# COPPA and youtube`s new TOS Going To DESTROY the furry side of youtube



## volkinaxe (Nov 16, 2019)

here is some info on it




as fursuit`s look`s  like they  made for kid`s  what will this  mean  for all furry youtube 
channel`s


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 16, 2019)

I think the idea is that machine learning tools will seek out content that creators incorrectly declared as suitable for children, and remove it from watch-lists recommended to children. (for example those videos in which peppa pig gets killed, or toy videos which are illegally used to collect information on children's social media habits)

So the people who would actually be affected are creators who produce content for children, but experience incorrect flagging of their videos as not child suitable- rather than furries.

Overall it's extremely positive that Youtube has decided not to place comments and personalised adverts on children's content, because those decisions had exposed children to horrible paedophillic commentary by adults and the collection of data about children's consumption was already illegal. I feel it's possibly too little too late though, and the fact they are *only just introducing these labels* shows that they just didn't care about breaking the law until the consequences came and bit them in the arse.


----------



## volkinaxe (Nov 16, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I think the idea is that machine learning tools will seek out content that creators incorrectly declared as suitable for children, and remove it from watch-lists recommended to children. (for example those videos in which peppa pig gets killed, or toy videos which are illegally used to collect information on children's social media habits)
> 
> So the people who would actually be affected are creators who produce content for children, but experience incorrect flagging of their videos as not child suitable- rather than furries.
> 
> Overall it's extremely positive that Youtube has decided not to place comments and personalised adverts on children's content, because those decisions had exposed children to horrible paedophillic commentary by adults and the collection of data about children's consumption was already illegal. I feel it's possibly too little too late though, and the fact they are *only just introducing these labels* shows that they just didn't care about breaking the law until the consequences came and bit them in the arse.


we all need to keep eyes on  this


----------



## Deleted member 111470 (Nov 16, 2019)

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I am all for these changes.


----------



## Joni (Nov 16, 2019)

volkinaxe said:


> here is some info on it
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Isn't this this thing where you select *manually* if your content is for kids? (I can't watch the video rn because of limited internet)


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 16, 2019)

Joni said:


> Isn't this this thing where you select *manually* if your content is for kids? (I can't watch the video rn because of limited internet)



Yes people manually select, but machine learning tools will also be used to spot when people are using the wrong ratings. I expect because a lot of people who uploaded youtube videos 10 years ago aren't going to log in to label them as kid friendly or not. 

and I imagine Volkinaxe is worried that those scripts will be zealous.


----------



## Joni (Nov 16, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Yes people manually select, but machine learning tools will also be used to spot when people are using the wrong ratings. I expect because a lot of people who uploaded youtube videos 10 years ago aren't going to log in to label them as kid friendly or not.
> 
> and I imagine Volkinaxe is worried that those scripts will be zealous.


Hmm thats problematic that's right. But how do they want to spot this? I mean in general. Also furry is very controversal and genally seen as the opposite of kids friendly


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 16, 2019)

Joni said:


> Hmm thats problematic that's right. But how do they want to spot this? I mean in general. Also furry is very controversal and genally seen as the opposite of kids friendly



Yes I suspect furry content would be more likely to be consistently marked as _not_ targeted at children, because the meta data would be frequently associated with lgbt themes.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Nov 16, 2019)

We just need to embrace the yiffy side to not be tagged as family friendly.


----------



## volkinaxe (Nov 17, 2019)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> We just need to embrace the yiffy side to not be tagged as family friendly.


if that works I am in


----------



## Firuthi Dragovic (Nov 17, 2019)

Honestly?  I set my channel (at the channel level, not per-video) as specifically NOT "made for kids" because my main focus is video games and enough of the video games I've played for the channel over the past 10 years are pretty violent.  (You're talking to a guy who played the original Doom when he was 8; I KINDA don't want kids to experience nightmares or wind up too quickly jaded about violence like I did.)

If machine learning tools and scripts are involved, I'll admit I'm very concerned YouTube won't respect that setting if I just happen to play a kid-friendly game and act civil on one particular day.  My commenters are civil for now, but I never expect that to last.


----------



## Joni (Nov 17, 2019)

volkinaxe said:


> if that works I am in


>_>


----------



## volkinaxe (Nov 17, 2019)

Joni said:


> >_>


lol


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Nov 17, 2019)

Is this something to be worried about or not?


----------



## volkinaxe (Nov 17, 2019)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Is this something to be worried about or not?


it`s hard to  say  butt it`s not looking good


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 17, 2019)

I can see multiple ways of this backfiring.

Time to pop a bottle of spirits and watch it all burn down.

I mean, it's all burnt as it is. Charcoal still burns though.

I'll bring the weenies.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 17, 2019)

volkinaxe said:


> it`s hard to  say  *butt* it`s not looking good




...I think most butts do look good though.


----------



## volkinaxe (Nov 17, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> ...I think most butts do look good though.





 lol


----------



## RailRide (Nov 18, 2019)

It gets more problematic:




Even content that's not specifically intended for children (but isn't specifically age-locked) will have to be marked that way since the FTC is expected to consider stuff that children _may_ watch to be child-targeted anyway and in violation of the law if not tagged as such. 

11/25/19 Video update here:

---PCJ


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Nov 18, 2019)

RailRide said:


> It gets more problematic:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, basically, everything except for mature content will lose comments and stuff?


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 18, 2019)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> So, basically, everything except for mature content will lose comments and stuff?



No. Youtubers are just capitalising on creating videos that panicking people will watch.

Youtube is not allowed to track the viewing histories of children in order to target adverts at them. They had been doing this on a massive scale, so they've been fined and told to stop. 
If a video draws an audience that is mostly children, then Youtube would be clearly breaking that law- so although somebody might upload a toy review with the intention that it is for adults to watch, it may well end up drawing a large child audience- and then Youtube would be breaking the law if it allowed targeted advertising on that video. 

An alternative solution would be to ask users to opt-in to targeted advertisement and the ability to view comments- but Youtube has probably calculated that the solution they're going with is better for their bottom-line.


----------



## TrishaCat (Nov 18, 2019)

So if I'm understanding this correctly, if Youtube thinks your content is for children, even if its not, it'll mark it as such? Am I understanding this correctly? Because that's....extremely discomforting. Algorithms determining these things guarantees mistakes.


