Jump to content
IGNORED

Do you have an opinion on the whole Youtube/COPPA fiasco?


mbd39

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, MrWunderful said:

This is going to be a super unpopular opinion I think...

While the loss of a platform on which to make money which was volatile to begin with can reasonably seen as a consequence of risky investments, I think this misses the actual point and issue which is some bureaucrat or algorithm can decide to classify people’s videos based on arbitrary criteria and subject them to potentially life altering fines. It reeks of entrapment 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Boosted52405 said:

As for comparing them to teachers, that's funny because I've learned an insane amount watching Youtube videos.  Dare I say I've learned more on Youtube then I did in grade school?

I’ve learned so many things I would have never learned otherwise from YouTube. It is an incredible educational resource that can be far superior to print in some cases. In depth explanations of topics as well as practical applications that you’d never find anywhere else. If it wasn’t for YouTube I’d never have gotten comfortable fixing tube amps. I’d read books and took electronics courses in college, but seeing the procedures in so many different ways and seeing people explain and then immediately apply concepts was invaluable to my understanding.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a Youtuber from 2006-08, ended the channel with about 5000 subscribers which at the time seemed like a lot given how new the platform was. There were no such things as ads or revenue. Just a 9:59 time limit or something like that. I remember toward the end thinking the site was no longer what it was when I signed up and could imagine how the site would continue to stray from what it originally was. By the end of the decade I was burned out from the idea of creating content anymore, it is too time consuming, and back then, like I said, it was never a financial thing, you just got into it because you thought it was fun at first and you enjoy sharing with people. It's funny how even back then it was pretty clear to me I was in the 'wild west' time and it wouldn't be that way forever.

It kind of makes me laugh how the 'modern' Youtuber, particularly the Gen-Z ones, seem to think that Youtube is going to be this endless platform that will always be there has a source of income, that the company will always cater to them, etc.....ha.....good luck with that.

Edited by trj22487
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Boosted52405 said:

For clarity, I was referring to professional "sports" that do not ruin bodies or take lifelong training...such as:

Professional Gamers

Auto Racing

Cyclist

Golfers

Bowlers

Billiards

The top competitors of these pull in 7 digits plus a year.  There are probably quite a few others.  Yes some of these are physically taxing, but nothing that should provide life-long suffering post-competing (cycling perhaps?).  I'd like to think these are still "real jobs" 🙂

All of those involve thousands of hours of training to be anywhere near the top of the sport.

I will grant that I don't see the injury risk in billiards, but all of the others involve quite a few repetitive motion related injury risks that will eventually debilitate them in their sport, before you get into the much more serious risks of car racing.

Edited by arch_8ngel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, arch_8ngel said:

All of those involve thousands of hours of training to be anywhere near the top of the sport.

I will grant that I don't see the injury risk in billiards, but all of the others involve quite a few repetitive motion related injury risks that will eventually debilitate them in their sport, before you get into the much more serious risks of car racing.

I definitely agree that these sports require a significant amount of training to make it to the big leagues, I just argue that it does not take a lifetime commitment of training and post-competition suffering.

As for repetitive motion injuries, of course, although that applies to nearly any profession with repetitive physical motions (even someone that works in an office on a computer for 50 years).  I interpreted MrWunderful's original statement as post-competition long-term suffering, like brain injuries, CTE, mental health, blown knees/ankles etc.

I still question Cycling though, I know that is physically brutal, so I don't want to assume there aren't long-term impacts, but at least it's not a combat sport with countless concussions etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Boosted52405 said:

I definitely agree that these sports require a significant amount of training to make it to the big leagues, I just argue that it does not take a lifetime commitment of training and post-competition suffering.

As for repetitive motion injuries, of course, although that applies to nearly any profession with repetitive physical motions (even someone that works in an office on a computer for 50 years).  I interpreted MrWunderful's original statement as post-competition long-term suffering, like brain injuries, CTE, mental health, blown knees/ankles etc.

