities are paranoid because it projects aspects of themselves and what they truly desire. The control on audience targeting could have been handled to the creators, and they did with money and advertizing but stole that from its community because politics was the 'bridge'. The associations hang loose. There seems to be some empty hole that signifies something very important is not being revealed explicitly in the background like a certain operational motive. Of course..

    There is an extra thing we need to create with our content: create our own audiences instead of having authorities create them for us without us granting the right. We create our content, why not be able to create our fanbase? Create communion? Create our own boundaries with information? Why just content? Because it's one-sided and serves the authorities a goal. So, creating content gives this authority more power over our social life. Then when creators cannot interact with other creators they become demotivated to create at all, period. We are then "creating content for nothing but cutting off our social unity as humans". Do we have to become deeply isolated in order to fulfill another step to a grander scheme, which will maybe someday appear in the 2020's and cause shock? We have to be more conscientious in another, more unexpected sense. I'm sure this is the only the surface and the meaning goes even more complex.

    Audience control separating all children and adults does not sound as actually violating any constitutional right known in the 27 US Amendments nor the UDHR, but only building established variables for audience control. Not coincidental…

    Besides will children only be interested in watching kid stuff and the same for adults? There are adults that enjoy watching "kid content". Is it always for a 'perverse' reason adults will find kid-oriented videos? Generally, no.

    And they cannot, still, take kids data, but said in a very radical manner. NO data shall be analyzed by minors under 13, ohoho. We barely even have control on any data other than doxxing and hacking. Besides they own most of the data so they can give themselves the right to own and dictate what our personal information means as it's part of it if governmentally recognized. And by cutting data you also cut a wide possibility of communication and engagement between people. Then they say 'settled'. To them, data is communication. It used to be 'knowledge' but we know so much that they changed its meaning to something that is the base of knowledge: sharing it. In 2019, they went a step further: our established disillusioned knowledge being used against us within the intent of communication and content creation. As if they're 'sick of seeing us know more'.

    With a core idol used as simple as a 'child predator' they had this entire plan at the back. Notice the blatant easiness. Because the societal obsession with kiddies. COPPA reaches data and integrity predation, not explicitly sexual predation which government officers have done as a cult hobby for an extremely long time.

    We aren't recognized by YouTube as persons behind a screen anymore, our videos and histories hold more importance and we're stats.

    Actually bring a bunch of children and make them state their own opinion on all of this. Remember what Einstein said about fishes climbing trees? Will their opinions still be unused 'data'? Are our opinions purely 'data'?

  35. I’m less worried about the FTC suing creators and more about how horribly YouTube’s algorithm will screw over adult-oriented video game/toy/general interest channels.
    Given that the algorithm generally has a shoddy history and already falsely flags many videos over regular ToS stuff, and creators often lose on appeal even when they have a legitimate argument, this will likely leave many creators standing out in the cold with no legal recourse to recover the channel they’ve spent years building up, especially since this has become many of theirs only source of income.
    YouTube is about to leave thousands of people without a job.

  36. I failed to understand why the supplies to YouTube since it is an age gated platform

    If you have to be 13 to make an account and you have to have an account to track persistent identifiers then I don’t understand how this could be considered a violation

  37. I do a lot of crochet/knitting tutorials, and I’m so nervous about COPPA regulations when it comes to my videos :/ I make “Amigurumi” or crochet toys of Pokémon and other anime cute things. Am I subject to COPPA? Most of the people viewing my videos are people 24+ looking to make gifts for people but there have been the rare child who have made some of these patterns, so what in the world do I say!? Super stressful.

  38. So you can mess with a YouTube channel by having comments "I am 10 years old and I don't like this channel"? It would be "the next generation of a trollarmy" ha ha…

  39. Lawyer starts NOT look into camera, when stating the "Child-directed Content Determining Factors", one by one. Suddenly a Great Deal of un-security appears and the same amount of trustfulness dis-appears…. I don't believe this guy either. Let's just wait for the Bomb on January 1st.