----------



## Simo (Nov 18, 2019)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> So, basically, everything except for mature content will lose comments and stuff?



OMG! That would be a huge improvement: YouTube without the comments. This way I wouldn't even be tempted to peek in that dark quagmire. So far this is looking pretty good; one could always comment on a site linked to said YouTube videos. To have the comments out of sight and out of mind would be delightful.


----------



## Purplefuzz (Nov 18, 2019)

Simo said:


> OMG! That would be a huge improvement: YouTube without the comments. This way I wouldn't even be tempted to peek in that dark quagmire. So far this is looking pretty good; one could always comment on a site linked to said YouTube videos. To have the comments out of sight and out of mind would be delightful.



Same 99% of the comments are always worthless.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 18, 2019)

What people are getting from this story is 'oh no what if one of my videos is labelled incorrectly?'

What they should be getting from this story is that Youtube has literally been breaking the law for years by collecting information about children. 

You should care like, *a thousand times more* about that.


----------



## TrishaCat (Nov 18, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> What people are getting from this story is 'oh no what if one of my videos is labelled incorrectly?'


If something is labeled incorrectly this means that children may be exposed to content not suitable for them and users will basically be responsible for exposing children to things against their will. Its like being forced to harm children, which is really shitty.

I like cutesy things mixed with adult themes. That kinda stuff could easily be mistaken as something aimed at children, and that's not cool. An easy example is how back in the day things like Happy Tree Friends were mistaken as being aimed at children. That's *dangerous*. People don't wanna be responsible for traumatizing kids because an algorithm mistakenly decided their content was for kids.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 18, 2019)

Battlechili said:


> If something is labeled incorrectly this means that children may be exposed to content not suitable for them and users will basically be responsible for exposing children to things against their will. Its like being forced to harm children, which is really shitty.



Videos that are harmful to children should be rated 18+ anyway, Battlechili; you have the ability to do that.

The issue being discussed isn't simply children being exposed to harmful content- it's the surreptitious collection of their browsing habits in order to direct adverts at them. For example Youtube would currently be able to place Oreo biscuit adverts on videos that it knows small children are likely to watch, or have paid recommendations for Juul pods follow videos that it knows teenagers are watching. (yes Juul has an official youtube channel eventhough they are a tobacco brand!)


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 18, 2019)

I'm kinda baffled at the idea of YouTube targeting ads in general. Like... if it tries, it certainly is not very good at it, because it keeps feeding me L'Oreal ads and shit. And I have watched like one makeup video ever. 

Admittedly I'm a bit confused by COPPA being brought in; my understanding was that it primarily dealt with preteen children, and I didn't think websites that allow free-text commenting could permit users that young without violating COPPA, in the first place. If they're watching videos without an account, I suppose that doesn't factor in as much, though then it would seem the solution would be to only do ad targeting for logged-in users.

Internet giant logic hurts my brain.

I do find it a bit irksome that they'll be disabling "save to playlist" for videos marked as for kids - some crafting videos I have watched could conceivably have been intended for a young audience, and it's not as though you can save things for later/to a playlist if you're not logged into an account anyway. As a goddamn adult who sometimes enjoys simple crafts, being able to save those videos conveniently kinda sucks.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 18, 2019)




----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Nov 18, 2019)

Toby_Morpheus said:


>


So, the FTC is going out of its way to kill YouTube?


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 18, 2019)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> So, the FTC is going out of its way to kill YouTube?


Under pressure by children's rights activists, yes.

These are the same kind of people who got upset in the 90s when Cartoon Network showed some edgier shows and rather than turn the TV off, demanded the television syndicates to change what they showed.

[EDIT] This is why free speech matters, people. "Muh private corporation" doesn't work when people all over are calling for censorship and the government is forced to bend a knee.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 18, 2019)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> Under pressure by children's rights activists, yes.
> 
> These are the same kind of people who got upset in the 90s when Cartoon Network showed some edgier shows and rather than turn the TV off, demanded the television syndicates to change what they showed.
> 
> [EDIT] This is why free speech matters, people. "Muh private corporation" doesn't work when people all over are calling for censorship and the government is forced to bend a knee.


As long as their voices are tolerated, they will continue to be a blight on creativity.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 18, 2019)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> As long as their voices are tolerated, they will continue to be a blight on creativity.


No shit.
That's why everyone is at arms.
The masses have to know what's going on.
The silent majority have to speak up.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 18, 2019)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> No shit.
> That's why everyone is at arms.
> The masses have to know what's going on.
> The silent majority have to speak up.


The vocal minority need to be silenced.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 18, 2019)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> The vocal minority need to be silenced.


The public must know to judge it. It's the only way.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Nov 18, 2019)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> Under pressure by children's rights activists, yes.
> 
> These are the same kind of people who got upset in the 90s when Cartoon Network showed some edgier shows and rather than turn the TV off, demanded the television syndicates to change what they showed.
> 
> [EDIT] This is why free speech matters, people. "Muh private corporation" doesn't work when people all over are calling for censorship and the government is forced to bend a knee.


So, we're going to be without YouTube now?


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 18, 2019)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> So, we're going to be without YouTube now?


*breathes*
It really depends on which direction Youtube wants to go.
Over the years, it has been moving in the direction of being a platform like Netflix where only heavily curated stuff is allowed.
It's easier to curate stuff other companies have also curated whereas Youtubers aren't subject to the TV Parental Guidelines or the Motion Pictures of America ratings scale.
It's nigh impossible for a single platform to curate the massive amounts of videos that go up on Youtube so.

I see less and less advertisement for independent creators and more support for already curated content.
It's already been happening. This is most likely going to accelerate it.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Nov 18, 2019)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> *breathes*
> It really depends on which direction Youtube wants to go.
> Over the years, it has been moving in the direction of being a platform like Netflix where only heavily curated stuff is allowed.
> It's easier to curate stuff other companies have also curated whereas Youtubers aren't subject to the TV Parental Guidelines or the Motion Pictures of America ratings scale.
> ...


Well, knowing YouTube, they'll choose the worst decision.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 18, 2019)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Well, knowing YouTube, they'll choose the worst decision.


