and there's two white horses following me, waiting on my burying ground

Treesicle's take on COPPA and the YouTube behavior that got us here.

See also Game Theory's contemplation of what happens after COPPA, Ian Corzine's first COPPA video, Ian Corzine's second COPPA video, what's wrong with the FTC's COPPA agreement with YouTube from Folding Ideas, Chadtronic's take on the whole mess (using the previously mentioned $40,000 fine figures, not the revised $42,500 fine figures), and ReviewTechUSA's opinion that COPPA won't be the problem, YouTube's dependency on the machine algorithm system (as usual) for detection will be.

Also have PKRussi's video on how COPPA potentially can affect YouTube animation, and animation channels.

This is taken from COPPA's FAQ page:

A GUIDE FOR BUSINESS AND PARENTS AND SMALL ENTITY COMPLIANCE GUIDE
(March 20, 2015: FAQ M.1, M.4, and M.5 revised. FAQ M.6 deleted)

D. WEBSITES AND ONLINE SERVICES DIRECTED TO CHILDREN
1. COPPA applies to websites or online services that are “directed to children.” What determines whether or not a website or online service is directed to children?
The amended Rule sets out a number of factors for determining whether a website or online service is directed to children. These include subject matter of the site or service, its visual content, the use of animated characters or child-oriented activities and incentives, music or other audio content, age of models, presence of child celebrities or celebrities who appeal to children, language or other characteristics of the website or online service, or whether advertising promoting or appearing on the website or online service is directed to children. The Rule also states that the Commission will consider competent and reliable empirical evidence regarding audience composition, as well as evidence regarding the intended audience of the site or service. See 16 C.F.R. § 312.2 (definition of “Web site or online service directed to children,” paragraph (1)).

As described in FAQ D.5 below, the amended Rule also considers a website or online service to be “directed to children” where it has actual knowledge that it is collecting personal information directly from users of another website or online service that is directed to children. See 16 C.F.R. § 312.2 (definition of “Web site or online service directed to children,” paragraph (2)).

Taken from Chadtronic's video linked above, I found this image:



I wish I could track down the specific pamphlet to which he refers (it seems to be titled "Protecting Children's Privacy under COPPA: A Survey on Compliance"), but in essence, this tells me that basically, any video from January 2020 that potentially uses any of these objects or styles:

• animated or that uses animated characters (either original art, or using known cartoon characters, video game characters, art from childrens' books, animation of children's toys, or animation of childrens' TV stars or themes from childrens' TV shows)
• uses video games at all, either playing or reviewing
• uses bright engaging colors
• uses "simple" language and/or short, colorful descriptions (that's 98% of the videos on YouTube right now)
• offers freebies or free games
• uses bold or fast-moving graphics
• uses or describes subject matter that is "appealing" to children (in other words, childrens' jokes or games, childrens' sports, any story considered to be 'for kids', anything featuring pets that might appeal to children, or anything that is primarily purchased for or consumed by children, like candy or sugared cereal)
• is a "how to" or "DIY" video for "child-centered" arts and crafts (or can be taken for same)
• features childrens' toys or items considered to be childrens' toys
• features a child celebrity (even if said child celebrity is over the age of 13, think JoJo Siwa, who's sixteen as of this writing, but started her YouTube career--with parental consent--much younger)
• features a celebrity of any age whose largest appeal is to a childrens' demographic (think Jake Paul, who is--at least legally--an adult, but whose demographic at personal appearances and concerts averages to about nine years old; he even admits the biggest sector of his fan base is under twelve)
• uses "slang" that children would resonate with (they give terrible examples in one of the publications, like "Dude" and "For sure")
• uses "child centered" sound effects (think cartoon sound effects for that one)
• features video participants under the age of 13
• offers contests geared towards a childrens' demographic
• asks questions, either in the video or below in the video's description, requesting personally identifying information from anyone under the age of 13
• anything within the video, or linked to the video, considered "child-based" or "child-directed" entertainment
• or pertains to anything the FTC as a ruling body would consider "child-directed"

could be considered "child-directed", and thus, if said video is NOT LABELED AS "child-directed", said video's creator could be liable for a fine of up to $42,500. (That's US. It's still high anywhere on the planet, though. 42K is not a small number.) So basically...if the new legislation is enacted with no changes to terminology or text, then there will no longer be any financial incentive for child-centered content creators to create anything, because BY creating a video, and uploading it, they will be uploading said video to:

• no advertising (because YouTube can no longer legally collect data and statistics from known child accounts, and rather than be responsible and deal with this rationally, and develop an age-gating system, and requiring every user of YouTube to register an account WITH YouTube, they're passing the legal responsibility for data collection down to the individual content creators)
• no comments (thus, no interaction with viewers)
• no ability to post user polls
• no ability for non-subscribers to find that video using YouTube search
• no notifications sent out TO subscribers that a new video has been uploaded
• that video will no longer be suggested or recommended to anyone

And why yes, all of this sounds dire. Which is why I'm bringing it up, on the off-chance I have readers who are also YouTube creators.

I'll keep on this, in the hopes that things change, but...it's not looking good, folks.