  40. Couldn’t they just do a channel purge of people they suspect to be underage? Or maybe they could put in better safeguards for children. It is clear YouTube as a whole is not intended for children after all.

  41. This underlined the feeling that U.S. and Europe is slowly but surely dividing internet. I would actually like to see a video analysing difference between European laws, mainly articles 13 and 11, and Coppa. Will this lead to different content in U.S. and Europe? Isn't China already doing something like this already?

  42. issue will mostly be that if you are so adult orriented like mentioned at 12:30 you lose revenue from yourtube since they do not monetise or give revenue from ads if it is too vulgar

  43. Alex Jones warned us of silencing the people about 15 years ago, don't believe me? crazy or not, he was still right about this kind of corruption.

  44. Any chance for Christmas you could watch Home Alone and discuss all the criminal acts committed by the Wet Bandits and how much jail time they're in for.
    Also how much Kevin is potentially liable, or most likely his absent parents, are liable for.
    Could the Wet Bandits sue Kevin's family for anything?

  45. There’s porn on YouTube. Those folks won’t get busted for exposing children 13-17 to adult content.

  46. I know this is off topic for the video, but I would appreciate seeing you break down the court scene from the beginning of Shawshank Redemption.

  47. I love this super sane rationalized break down of COPPA and what comes in January. It is fair, balanced, and to the point. It helps a lot of people understand what the core issues of these old laws that are just now catching up to the internet mean. How a rational person could make such laws. Since COPPA in and of itself is a rational thing to do. There should be some protection for kids when it comes to gathering their data and targeting ads to them. Though just like anything when it comes to the internet is REALLY hard to actually enforce in any rational way. Since even with the ten criteria it still basically boils down to "I know it when I see it" sort of rational. The mixed audience gray area is great in theory but in practice who actually gets to draw that line is really tough. The FTC as stated has no will or ability to decide every video on YouTube. Hell YouTube has no rational way to have actual people decide on a video by video level.

    Even the idea of a Age Gate for any website is nearly impossible to enforce/regulate. How does anyone prove they are who they say they are on the internet. How do you prove you are an adult short of scanning or swiping in your Government issued ID. How do you prove that the ID used is actually being used by the person it was issued to, and not by a kid who wants to see something on the internet. Be it something 13 and up on YouTube or something 18/21 and up on the internet. Also as stated someone using a device owned by an actual adult who can see such things. How does a parent or guardian really consent to a underage kid viewing something via their device when often once the "unlocked" device is handed to the child who knows what they could be watching. Short of a retina/thumb scan before each video/activity done who could ever be certain. Which then brings up a whole slue of privacy issue regarding tracking and all that sort of data on exactly who watched what.

    Though as far as COPPA and this case go. I really doubt we are going to see a sane and rational approach taken by YouTube. YouTube has already set precedent that when something bad happens to it, that it swings SO hard in the opposite direction that it breaks itself for a long time. Arguably YouTube is still broken and being fixed when it comes to copyright strikes on channels, and videos. In that it takes such a hard over zealous strike that favors copyright holders to such an Nth degree that it is nearly impossible to fight unless you are on the level of some of the 1% level creators. Most channels are forced to take the hit regardless of if it is correctly judged because there is no way to fight it. The only way to fairly do anything is once something is flagged a person has to objectively watch the video to decide if that video is really at fault. Which is broken since the number of videos that exist on YouTube, and are created on YouTube are such insane numbers and hours, that it would take such a massive number of people working almost around the clock just to keep up let alone tackle the back log. So when YouTube strikes something then that is pretty much it, unless you have the means to sue or your the 1% that YouTube actually needs and cares about. Even then you would never get hit because your in the protected minority.