At this point, I'm not even sure they could go back even if they wanted to.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Nov 18, 2019)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> At this point, I'm not even sure they could go back even if they wanted to.


How come?


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 18, 2019)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> How come?


When a government program steps in, it's pretty much over.
Youtube will probably never be the same again.


----------



## volkinaxe (Nov 18, 2019)

looks like it`s time to    use  vlare  
Channels | Vlare


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Nov 18, 2019)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> When a government program steps in, it's pretty much over.
> Youtube will probably never be the same again.


Well, I hate to derail, but I feel like the government is going to step in on the larger internet some time next year because they're mad at Mark Zuckerberg, and to most politicians Facebook = the entire internet.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 18, 2019)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Well, I hate to derail, but I feel like the government is going to step in on the larger internet some time next year because they're mad at Mark Zuckerberg, and to most politicians Facebook = the entire internet.


*SOPA/PIPA flashbacks*


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Nov 18, 2019)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> *SOPA/PIPA flashbacks*


I'm so glad that I was too oblivious to really know what was going on when that happened. I didn't care about much back when I was in the 10th grade...


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 18, 2019)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> So, the FTC is going out of its way to kill YouTube?


More like (if I understood @Fallowfox correctly) YouTube was caught violating the law. Most likely, if they hadn't gone too far in the first place, they wouldn't have needed to crack down quite so much. Because they did a bad in the name of profits, they'll be under extra scrutiny, and thus they need to clean things up a good deal.

It would be a good time for them to review their policy on demonetization for e.g. profanity (I personally have no issue with bigoted speech being demonetized, but withdrawing ad profits for creators who say "fuck" too often feels petty), but I doubt they will.

I doubt this will be the end of furry YouTube, though I could see things getting a bit tough for people who do family/kid oriented channels (things like "Crafts for Kids" and similar) and to any degree rely on that income. It depends a lot on the type of videos you're looking at, though. People in fursuit talking about whatever topics? Shouldn't be an issue. People performing in fursuit by way of posing cutely? Might be an argument for that kind of video being classified as "for kids."


----------



## volkinaxe (Nov 19, 2019)




----------



## volkinaxe (Nov 19, 2019)

FTC   Regulations.gov
www.change.org: Sign the Petition


----------



## ConorHyena (Nov 19, 2019)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> So, we're going to be without YouTube now?



Nothing has been lost if youtube dies.


----------



## CrookedCroc (Nov 19, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> What people are getting from this story is 'oh no what if one of my videos is labelled incorrectly?'
> 
> What they should be getting from this story is that Youtube has literally been breaking the law for years by collecting information about children.
> 
> You should care like, *a thousand times more* about that.


Collecting data from kids isn't the worst they've done.
A lot of people think that certain types of hardcore porn are only obtainable through greasy websites and onion sites but in reality these types of things thrive on YouTube, all they need to do to avoid being discovered is either private the video or unlist it.

There are a few infamous cases of actual CP and animal crush channels being on youtube, the videos are only accessible after making bitcoin payments in some invite-only websites.
Iirc one of the infamous CP channels was from Mexico but it got taken down during the Carlos Maza incident, apparently youtube already knew the channel contained "borderline" content so they nuked it to prevent more scandals, they definitely knew what kind of content it had because a lot of people reported the channel over the years.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 19, 2019)

volkinaxe said:


> FTC   Regulations.gov
> www.change.org: Sign the Petition


Even should it be "successful," that petition won't change anything. Because it's not FTC that has set the exact policies YouTube is implementing; it's YouTube. They have done so to ease their own compliance - they, not content creators, are the ones collecting personal information, no matter how child-targeted their videos are (unless they're running giveaways or similar, which is a whole different kettle of fish). 

Similarly, the list of things to consider when deciding whether your content should be marked "for kids" is a rough guideline, not a draconian "if any of these are true..." While it's true that YouTube are _sort of_ leaning in the vague direction of blurring the line between child-targeted and child-attractive, that's a business decision, and as a business decision it makes sense - _they_ would rather err on the side of caution, because they are the ones who'll be liable do they continue to collect personal information from kids. 

Not saying it won't impact creators of content that would be marked "for kids" or that it's not unfortunate that it'll do so and that YouTube has chosen an approach that will hurt creators' bottom line. It absolutely will. But the people who can be pushed about finding a solution that doesn't screw creators over so much is YouTube, not the FTC.


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Nov 19, 2019)

Tbh, there is a lot going on about this that it's kinda hard to even get a firm grasp of what's happening, but...


----------



## volkinaxe (Nov 19, 2019)

quoting_mungo said:


> Even should it be "successful," that petition won't change anything. Because it's not FTC that has set the exact policies YouTube is implementing; it's YouTube. They have done so to ease their own compliance - they, not content creators, are the ones collecting personal information, no matter how child-targeted their videos are (unless they're running giveaways or similar, which is a whole different kettle of fish).
> 
> Similarly, the list of things to consider when deciding whether your content should be marked "for kids" is a rough guideline, not a draconian "if any of these are true..." While it's true that YouTube are _sort of_ leaning in the vague direction of blurring the line between child-targeted and child-attractive, that's a business decision, and as a business decision it makes sense - _they_ would rather err on the side of caution, because they are the ones who'll be liable do they continue to collect personal information from kids.
> 
> Not saying it won't impact creators of content that would be marked "for kids" or that it's not unfortunate that it'll do so and that YouTube has chosen an approach that will hurt creators' bottom line. It absolutely will. But the people who can be pushed about finding a solution that doesn't screw creators over so much is YouTube, not the FTC.


I think  going to be  giving up making videos on youtube


----------



## volkinaxe (Nov 19, 2019)

Smexy Likeok4 said:


> Tbh, there is a lot going on about this that it's kinda hard to even get a firm grasp of what's happening, but...


 say by to all the  furry  youtube channels 
                                                                                                                                                                                              it was fun while it lasted


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Nov 19, 2019)

volkinaxe said:


> say by to all the  furry  youtube channels
> it was fun while it lasted


I don't watch 'em. They don't get my interest.


----------



## ManicTherapsid (Nov 19, 2019)

Not gonna happen, but I'd like to see a Congressional Hearing on this for shits n giggles, sort of like the PMRC Hearings back in the 80's. 

Except instead of  Frank Zappa and Dee Snider, it'd be like Dude Perfect and Majira Strawberry testifying...

On second thought, I don't think I'd want to see that.


----------



## TrishaCat (Nov 19, 2019)

Oh hey it gets worse
You can be fined up to $42,000 even if you mark your videos as being meant for adults because the content within them isn't deemed mature enough.


Fallowfox said:


> Videos that are harmful to children should be rated 18+ anyway, Battlechili; you have the ability to do that.


That won't necessarily work though; even if you mark your video as for adults, if the content is deemed as not mature enough for that to be an accurate rating, it may be rerated and you can be fined for marking your video "incorrectly"


----------



## Gryphoneer (Nov 19, 2019)

I mean... Content ID and Youtube's other automated systems have been fucking up left and right since the site's founding. Do you really think giving the bots another set of broad, vague and potentially internally contradictory rules will _decrease _the amount of false positives?

Besides, Youtube has a systemic bias against queer creators. LGBT content of any kind, even absolutely non-sexual, is demonetized. This "child-protection" legislation will be just another cudgel.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 19, 2019)

Battlechili said:


> Oh hey it gets worse
> You can be fined up to $42,000 even if you mark your videos as being meant for adults because the content within them isn't deemed mature enough.
> 
> That won't necessarily work though; even if you mark your video as for adults, if the content is deemed as not mature enough for that to be an accurate rating, it may be rerated and you can be fined for marking your video "incorrectly"



You need a source to provide context. You're giving the impression an average user could receive a 42 thousand dollar fine for an incorrect algorithm decision on a single video.

This is very unlikely to be true- and I feel you know that.



CrookedCroc said:


> Collecting data from kids isn't the worst they've done.
> A lot of people think that certain types of hardcore porn are only obtainable through greasy websites and onion sites but in reality these types of things thrive on YouTube, all they need to do to avoid being discovered is either private the video or unlist it.
> 
> There are a few infamous cases of actual CP and animal crush channels being on youtube, the videos are only accessible after making bitcoin payments in some invite-only websites.
> Iirc one of the infamous CP channels was from Mexico but it got taken down during the Carlos Maza incident, apparently youtube already knew the channel contained "borderline" content so they nuked it to prevent more scandals, they definitely knew what kind of content it had because a lot of people reported the channel over the years.



Personally I think the worst thing Youtube has done is facilitate the spread of medical misinformation online- videos discouraging Brazilians from getting vaccinated against Zika were followed by an uptick in Zika cases, and the Zika conspiracy theories that permeated Youtube were even repeated at high levels of Brazilian government. 

But yeah, anyway- I think this thread is about Youtube breaking advertising laws rather than debating whether it's the _worst _thing they've ever done (because obviously there's a long list of bad things they've allowed their platform to be used for).


----------



## TrishaCat (Nov 19, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> You need a source to provide context. You're giving the impression an average user could receive a 42 thousand dollar fine for an incorrect algorithm decision on a single video.
> 
> This is very unlikely to be true- and I feel you know that.


https://www.tubefilter.com/2019/11/...alypse-ftc-rules-demonetizing-child-directed/
www.theverge.com: YouTube’s new kids’ content system has creators scrambling


			
				article said:
			
		

> If the FTC decides an uploaded video is kid-directed, but sees it is not marked as kid-directed, the creator could face a fine of over $42,000 per video.



For the record, I understand 42k is a "up to" thing; its moreso the problem that they *can* do this. That someone *could* incorrectly assess your work and essentially bankrupt you.
Also its worth noting that the 42k thing is *per video*. So they could fine more if you frequently upload content that could be incorrectly assessed by the FTC.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 19, 2019)

Smexy Likeok4 said:


> I don't watch 'em. They don't get my interest.


Yeah I never got into furry youtube.

Some furs cross over into the things I'm interested in but meh.

If Youtube dies, I'll just move to twitch or something.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 19, 2019)

Battlechili said:


> https://www.tubefilter.com/2019/11/...alypse-ftc-rules-demonetizing-child-directed/
> www.theverge.com: YouTube’s new kids’ content system has creators scrambling
> 
> 
> ...



Your sources make it clear that 'high profile cases on popular channels' are the only ones likely to face litigation and a potential fine of this magnitude- and that it would be the FTC assessing whether videos were labelled incorrectly in those cases, not Youtube.

If they faced litigation, and it was shown that their video was incorrectly labelled by an algorithm, and that the creator had made an effort to change this, then do you think the litigation would be successful?


----------



## TrishaCat (Nov 19, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> If they faced litigation, and it was shown that their video was incorrectly labelled by an algorithm, and that the creator had made an effort to change this, then do you think the litigation would be successful?


Probably not, no.
Like I said, I'm more concerned that it *can* happen.
Humans are stupid and the law is a blunt weapon, not something that recognizes nuance. All that has to happen is for someone to make a bunch of things that appear "childlike" that have adult content mixed in and people may assume such is aimed at children, regardless of what the creator says. After all, cartoons _are_ for children right? So if someone makes a brightly colored cartoon with a bunch of talking animal characters, and the first few minutes seem pretty tame, then _surely_ that means its aimed at kids, right?
People in law especially are older people; older people have historically been very poor at recognizing changes in technology and pop culture.

I recognize this likely comes off as paranoid, but its the capability that bothers me. Not the likelihood of such actually occurring.


----------



## TrishaCat (Nov 19, 2019)

For example, imagine someone makes a Pokemon parody fan animation. Pokemon is a series aimed at kids, and most adults associate it with children. If its set as adult content, it may be monetized and may have advertising. However, an older adult unfamiliar with pop culture might see such a video as "trying to corrupt children or advertise adult content to children using media they like" or some such. Thus, its simultaneously mislabeled  (because *obviously* if its Pokemon it must be aimed at kids) *and* advertises to children whilst including adult content. "Pokemon automatically means it can't possibly be aimed at adults" might be a thought process.

Colorful anime has frequently been misinterpreted by unknowledgeable parents as being for children even when they may not be, and the end result has in the past been parents mistakenly viewing such as existing to harm youth.