I still question Cycling though, I know that is physically brutal, so I don't want to assume there aren't long-term impacts, but at least it's not a combat sport with countless concussions etc.

The generally quoted 10,000 hours of training/practice to become professional-level-good at any activity is essentially a lifetime commitment of training, if you're talking about hitting the upper tier in your early-20's, when most people would seek to make something their profession.

 

Brain injuries and CTE are definitely a thing in car racing from getting banged around. (aside from the more obvious risk of death)

Major joint damage from training and wear and tear are definitely a thing in golf (back injuries almost cost Tiger his career, and that was high profile enough that I'm surprised you'd discount it)

And it wouldn't surprise me, at all, to find that professional bowlers are absolutely destroying their elbows and wrists.  (just think about how much elbow discomfort you can have a casual bowler after just two games in a row with a decently heavy ball)

Edited by arch_8ngel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the "YouTube Isn't A Real Job" camp, does this mean that acting isn't a real career?  Producing?  Directing?  Sound design?  Screenwriting?  All of these skills, and more, are often put into use by individual YouTubers, especially the best/better ones (not necessarily the popular ones, the folks throwing refrigerators into swimming pools, tearing open blind bags, etc.).  To simply discount the whole community as "not a real job" is incredibly disingenuous to a large swath of people.

I agree that folks who specifically make their living at it are taking their destiny into their own hands and, should it implode, have only themselves to blame if that's their only source of income or support.  However, dismissing everybody at the same time while only having real objections to the seemingly talentless attention seekers (which still often have a lot of good camera work, editing, etc.) is wrong (at least to me).  I guess if being a YouTuber isn't a real job, then neither is most of what the folks in Hollywood do, since what's being done is largely the same--they're just part of two different systems, one established a century ago (or longer) and the other within the last couple of decades.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, darkchylde28 said:

I agree that folks who specifically make their living at it are taking their destiny into their own hands and, should it implode, have only themselves to blame if that's their only source of income or support.  However, dismissing everybody at the same time while only having real objections to the seemingly talentless attention seekers (which still often have a lot of good camera work, editing, etc.) is wrong (at least to me).  I guess if being a YouTuber isn't a real job, then neither is most of what the folks in Hollywood do, since what's being done is largely the same--they're just part of two different systems, one established a century ago (or longer) and the other within the last couple of decades.

Those people get paid because of their skill and/or ability to sell whatever project their in.  Youtubers get paid from advertising and the more people click the more money they make regardless of their content.  Also for both of those professions, to a VERY VERY VERY small percentage of the people that are involved in it, it IS a career.  I do music and trust me theres no career in it except for an incredibly select few that is playing or riding on whats currently popular.  So to get started in it, its something you'd have to do for love and maybe you'll get lucky.  Otherwise if you're hedging your bet you're gonna make it, you're probably gonna mess up the rest of your life.  I try to tell this to my students.  Now if this was 25 years ago, it could be a different story. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

The generally quoted 10,000 hours of training/practice to become professional-level-good at any activity is essentially a lifetime commitment of training, if you're talking about hitting the upper tier in your early-20's, when most people would seek to make something their profession.

 

Brain injuries and CTE are definitely a thing in car racing from getting banged around. (aside from the more obvious risk of death)

Major joint damage from training and wear and tear are definitely a thing in golf (back injuries almost cost Tiger his career, and that was high profile enough that I'm surprised you'd discount it)

And it wouldn't surprise me, at all, to find that professional bowlers are absolutely destroying their elbows and wrists.  (just think about how much elbow discomfort you can have a casual bowler after just two games in a row with a decently heavy ball)

These are all good points and I agree years of hard training/practice is necessary to reach that competitive level.  Yes I know about Tiger and the back injuries, and Earnhardt Jr and the concussions - I'm not saying that doesn't exist - of course it does, it's just not remotely as common as it is for Football/Basketball/Hockey/MMA/Boxing etc.

