Watch on YouTube

“The 3D Printing Professor is not available right now. If you would like to leave a message…”

This video was made 2 years ago for a course for My Tech High. It was the intro video and I really enjoyed making it. I’ve thought off-and-on that I’d like to release it to the general public, but never did. However, the whole YouTube and COPPA thing happened just as I was getting ready to go out of town. Suddenly I had to go through each of my videos one-by-one to decide if they’re made for kids, or not. This video was made for a school, so it literally was made for kids, so after the new year you won’t be able to comment on this one, and it won’t be in your playlists if you save it anywhere.

Beginning with the end in mind

I have a lot of thoughts about COPPA right now. I’ve had to do a deep dive into this thing, and a subsequent deep stare at my future on YouTube. So as to not bury the lead, I’ll start with the conclusions:

• I’m going to keep making videos on YouTube for now, more because I have to than because I want to.
• I am also going to explore some other avenues for reaching people and helping them make, as well as supporting my family.
• I’ve turned off all targeted ads on my videos, so no matter what, you guys won’t see targeted ads, no matter the age. At least that’s what I’ve told Google *I* want them to do. We’ll see if they comply.

Working this conversation backwards, the reason for these conclusions are: I don’t think the FTC and COPPA are in the wrong here. YouTube and Google are the ones who need to do things differently. And I don’t think this is going to help them in any way in the long run.

Now, let’s get into the details of why I feel this way. And keep in mind that I am going to editorialize this more than a little bit, so don’t take my word for it. Do your research, hear what others are saying, and come to your own conclusions.

What’s happening with COPPA?

As you may or may not already know, in 1998 the FTC wrote into law the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA. It basically said you can’t collect children’s information online without parental permission, and if you do, you get strict fines. Google and YouTube kinda ignored that for years. They even went about bragging about how much YouTube is the premier destination for children when selling advertising. So this year the FTC called upon their COPPA powers and sued Google for umpteen million dollars (which google paid from change found in the cushions of their sofa because they’re an umpteen billion dollar company). The FTC also threatened that they’d be back and the cycle would continue until they were compliant.

So what did Google do? Did they change their data collection so as to collect just enough data on someone to identify them as a child (as is allowed by COPPA) to know that they should stop collecting more data on that person? Did they make an effort to stop showing targeted ads to children under 13? No!

What Google and YouTube did was to pass the buck to the content creators, because the way COPPA was written, people who create content for a platform are also fine-able and responsible. So YouTube made a new rule that content creators need to mark their content as “for kids” or not, and they were very vague about what that meant or why. And if you marked your video as “for kids” that video would have anything that might be used to gather information disabled on it, including comments, ads, being able to add that video to playlists, and notifications for your viewers. And YouTube attempted to cast the narrative that the big bad FTC was making them do this.

And did that upset some people? SO MANY UPSET PEOPLE! People walking on Washington, having meetings with the lawmakers trying to get the FTC off the backs of the poor content creators and telling them they’re going to ruin everything!

Only, there’s a problem with that narrative as YouTube presented it. COPPA said nothing about YouTube turning off features for videos that kids might watch. In fact, that might not have even brought YouTube into compliance. Just because a video isn’t made for kids doesn’t mean kids aren’t watching it, and visa versa, and the FTC knows that. So unless YouTube isn’t  collecting data on the individual users, they’re still collecting data on kids who watch videos that might not be made for them specifically. YouTube chose to do this so that they could still go on collecting data on children, but then point the finger at the content creators and say “They didn’t tell us not to, sue them.”

In other words, as was said on Folding Idea’s excellent video on the subject:

“YouTube is… trying to build a scenario where they are still allowed to gather and utilize children’s data in serving targeted behavioral ads with the blame falling on channel owner for allowing them to gather that information and serve those ads.”

Honestly, that video is recommended watching.

To be clear, COPPA could be a little better written, and the people writing it may be a bit curmudgeonly. But their hears are in the right place and they’re making a decision consistent with a history that I will talk about in just a second.

But II think this point isn’t being emphasized enough. The FTC and COPPA aren’t the bad guys here. YouTube and Goggle are. They are engineering a situation against their own content creators because they know that if they stop targeting children, they stop making as much money.