"anything that can go wrong will go wrong"


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 19, 2019)

Battlechili said:


> Probably not, no.
> Like I said, I'm more concerned that it *can* happen.
> Humans are stupid and the law is a blunt weapon, not something that recognizes nuance. All that has to happen is for someone to make a bunch of things that appear "childlike" that have adult content mixed in and people may assume such is aimed at children, regardless of what the creator says. After all, cartoons _are_ for children right? So if someone makes a brightly colored cartoon with a bunch of talking animal characters, and the first few minutes seem pretty tame, then _surely_ that means its aimed at kids, right?
> People in law especially are older people; older people have historically been very poor at recognizing changes in technology and pop culture.
> ...



It does come off as paranoid, yes. The balance of harms already done to children by targeted advertising is a much greater concern- but how Youtube should be held to account for that *crime it has actually done*, is being ignored in favour of discussing a hypothetical injustice that's never going to happen.


----------



## TrishaCat (Nov 19, 2019)

Advertising to kids is wrong, its just really hard to think much of Youtube doing this when to this day commercials advertising to kids still air on US television on channels like Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon.
Its asking people to care more about something that's always been happening vs something that's only just now affecting people, and its asking people to care more about advertising's affects on children than on people's personal financial well-being and creative freedom.

It especially feels bizarre to even have this law in effect online when websites like this aren't supposed to allow children under 13 in the first place to use their website, and when parents are supposed to be the ones monitoring their children. Adults shouldn't be hurt or affected in the process of protecting children.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 19, 2019)

Battlechili said:


> Advertising to kids is wrong, its just really hard to think much of Youtube doing this when to this day commercials advertising to kids still air on US television on channels like Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon.
> Its asking people to care more about something that's always been happening vs something that's only just now affecting people, and its asking people to care more about advertising's affects on children than on people's personal financial well-being and creative freedom.
> 
> It especially feels bizarre to even have this law in effect online when websites like this aren't supposed to allow children under 13 in the first place to use their website, and when parents are supposed to be the ones monitoring their children. Adults shouldn't be hurt or affected in the process of protecting children.



Advertising in a break in a children's television schedule isn't illegal; that's not why Youtube's been found to break the law.

Youtube broke the law by collecting information children were submitting to it by using the platform, for the purposes of creating targeted advertising.

You need to read about the legal provisions of COPPA first, before forming an opinion on it, basically.


----------



## ManicTherapsid (Nov 19, 2019)

"*12. Ability to Accept Terms of Service*
You affirm that you are either more than 18 years of age, or an emancipated minor, or possess legal parental or guardian consent, and are fully able and competent to enter into the terms, conditions, obligations, affirmations, representations, and warranties set forth in these Terms of Service, and to abide by and comply with these Terms of Service. In any case, you affirm that you are over the age of 13, *as the Service is not intended for children under 13*. *If you are under 13 years of age, then please do not use the Service*. There are lots of other great web sites for you. Talk to your parents about what sites are appropriate for you."

Terms of Service - YouTube


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 19, 2019)

ManicTherapsid said:


> "*12. Ability to Accept Terms of Service*
> You affirm that you are either more than 18 years of age, or an emancipated minor, or possess legal parental or guardian consent, and are fully able and competent to enter into the terms, conditions, obligations, affirmations, representations, and warranties set forth in these Terms of Service, and to abide by and comply with these Terms of Service. In any case, you affirm that you are over the age of 13, *as the Service is not intended for children under 13*. *If you are under 13 years of age, then please do not use the Service*. There are lots of other great web sites for you. Talk to your parents about what sites are appropriate for you."
> 
> Terms of Service - YouTube



Problem is we all know that children under 13 widely use Youtube. Youtube also knew this and *knowingly *collected their information- and then went on to advertise this fact to Toy companies in the hope of selling advertising space to them for higher prices.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 19, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Problem is we all know that children under 13 widely use Youtube. Youtube also knew this and *knowingly *collected their information- and then went on to advertise this fact to Toy companies in the hope of selling advertising space to them for higher prices.


That's sort of what I was trying to get at earlier - obviously YouTube couldn't (in the sense of "this is not feasible/possible") keep preteens from watching content while logged out, but it _should_ be within their capabilities to make a good-faith effort to close accounts held by individuals under 13, and to just... not put any targeted ads on anything viewed by a non-logged-in user. Now, at this point the horse is already out of the barn, so they're going to be in hot water if they don't do more than that minimum.

Selling advertising on the premise that you have an audience that you cannot legally have (given the nature of the site, with things like free-text commenting functions) is hella scummy, either way. 

The changes they're making to get the powers that be off their back are, sadly, poorly conceived in the negative impact they may have on some groups of content creators. While few creators have YouTube ads as their sole revenue stream, that doesn't mean it won't hurt to lose a significant portion of that revenue. Plus engagement is liable to drop for those creators, since several forms of engagement will be disabled for kid content - and engagement drives The Algorithm, so they may see hits to their channel in more ways than one. Similarly, it's going to be an asspain for adult viewers of "kid" content.

I don't agree with the conclusion drawn by some people in this thread that furry YouTube would be especially vulnerable to these changes. I will admit I watch very few furry videos, but the impression I've gotten has largely been that people make videos that are, well... grown-up people talking about reasonably grown-up (or personal) things (or dumb drama, but any "this is why the fandom sucks" video is liable to leave kid friendly territory pretty fast). The notion that animal people would lead to an automatic conclusion that it's kid-friendly content is... I can't guarantee an AI won't decide it is so, but that's because algorithms aren't going to be good at identifying target audiences. 

Or just start cursing more in your videos. That's another option. 
Like, I watch a couple of booktubers who read (and talk about) a fair whack of YA, but no fucking way do their videos come off as made for kids. Not because they curse (I don't _think_ they do), that's just what _I_ do, but because they're talking about the books the way an adult reader does when speaking to other adult readers. And if someone can squee over _The Tea Dragon Society_ without sounding like they're trying to make videos for kids, I think people playing games or vlogging or whatever in fursuit will be able to figure out the balance _just fine_.