Overall my original point was that these are still "real jobs" in comparison to "youtubing is not a real job", which is silly IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, guitarzombie said:

Those people get paid because of their skill and/or ability to sell whatever project their in.  Youtubers get paid from advertising and the more people click the more money they make regardless of their content.  Also for both of those professions, to a VERY VERY VERY small percentage of the people that are involved in it, it IS a career.  I do music and trust me theres no career in it except for an incredibly select few that is playing or riding on whats currently popular.  So to get started in it, its something you'd have to do for love and maybe you'll get lucky.  Otherwise if you're hedging your bet you're gonna make it, you're probably gonna mess up the rest of your life.  I try to tell this to my students.  Now if this was 25 years ago, it could be a different story. 

Understood, but for the people who are making a living off of it, how is that totally different from folks working in the older, well established TV/movie industry?  I think the big separator between the two is having to be "discovered" or accepted in the Hollywood/network system, while YouTube allows folks (individuals, teams, etc.) to be their own bosses, produce whatever they want, and find, establish, and serve their own audience (versus one that's preconceived by Hollywood/network executives).

You don't have to have a hit record (or series thereof) to be a professional/career musician--there are plenty of folks playing "house" music, doing behind the scenes work for movie/TV studios, playing every weekend at any and every bar that will have them, etc.  Most of those folks have a much less stable life than those who hit it big (relatively speaking, as those folks tend to have their own issues), but it doesn't mean that they don't have a career, having been doing that sort of thing professionally for a good bit of their life, etc.  I wouldn't choose to go that route (huge success or struggling week to week), but I won't declare that it's "not a real job" to those folks who do choose to go that route.

To me, any "real" job is one that you get some sort of payment for and do consistently.  That includes everything from working fast food all the way up to things that require you to sit and push buttons in a George Jetson manner.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Boosted52405 said:

These are all good points and I agree years of hard training/practice is necessary to reach that competitive level.  Yes I know about Tiger and the back injuries, and Earnhardt Jr and the concussions - I'm not saying that doesn't exist - of course it does, it's just not remotely as common as it is for Football/Basketball/Hockey/MMA/Boxing etc.

Overall my original point was that these are still "real jobs" in comparison to "youtubing is not a real job", which is silly IMO.

I suspect it is a lot more common than you seem to realize, if those guys -- who have the absolute highest incentive to take care of their bodies -- are suffering these consequences that are well-known.

Probably points to a lot of injuries from aspiring pros, that wash out along the way, as well as not-publicly-known injuries of other less-well-known pros in those fields.

(though for CTE is suspect nothing will come close to boxing, for obvious reasons)

 

 

I'm not offering my counterpoints as a marker of youtube production not being a "real job" -- I'm simply pointing out that your assumptions about the risks of those professions doesn't seem to acknowledge the reality of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, guitarzombie said:

Those people get paid because of their skill and/or ability to sell whatever project their in.  Youtubers get paid from advertising and the more people click the more money they make regardless of their content.  Also for both of those professions, to a VERY VERY VERY small percentage of the people that are involved in it, it IS a career.  I do music and trust me theres no career in it except for an incredibly select few that is playing or riding on whats currently popular.  So to get started in it, its something you'd have to do for love and maybe you'll get lucky.  Otherwise if you're hedging your bet you're gonna make it, you're probably gonna mess up the rest of your life.  I try to tell this to my students.  Now if this was 25 years ago, it could be a different story. 

That is theoretically the exact same thing as attracting people to a movie theatre, or to rent/buy a DVD.  Youtubers do exactly that, they attract the people to watch their content - they just get paid for views compared to actors who get paid up front (among other long-term incentives).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, guitarzombie said:

Those people get paid because of their skill and/or ability to sell whatever project their in.  Youtubers get paid from advertising and the more people click the more money they make regardless of their content.  

Most non-film/non-direct-subscription media is paid by advertising revenue.

Even though someone pays for a cable subscription, other than a channel like HBO, they aren't directly paying for the programming itself.

 

So the content on whatever random channel on TV is driven by what advertisers will pay the most to be associated with due to viewership numbers.