    So now when it comes to COPPA the FTC winning and actually fining YouTube is what screws us all. Since it sets a precedent for YouTube to now be on the hook for its platform moving forward. So yes each content creator is responsible for their own content. YouTube is responsible for the platform as a whole, and thus each of the actors on said platform. Since as stated it is remarkably unlikely that the FTC would go after any individual content creator. However they are much more likely to just go after YouTube as whole again for the wrong doing of the actors on the platform. Thus much like with copyright, YouTube is much more likely to just drop the hammer and "Self Regulate" to keep the FTC of its back. Which means that anything that even gives the hint that it is for kids is going to be dealt with as if it is for kids. Thus it will more or less be a case of guilty until proven innocent once something is flagged(and who knows how that is even going to work). Add to that the idea of YouTube creating an Algorithm to auto detect the content is really terrifying as they have a really shoddy track record with self learning algorithms. Now that their bottom line is at steak, forget about it. Since COPPA is a massive grey area for which a reasonable person could fight for it one way or the other and it is up to a "objective" arbitrator to decide. That is not good for a platform like YouTube with its almost never ending sea of content a large chunk of which could easily fall into the mixed audience exception which based on YouTube's track record for other issue they are just going to toss into the "for kids" bucket because that is easily the most cost effective method for YouTube.

    Though the saving grace I guess for many content creators is that this hurts YouTube as well. Targeted ads make YouTube more money as well. They need the majority of the content on YouTube to be Ad friendly and work with the algorithm. Or at least enough of the over all views for the platform to be on the "Adult" side of the line for them to be profitable. The fines the FTC levy against YouTube pale in comparison to the money lost if the balance shifts too far to "kids" content. Which is why YouTube Kids was a laugh able effort at best, there is no money in it so almost no effort was spent in making YouTube Kids a good platform that anyone wanted to use, be them Content Creators or viewers. So it will probably fall back to the case of Copyright and fair use that plagued YouTube before. Which again did not end well for really any of the small to less than 1% creators that could not fight what was dealt to them.

    Tho I do find it funny that the FTC decides to draw the line here with COPPA and lets Net Neutrality twist in the wind. Though I guess that is a issue for another day.

  48. COPPA will have exactly zero impact on channels/content NOT marked for children.

    That's all.

    Just another Article 13.
    Utterly irrelevant.

  49. LegalEagle: if a comment says you're 10 years old, YT will probably delete your account

    PewDiePie viewers: guy looking back and forth

  50. I'm an adult and my favorite channels are art and crafting channels. I'm scared of losing them to kids, because a few of them are doll related such as myfroggystuff. As a viewer is there anything I can do?

  51. How does coppa and the ftc impact creators outside of the US. I'm in Australia and don't know if the ftc applies for content made outside the US

  52. genuine question that the idea of the fines throws up: What about content creators who arent in the US? Does the FTC, a US government body, have any right to enact sanctions like fines against somebody who has possibly never even set foot in the US?

    I ask because this is a potentially serious issue in terms of the use of the Internet, a worldwide resource, if you can be affected by legislation from countries that you dont even live in, especially if it can lead to fines or worse.

  53. What would happen if the FTC tried to sue PewDiePie in a US court for YouTube content and he just replied I don't live in the US and I'm not paying a fine or appearing in court

  54. i'm glad you pointed out the major flaw with all this: parents just handing over devices on youtube main. none of this will actually stop that aspect. Also, i think many are more concerned with how youtube's machine learning will flag things. having some experience with algorithms of such nature in a different area (medicaid evals) i'm not confident it's going to be a fair system that understands the grey areas that exist in categorizations.

  55. What about creators who push for donations via 3rd party sites such as Patreon? Would that be considered a collection of information about viewers negating coverage under the mixed audience exception?

  56. My problem with COPPA is that it’s so vague in what it considers child content it would be easy to abuse it and use it to censor or violate someone’s first amendment rights.

    Especially since there are children that will watch anything regardless of whether or not they should be if they can get their hands on it. So nearly anything could be considered child content if they choose to claim it was due to how vague the language is.

    Look at how many people use to believe South Park was a kids show all because it is animated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *