I use YT Kids as well as the regular YT app. The kids app is missing a lot of content though, so a lot of times we go back to the normal version.
Regardless, I don’t have a problem with these changes.
Those are all positive improvements to the platform IMO. Are we supposed to feel bad that some channels that target children or straddle the fence won’t get ad revenue? I don’t.
youtube.com/watch?v=bbcfYZqAQ-U
This is an example of what happens to those videos, as @quuador described.
In the past I saved many videos up in a playlist to show to younger students in Biology lessons, those playlists are pretty much gone now and I’ll have to manually copy the links instead.
Many German channels that target children are part of a public TV network, similar to the USA’s Public Broadcasting Service I guess, so they never had ads and are financially unaffected.
I think everyone fully agrees the problematic channels should be demonetized. The reality is the paul brothers, ricegum, or any other toxic channels won’t be affected, but wholesome channels link jangbricks have to worry. Ironically the wholesome channels have to make their content less kid friendly to survive. It’s just an ineffective rule that is too vague, puts innocent content creators at risk, and doesn’t actually rectify the issue(s).
And yes the parents are partly to blame. Kids shouldn’t be freely browsing YouTube, or any platform that isn’t geared towards kids. If they do, it’s not the content creators fault a kid is watching their material. That’s on the parents.
This thread is so side tracked to the real reason this is happening, and why it is only happening to Youtube. This whole issue isn’t because parents complained about Youtube or the content that was provided, it was because Youtube broke the law.
Youtube actively told advertisers that Youtube, not Youtube kids, has the largest kids audience in the world.
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.”
www.bbc.com/news/technology-49578971
This is why this happening not because parents aren’t looking over their kids shoulders 24/7. If Youtube had directed advertising to Youtube Kids instead of Youtube this wouldn’t be a problem. But Youtube was greedy and wanted to maximize their ad dollars. This leads to the current situation where Youtube and not Youtube kids is the leading supplier of kids content.
If Youtube hadn’t been directing advertising to children on their main site they would be having the same problems with kids content as other sites. Oh, wait, other sites aren’t having similar problems.
@mulder, The thread isn’t sidetracked. No one disagrees Youtube broke the law. Everyone is discussing the affect this new rule will have on content creators, and why youtube can even collect data in the fist place.
The reason why any of this exists is because of the modern negligent parent. The largest and most problematic channels viewer base are children. More importantly, they only have this viewership because parents don’t know or care. This trend is entirely why the data can be “illegally collected”.
Moreover, the massive toxic channels will be unaffected by the new rule. Which adds insult to injury. What the new rule does affect are wholesome hobby channels that did have a lot of kid viewership, and will have to figure out how to become more “adult” to survive. Ironically the channels that were actually kid friendly will now have to be less kid friendly.
Why other platforms don’t have this issue = no other platform is in the same universe as youtube. Find me another video streaming site that is even a 10th of Youtube. It literally doesn’t exist.
This is the problem with today’s youth. They see an individual or company trying to maximize profits as “greedy”. Give me a break and grow up🤬
I totally agree that the primary problem is negligent parenting and that COPPA is a terrible policy and governmental overreach; however, Mulder is actually correct. YouTube did knowingly direct advertisers to it’s primary platform to advertise to children, illegally, to maximize profit. There is no arguing that YouTube knowing broke the law here. The real question is whether or not kids using YouTube to watch content is the creator’s responsibility, the government’s responsibility, or the parent’s responsibility. I think most of us would overwhelmingly agree that it’s the latter, since parents provide the device, internet access, restrictions, and supervision (or lack thereof). I think most of us would also agree that the law itself is unacceptably vague when it comes to YouTue and should be repealed/amended.
@butchdawg32, For sure! I think everyone would agree that youtube broke that law. Perhaps that should have been clarified. The affect is what most have been discussing from the beginning, as its what this hobby and its content creators will have to handle.
Exactly! That’s what I was attempting to clarify. Even though YouTube broke the law (and the law is ridiculous to begin with), it’s wholesome content creators that will have to suffer the potentially devastating consequences. Not just Pokemon, but a lot of hobbies will be adversely affected . . . it’s really unfortunate and simply unfair, since the law and it’s new application essentially puts creators into what should be the role of parents.
I have 2 boys that loved watching videos on YouTube kids, because we didn’t let them watch YouTube by themselves. When we realized that kids wasn’t good unsupervised we stopped that too. Now we watch it together or not at all. I didn’t need anyone to figure that out for me.
Lol…BINGO;)