If any demographic is going to be hit especially hard, aside from channels that already 100% cater to children of their own accord, my guess would be crafters and/or "cute animal videos" channels.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 19, 2019)

quoting_mungo said:


> That's sort of what I was trying to get at earlier - obviously YouTube couldn't (in the sense of "this is not feasible/possible") keep preteens from watching content while logged out, but it _should_ be within their capabilities to make a good-faith effort to close accounts held by individuals under 13, and to just... not put any targeted ads on anything viewed by a non-logged-in user. Now, at this point the horse is already out of the barn, so they're going to be in hot water if they don't do more than that minimum.
> 
> Selling advertising on the premise that you have an audience that you cannot legally have (given the nature of the site, with things like free-text commenting functions) is hella scummy, either way.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't put it past youtube deliberately making poor policy choices and publicly commenting it's part of their compliance with COPPA, in order to try to make users angry with the FTC, rather than angry with youtube for flouting the law.


----------



## Firuthi Dragovic (Nov 19, 2019)

Toby_Morpheus said:


>



....oh good lord.  I DO NOT have enough funding for a lawyer.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 19, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I wouldn't put it past youtube deliberately making poor policy choices and publicly commenting it's part of their compliance with COPPA, in order to try to make users angry with the FTC, rather than angry with youtube for flouting the law.


Sadly, I can't really say I disagree with that assessment.

To me, it's pretty blatantly obvious, even before you mentioned them having been caught handling their ads badly, that it's a "YouTube sucks at handling COPPA compliance" issue rather than an FTC issue; if FTC was the problem, practically no website with user-submitted content or user accounts would function. Imagine all Wikipedia articles about subjects attractive to kids being locked, with discussion pages disabled. 
It's not like they have a history of screwing with content creators' payouts/earnings or anything. :V


----------



## Gushousekai195 (Nov 19, 2019)

Ever since Trump was elected, it’s just been an onslaught of bad news.  First, net neutrality being repealed.  Then, Article 13.  Now, this!

What is this world I was born into?


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 19, 2019)

Gushousekai195 said:


> Ever since Trump was elected, it’s just been an onslaught of bad news.  First, net neutrality.  Then, Article 13.  Now, this!
> 
> What is this world I was born into?


The term net neutrality was coined in 2003, way before Trump.


----------



## Gushousekai195 (Nov 19, 2019)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> The term net neutrality was coined in 2003, way before Trump.



Being repealed, that is.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 19, 2019)

Gushousekai195 said:


> Being repealed, that is.


The fight has been going on, in recent memory, since SOPA/PIPA, which was fought and won during the Obama administration.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 19, 2019)

Gushousekai195 said:


> Ever since Trump was elected, it’s just been an onslaught of bad news.  First, net neutrality being repealed.  Then, Article 13.  Now, this!
> 
> What is this world I was born into?


The one where we get all of the shitty parts of a cyberpunk dystopia, but few of the cool toys.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 19, 2019)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> The one where we get all of the shitty parts of a cyberpunk dystopia, but few of the cool toys.


tbf we've been going that direction since the 80s if not earlier.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Nov 19, 2019)




----------



## Pipistrele (Nov 19, 2019)

...with FACTS and LOGIC?


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 20, 2019)

Gushousekai195 said:


> Ever since Trump was elected, it’s just been an onslaught of bad news.  First, net neutrality being repealed.  Then, Article 13.  Now, this!
> 
> What is this world I was born into?



Coppa isn't related to Trump; it was around before him.


----------



## TrishaCat (Nov 20, 2019)

I think I wanna apologize to @Fallowfox and say that I've changed my mind. I'm still cautious, but after seeing Internet Historian explain it, it makes sense. Basically the FTC is concerned moreso about advertising to children above all else; they don't have interest in going after random end users who are just making videos (not meant to advertise), nor do they have interest or the authority to fine people essentially millions of dollars over this. Nor would they want to deal with thousands of lawsuits involving people all over the world.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1196944903038652417


----------



## volkinaxe (Nov 21, 2019)




----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Nov 21, 2019)

I understand collecting information minors are horrible and should be illegal but why is advertisements a problem? Since there are children's television networks always had advertisement at least in the United States. (It has to with what @Fallowfox  said right? Inappropriate advertisement?)


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 21, 2019)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> I understand collecting information minors are horrible and should be illegal but why is advertisements a problem? Since there are children's television networks always had advertisement at least in the United States. (It has to with what @Fallowfox  said right? Inappropriate advertisement?)


Targeted ads by their nature are collecting personal information, though. The problem wasn't that the ads were there, but that they were targeted - and targeted ads give creators a better payout, so even though removing them may be the right thing to do, it still fucks with people's income.
Note that these changes also involve removing commenting from videos with a child target audience - this is because as COPPA reckons it, free-text comments are _also_ personal information.

Basically YouTube said "enforcing our 'you must be at least 13 to have an account' policy is too hard, so we're just going to use the sledgehammer solution."


----------



## Gryphoneer (Nov 22, 2019)

The one man who I trust to actually understand the issue and explain it in an accurate way has done his video on COPPA.






Big takeaways:

1. The new automated system that flags children-oriented content is *not actually a requirement of the law or the Google/FTC agreement*. In fact, the FTC Commission has explicitly spoken out against such a measure, because they knew a glut of false positives would be the result. This is an entirely voluntary action on Youtube's part.

2. Youtube has deliberately poorly communicated the terms of the agreement that makes the platform COPPA-compliant. They want people to flood the FTC with hatemail to delay or soften the agreement.

The fact of the matter is, Youtube wants to monetize those weird "Elsa's baby is aborted by Spiderman" videos that were in the news a while ago for as long and as much as possible. So they miscommunicate the actual legal situation and make the UI to opt out of direct advertisement obtuse to navigate.

Youtube could switch off children-directed advertisement at a system-level, but instead kick responsibility down to the end users so their revenue isn't hurt as hard.


----------



## Joni (Nov 22, 2019)

volkinaxe said:


> I think  going to be  giving up making videos on youtube


Tbh, I think you aswell as me can continue like normal. We have furry profile pics but non of our content is for kids.


