Youtube

[Singh'sSpot]

Sooo the definition of "kidz kahtent" is very vage, okay cartoons like tmnt and Transformers are kidz kahtent, but what about video games? If you set your channel to "not for kids" and uploaded a lets play of Pokemon, won't kids view that video since Pokemon appeals to all ages.

[VoiceOfReasonPast]

If I've understood everything correctly, YT itself now doesn't actually need to do anything more, since only the content creators get fucked if they get caught with the wrong boolean flag. It's like they kept this shit vague on purpose

[Dingus Bajingus]

Mad bum linked this in Doge's thread, but it could stand to be here, too, so fuck it, here it is:

I've got to disagree with the idea that it's "not Youtube's fault", though. Regardless of how anyone feels about the law, it's been in effect since '98, so YT having been continuously violating it for quite literally the entire time it's been online? Yeah, not going to cut them too much slack on that one.

Anyway, if I'm understanding it right, it feels like YT scrambling for a short-term solution to crowbar their current way of doing things into compliance, especially with it rolling out so quickly. That is, they HAVE to make it so data isn't collected from kids, but tons of site features are reliant on data collection, so... they have to make sure those features aren't linked to any videos that kids are watching. But then you run into the fact that creators are reliant on those site features, so why the fuck wouldn't you just flag everything as "not for kids"? Because then you're putting out content that kids are watching and that data collection is happening with, and bam, you're complicit in violating COPPA. Thus, they have to scour shit for themselves, and if it looks like something that might have younger eyes on it, we can't have the collection-reliant site features involved, thus the fines for creators who aren't flagging their shit. It's a fucking mess. Again, though, my guess is that there is (or will be) a long-term solution rolling out as soon as they can put one together, because goddam. Would it even be possible to have any of those site features not reliant on collected data? I can see targeted ads and Recommended For You shit being pretty dependent on that, but is it absolutely necessary to collect a user's data to let them search, subscribe, tag things as Favorite, ect?

Yeah, sorry for the not-shitpost, but this actually strikes me as pretty interesting, and I'm curious to see how it'll play out, both short-term and long-term. Never thought I'd say that about something that came about because of "Frozen Elsa KIDNAP by Joker PISS Spiderman rescue FIGHT superhero in REAL LIFE". What fucking timeline did we end up in, guys?

[Guest]

There's only one "timeline" dumbass.

[da PAC Nigguh]

There's only one "timeline" dumbass.

This. Can we please fucking kill anybody who uses this absolutely fucking insufferable meme?

[VoiceOfReasonPast]

Your and your limited perception of the 4th dimension can't possibly prove that there aren't other timelines.

[RAPEMAN]

Teal gives an accurate lowdown.

[Le Redditeur]

Boohoo, Google doesn't want to pay me for my shitty opinion pieces!

If these fuckers were so worried about the future of content creation, they should be helping to promote and finance alternatives to YouTube, not trying to shame Google into.making it just like it was back in 2012, when ad revenue was flowing. The problem isn't demonetization, it's monopolization - big tech and payment processing companies actively colluding with each other to stifle competition, like they did and still do with Gab, Bitchute, Minds, and others.

[Guest]

There's only one "timeline" dumbass.

This. Can we please fucking kill anybody who uses this absolutely fucking insufferable meme?

Hating on memes? This truly is the darkest timeline.

[mad bum]