Youtube just democratizes that and cuts down the barrier to entry to a form of "broadcast".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was always under the impression that big actors are picked because of their ability to get people to watch and sell that movie.  Like the Rock.  Not a great actor, but they know if they put him in the movie, more people are going to go see it which raises his value.  They give him 20 mil for a movie, because its gonna make them 100 mil.  Im not sure how advertising works in that way, unless the movie needs product placement to get some money to fund the movie.  Am I wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

I suspect it is a lot more common than you seem to realize, if those guys -- who have the absolute highest incentive to take care of their bodies -- are suffering these consequences that are well-known.

Probably points to a lot of injuries from aspiring pros, that wash out along the way, as well as not-publicly-known injuries of other less-well-known pros in those fields.

(though for CTE is suspect nothing will come close to boxing, for obvious reasons)

 

 

I'm not offering my counterpoints as a marker of youtube production not being a "real job" -- I'm simply pointing out that your assumptions about the risks of those professions doesn't seem to acknowledge the reality of it.

I certainly acknowledge the risks of the sports, my argument was simply that they don't traditionally produce life-long suffering compared to the more brutal sports I listed prior.  Auto Racing I should take off my list due to the high concussion chance (Dale Jr claims to have had a lot).  However, sports like Golf and Bowling - heck they even have Senior leagues and competitions - people play well into retirement age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

Most non-film/non-direct-subscription media is paid by advertising revenue.

Even though someone pays for a cable subscription, other than a channel like HBO, they aren't directly paying for the programming itself.

That's not completely true (at least in the US).  With very few exceptions, television networks generate more revenue from their distribution affiliation fees (i.e. their share of your cable/satellite/etc bill) than they do on advertising revenue.  8-10 years ago, it used to be about a 1:1 ratio between ad revenue and distribution revenue, but now networks bring in about 150-200% as much affiliation fee revenue than they do ad revenue.

Video distribution margins are extremely small because virtually all of the money you pay your cable/satellite company for video gets passed directly through to the networks as a subscription fee. That's why we are seeing things like Playstation Vue shut down - they don't have other higher-margin services (like broadband or mobile) to bundle with their video product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, guitarzombie said:

I was always under the impression that big actors are picked because of their ability to get people to watch and sell that movie.  Like the Rock.  Not a great actor, but they know if they put him in the movie, more people are going to go see it which raises his value.  They give him 20 mil for a movie, because its gonna make them 100 mil.  Im not sure how advertising works in that way, unless the movie needs product placement to get some money to fund the movie.  Am I wrong?

I think in this scenario, the Rock is the larger advertising factor like you said.  For youtubers, it's not dramatically different - it's just that the commercial advertising on youtube essentially equates to movie tickets purchased, the youtuber pulls in the viewers and gets paid accordingly.  The structure of the movie industry and youtube are different of course, but the underlying factors are pretty much the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So from what I'm getting off of watching some of these videos of people trying to explain this is...even if you mark your videos, and your whole channel as "not for kids", if you still have content that appeals to kids (like oh idk...VIDEO GAMES), and you drop an F bomb in there...the FTC can STILL fine you.

That's scary. I have a lot of videos on my channel that deal with toys/games/junk food/unboxing things and I swear like a sailor. I've taken the liberty of making every damn video private now because I'm scared. I can't afford the fines. Up to $42,000! I mean...what the hell.

This is going to ruin people. We need to change this before it goes into effect.

Leave a comment here, letting the FTC know this isn't a good idea: https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=FTC-2019-0054-0001

And sign this petition: https://www.change.org/p/youtubers-and-viewers-unite-against-ftc-regulation

It might just help save some people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2019 at 11:46 AM, guitarzombie said:

Youtubers get paid from advertising and the more people click the more money they make regardless of their content.