----------



## Matt the Terrier (Nov 22, 2019)

_(quietly sips my coffee; continues to make videos, not the least bit bothered by any of this)_
This isn't the first time YouTube has done something stupid, nor will it be the last. . .take that in any direction you see fit. I was doing YouTube for hobby, it was never my intention to earn revenue from it. If it goes down the tubes, sobeit. I've still got deviantArt and FurAffinity.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 23, 2019)

Gryphoneer said:


> "Elsa's baby is aborted by Spiderman"



What a world we live in.


----------



## RailRide (Nov 23, 2019)

Ooh lookie, it gets _even better_. Mr Corzine, featured above in reply #80 has more to add to the tale, courtesy of an anonymous YT insider:





TL: DR version--YT could have had a third option for content that wasn't _targeted_ at kids but was general audience, and/or placed age checks/verification on logged-in users...but didn't. And the FTA warned them about only offering an either/or choice.

Curiouser and curiouser... (But there is more:)

---PCJ


----------



## HopeTLioness (Nov 23, 2019)

YouTube Creators are in trouble. In BIG trouble. Recently, YouTube made a settlement of $170 million dollars to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for the alleged violation to the U.S. Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). And because of this, YouTube had came up with major changes that will hurt most, if not all, creators of family-friendly, gaming, art, and other content. And this change will affect both creators and viewers who watch YouTube daily. 

Videos:
Ian Corzine:  



 , 



J House Law: 



Philip DeFranco: 



NerdECrafter: 



Game Theory: youtu.be: Game Theory: Will Your Favorite Channel Survive 2020? (COPPA)
Dollightful: youtu.be: Help save our channels
Paulo Animation: YouTube will RUIN Animation Channels in 2020 | YouTube & COPPA
Brian Hull: youtu.be: Coppa and the Future of My Channel

Please watch the videos, get educated on this issue, read this article, and sign the petition here. www.change.org: Sign the Petition

Also, please write a comment to the  FTC and please be very professional. Please make it clear and coherent when making your points. Be civil and be very mature of your comment. The more we educate the FTC about YouTube about the positive affect it has in your life, and the negative consequences if this rules goes into effect on January 2020, the more they will listen and hopefully reconsider. 

Please help and fight this before December 9th! DO NOT PUSH THIS OFF! IF YOU USE YOUTUBE REGULARLY, PLEASE, PLEASE HELP FIGHT THIS!


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Nov 23, 2019)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> The one where we get all of the shitty parts of a cyberpunk dystopia, but few of the cool toys.


You mean like the video game SOMA? :3.........


Spoiler: A link to tv tropes do not view if easily disturbed and depressed.



SOMA (Video Game) - TV Tropes


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 23, 2019)

I feel like there are some Youtube channels making money from making these 'panic about COPPA' videos. 

I think people should also realise that Youtube is deliberately trying to persuade users to harass the FTC, when the actual story is that Youtube is a bunch of Scumbags which have been illegally collecting children's information for years. 

Youtube should be the ones with their feet over the coal.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 23, 2019)

Yeah, bugging the FTC won't do a damn thing, because they're not the ones who decided what measures YouTube was going to take - YouTube was. And YouTube isn't interested in nuance or fairness; they're interested in covering their ass as much as possible with a minimum of effort. Meanwhile, people are panicking as though COPPA hasn't been around for ages. 

It's not a new regulation. What's new is that YouTube was caught violating it, and are throwing their rattle out of the pram in the hopes that their userbase will take their side. Yeah, sorry, but no. The blame for the negative impact these changes will have on creators and watchers lies with YouTube alone. They were supposed to be complying with COPPA all along, and didn't. That's not FTC's fault.


----------



## volkinaxe (Nov 24, 2019)




----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 24, 2019)

@volkinaxe You're rolling around in deliberately encouraged youtube dramas. I hope you know this.

When you're reading videos on a popular topic du jour, with WORDS IN CAPSLOCK IN THEIR TITLES, the video content is just gibberish that creators release in order to trend-surf.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> @volkinaxe You're rolling around in deliberately encouraged youtube dramas. I hope you know this.
> 
> When you're reading videos on a popular topic du jour, with WORDS IN CAPSLOCK IN THEIR TITLES, the video content is just gibberish that creators release in order to trend-surf.


I'm willing to give creators enough benefit of the doubt to say that _some_ of them probably genuinely believe that the exact changes were dictated by the FTC and are trying to spread the word because they're worried about what will happen. A lot of them, especially the ones with larger channels, probably are indeed mainly taking the opportunity to trend-surf, though.

It actually reminds me a lot of the panic posts that used to circulate every so often about DeviantArt and how they supposedly claimed ownership of any art posted to the site and so on, because people who did not understand legalese read the redistribution clauses and didn't realize that without permission to redistribute the work dA couldn't serve it to visitors (which obviously would make the site pretty useless). And then people who listened to those first people latched on and went to spread the word wider. It's essentially a story that grows in the retelling.

Now, I'm absolutely willing to believe there could have been bullshit going on behind the scenes, where YouTube could have made decisions that would have been better for creators and chose not to. Calling attention to _that_, if you're sitting on credible information about it, is absolutely justified. But when it gets twisted into a narrative about how the FTC is making YouTube make these changes... nope. YouTube has a history of screwing over content creators. If they stumbled upon an opportunity to cut down creator payouts while making someone else take the fall, I'm sadly willing to believe they'd take it.

Incidentally, @Fallowfox, do you happen to have any links to written articles going into _how_ YouTube was violating COPPA? I feel like that might be helpful; we're so mired in online advertising these days that it's all too easy to go "how can ads possibly be violating privacy/collecting personal information?" I can't be sure, of course, but to me it seems like that's sort of the disconnect going on here.

(ETA: You have _no_ idea how tempted I am to do a little trend surfing of my own, by reading up and then creating a video titled something like "What YouTube isn't telling you about COPPA." Too much effort, but the thought amuses me.)


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 24, 2019)

@quoting_mungo 

Yes. I can post some written news articles: www.bbc.co.uk: YouTube fined over using kids' data to target ads

This particular paragraph says it all, really:
_*
He added that when it came to complying with Coppa, Google had refused to acknowledge that parts of its main YouTube service were directed at children.
However, in presentations to business clients, the company is accused of painting a different picture.
For example, the FTC said the tech firm had told Mattel: "YouTube is today's leader in reaching children age 6-11 against top TV channels."
*_
Other articles clarify that Youtube isn't being required by law to enforce its new rules, and that regulators widely expect Youtube to surreptitiously continue breaking the law to gather children's information. 
Google and FTC reach $170 million settlement over alleged YouTube violations of kids' privacy - CNN

_*"The order does not require YouTube to police the channels that deceive by mis-designating their content, such as by requiring YouTube to put in place a technological backstop to identify undesignated child-directed content and turn off behavioral advertising,"*_


----------



## Rassah (Nov 24, 2019)

It's a little weird reading a thread about government overreach regards to government control of the internet with COPPA, where someone at the same time also complains about not having enough government control over the internet with Net Neutrality.

So, will everyone move to Pornhub now? A lot of non porn people moved there already.


----------



## RailRide (Nov 25, 2019)

The parties in the center of this uproar released additional info:




Watch the whole thing first. I'm linking my first post to this vid to defuse it's potential.

---PCJ


----------



## volkinaxe (Nov 25, 2019)

Rassah said:


> It's a little weird reading a thread about government overreach regards to government control of the internet with COPPA, where someone at the same time also complains about not having enough government control over the internet with Net Neutrality.
> 
> So, will everyone move to Pornhub now? A lot of non porn people moved there already.


no  don`t  go to  porn  hub  to vlare  thttps://vlare.tv/u/z9VBTmZso


----------



## HopeTLioness (Nov 25, 2019)

I'm reading more on this and YouTube has really, REALLY messed up. It's just...ugh. I was really concerned about what will happen to our favorite YT Creators and it's like YouTube doesn't care. :/


----------



## Gushousekai195 (Nov 25, 2019)

HopeTLioness said:


> I'm reading more on this and YouTube has really, REALLY messed up. It's just...ugh. I was really concerned about what will happen to our favorite YT Creators and it's like YouTube doesn't care. :/



And that’s hundreds if not thousands of hours of quality content that WE ARE NEVER EVER GOING TO SEE AGAIN!!!

I just don’t see how we can preserve it all before next year’s beginning....


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 26, 2019)

volkinaxe said:


> *no go* to vlare  thttps://vlare.tv/u/z9VBTmZso



Alright then, I won't. :}


----------



## volkinaxe (Nov 26, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Alright then, I won't. :}





  OOOOOOF


----------



## Rassah (Nov 26, 2019)

Why are people saying YouTube messed up, instead of George W Bush and the Republican Senate that wrote that COPPA garbage messed up? I still remember when that law was first passed, people were freaking out wondering if Romeo and Juliet is now legally pedophilia being taught in schools.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Nov 27, 2019)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> We just need to embrace the yiffy side to not be tagged as family friendly.


No, everyone must know my lust for foxes with 9 dongs.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Nov 27, 2019)

Mr. Fox said:


> No, everyone must know my lust for foxes with 9 dongs.


Only 9?


----------



## volkinaxe (Nov 27, 2019)

Mr. Fox said:


> No, everyone must know my lust for foxes with 9 dongs.




   lol  ok


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Nov 27, 2019)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> Only 9?


Wait, there's more???


----------



## KimberVaile (Dec 3, 2019)

Gosh darn, where else will I get my completely banal content with zero substance from?


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Dec 3, 2019)

Rassah said:


> So, will everyone move to Pornhub now? A lot of non porn people moved there already.








At least it'll make more sense when porn hub fucks over it's creators though.


----------



## volkinaxe (Dec 3, 2019)

Smexy Likeok4 said:


> At least it'll make more sense when porn hub fucks over it's creators though.


no go to vlare Channels | Vlare


----------



## volkinaxe (Dec 3, 2019)




----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Dec 4, 2019)

volkinaxe said:


> no go to vlare Channels | Vlare


Nah. Then I won't have to go far if I wanna watch some gay human porn like a sick fleshie if it's on pornhub.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 4, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> Gosh darn, where else will I get my completely banal content with zero substance from?



Dogs' butts.


----------



## volkinaxe (Dec 5, 2019)

this  FTC thing may be a good thing


----------



## Joni (Dec 16, 2019)

I get this recommended next to furry videos >_>



HELP!!!!


----------



## ConorHyena (Dec 16, 2019)

_it is working_


----------



## Purplefuzz (Dec 16, 2019)

I agree with Hellbents opinion on this being a good thing. Youtube is total shit at dealing with downright dodgy stuff going on, It took 3.5 years for daddyofive to be shut down and seems like youtubers like onision will get shot down by them, going by his latest drama.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Dec 16, 2019)

Joni said:


> I get this recommended next to furry videos >_>
> View attachment 77089
> HELP!!!!


That looks a lot like the recommendations it was giving me when I got on our "smart" (LOL no) TV as a "guest" user. Maybe because Youtube Kids is basically a guest user, so the default recommendations for non-logged-in accounts is Kids?


----------



## Rap Daniel (Dec 16, 2019)

Would this affect me? I upload gaming videos without commentary (that have warnings in the title if swear words are in the game) of games like Ace Combat 7, Minecraft, Subnautica and SW Battlefront II.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Dec 16, 2019)

Rap Daniel said:


> Would this affect me? I upload gaming videos without commentary (that have warnings in the title if swear words are in the game) of games like Ace Combat, Minecraft, Subnautica and SW Battlefront II.


The only game I could see even beginning to be an issue, of those, is Minecraft.
If you're not aiming your videos at a young audience, I doubt it's something to be overly concerned about, especially if you don't make money off your channel.


----------



## Joni (Dec 16, 2019)

quoting_mungo said:


> That looks a lot like the recommendations it was giving me when I got on our "smart" (LOL no) TV as a "guest" user. Maybe because Youtube Kids is basically a guest user, so the default recommendations for non-logged-in accounts is Kids?


I'm logged in and watch mainly furry videos.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 16, 2019)

Joni said:


> I get this recommended next to furry videos >_>
> View attachment 77089
> HELP!!!!



To be honest Paw Patrol does actually have a sizeable furry following. x3


----------



## Joni (Dec 16, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> To be honest Paw Patrol does actually have a sizeable furry following. x3


Oh damn x3


----------