While you can make money from Youtube advertising, it seems to me that the platform through automation incompetence and big-content favoritism tends to screw over small-to-mid tier creators. Derek Alexander posted a detailed video of the bullshit he had to endure in 2019 with Youtube's algorithms:

 

Derek at the end wonders whether or not it's time to pack up the channel. If I could give him advice, I'd tell him to look for something else to do. Not because of COPPA, but rather because relying on Google/Youtube as a major source of income is just too unstable and (if you're not already a PewDiePie or Logan Paul) just not worth it at this point. Good content creators like Derek must have skills and experience they can ply into some type of 9-to-5 job. At the very least, I think it's prudent for content creators to focus on generating income from their content outside of Google/Youtube through the likes of Patreon, merch, and sponsorships.

1 hour ago, Astor Reinhardt said:

That's scary. I have a lot of videos on my channel that deal with toys/games/junk food/unboxing things and I swear like a sailor. I've taken the liberty of making every damn video private now because I'm scared. I can't afford the fines. Up to $42,000! I mean...what the hell.

To be honest, I don't think you have anything to worry about. If the FTC is going to fine anyone, they're going to fine a big-time Youtuber fragrantly breaking COPPA rules, as a message to others not to fragrantly break the law. The FTC is not going to bother going after random people's unboxing videos, especially if your not making any real money off of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2019 at 10:19 AM, Teh_Lurv said:

If I could give him advice, I'd tell him to look for something else to do. Not because of COPPA, but rather because relying on Google/Youtube as a major source of income is just too unstable and (if you're not already a PewDiePie or Logan Paul) just not worth it at this point. Good content creators like Derek must have skills and experience they can ply into some type of 9-to-5 job. At the very least, I think it's prudent for content creators to focus on generating income from their content outside of Google/Youtube through the likes of Patreon, merch, and sponsorships.

To be honest, I don't think you have anything to worry about. If the FTC is going to fine anyone, they're going to fine a big-time Youtuber fragrantly breaking COPPA rules, as a message to others not to fragrantly break the law. The FTC is not going to bother going after random people's unboxing videos, especially if your not making any real money off of it. 

For the first part, YouTube has mostly always been that unstable, so why would it have ever been a good idea to try to make your living off of the platform?  Even PewDiePie wasn't always the big shot that he is now, and if hadn't stuck around the platform due to the inherent instability in such an endeavor, he wouldn't have made it to where he is.  With that said, I'm not saying folks should actively attempt to set up YouTube as their primary/only source of income, just that if they do manage to make enough bank off of it, they're probably already plenty aware of how unstable it is (given many YouTubers who have only recently started making enough off of it to drop their 9-to-5 have said it took them years of building and audience and finding a voice to do so).  Also not really sure how many "regular" jobs are going to benefit directly from skills learned being a YouTuber.

As far as the FTC fining people is concerned, I doubt that they're really out there for only the "big fish," as they have to apply COPPA unilaterally lest they open themselves up to discrimination lawsuits.  From what's been bandied about, they're supposed to be using similar tools to what YouTube is to flag everything that doesn't meet their standards and working from there.  It's not clear whether humans will be involved with reviewing the content caught in such a net before the fines go out or if it'll all be automated, but just about guaranteed, anybody whose stuff isn't labelled "for kids" that they decide fits that bill is going to get a letter, fine, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, My opinion is that there are lots of grey areas. And it will have devastating effects on many peoples youtube channels. 

As much as I am not a fan of their content (I am not their audience), The highest paid youtuber right now is going to go from 100 to 0 overnight due to this implementation of the law.

1272102904_ScreenShot2019-11-28at12_24_26AM.png.6d5fcd57c0c650868fa9fd20813fa047.png

This type of effect happening tells me that there is a currently a large gap between what they are trying to force happen, and what actually needs to happen. 

You may ask yourself "Is it moral to advertise to children? To monetize your content for commercial gain if children are your market exploit?" 

I suggest you take a good hard look at 90's television, specifically their saturday cartoons and advertising budgets of toy manufacturers and fast food chains during that era. Advertising to kids is nothing new. Making money from advertising would not be where it is without it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...