Collateral Damage

The problem with YouTube’s per-video and per-channel solution, besides the fact that it might not even be satisfying COPPA, is that it’s catching in it’s crossfire individuals and content that it should be promoting, not killing off. For instance, Allie Weber, a brilliant teen maker and co-host of Mythbusters Jr, will probably have her YouTube videos so hobbled by this decision that she might as well quit, which is especially sad to me because it was her tweet that prompted me, after my first video on this topic, to dig deeper and learn what I learned. And that’s just the most high profile of the channels I love. Ethan Makes and 3D Maker Kid are other great examples. What about every Minecraft YouTuber, animator, or heaven forbid Minecraft Animator? All ages entertainment is now going to be targeted. Some of the biggest channels on YouTube stand to lose out because Google refuses to stop collecting children’s data.

Not only that, but the bad will this has generated for YouTube has cause a number of YouTube makers who I respect, who survived the changing of terms so that they would likely never see monetization, they pushed through that because they believe in what they were doing, but this is causing them to contemplate throwing in the towel entirely.

But more than that, my content is going to be effected going forward. Of the people I met at ERRF, one that stick out in my mind is someone who said I wasn’t making content for him anymore. He was an older gentleman, like myself, and said that my videos got him into 3D printing, but that my current videos didn’t keep up with his growth. And you know what? I had to agree completely. But this is a choice I made. I don’t make content for the masses. I’m the professor. I stand at the threshold between those who know and those who don’t and help them over. Then, when they’re over, I hand them off to others to continue their journey, because there are always more who need my help. And I’ve been planning on trying to reach an even younger audience, because I want kids to see that they can do awesome things. But now, if I make a video specifically targeted for kids, and mark it honestly, then YouTube will treat everyone who sees that video like a kid.

That just isn’t right.

Targeted Ads

I want to take a second here and talk about what targeted ads are here and why they’re bad. Let’s first talk about un-targeted ads, or as we called them for decades, ads. An ad is a public broadcast designed to convey information or promote a product or service. Un-targeted ads work by casting as wide a net as possible, but they also have to be catchy and enjoyable. In other words, a good ad will blur the line between entertainment and persuasiveness. And sometimes they blur that line so much that we’re left to wonder if what we’re looking at is entertainment or an ad. And since children have an underdeveloped sensitivity to being able to tell the difference, there have been many attempts over the years to prevent children from being the targets of advertising they are not equip to respond to rationally. In my day, cartoons like He-Man and G.I. Joe had to put in explicit segments into their cartoons to be able to argue that they were morality fables, not just 30 minute advertisements. That’s right, those little segments at the end of cartoons were a direct result of the fact that G.I. Joe was both a cartoon and a toy line.

Now you know. And knowing is half the battle.

Then along comes the internet and soon after came banner ads. It seemed like a logical progression from public billboards and a great way to fund the fledgling internet. However, banner ads had something going for them that a billboard didn’t. You knew how many times a banner ad was seen (“impressions”) and you knew how many times a banner ad was clicked on. Advertisers leveraged that information to only pay for ads that were being seen or that had an effect on people causing them to click. This was faulty to begin with, because people rarely click on an ad the first time they see it, unless they’re tricked to click on them, and you can bet there were tons of things tried to trick people. But this changed the game and created an economy based on clicks at all costs.

However, it wasn’t wasn’t long until it was also realized that we could do more than hit the internet with general ads like some sort of internet billboard. Those ads were generally on one device being viewed by one person. If we knew just a little more about that person we could serve them with the exact ad that will convince them to buy. And thus targeted ads were born. Collect data on one person, figure out what they want, and hit them with it. They don’t work as well on intelligent people who are smart enough to spot an ad coming and avoid it, but on the weak minded, and especially on children, they’re super effective. Like a predator stalking their prey, looking for the young ones in the herd and then hitting them where they’re weakest for maximum effectiveness.

In fact, to call targeted ads predatory is almost an understatement. However, they also bring in the numbers that convince people that to not use them would be foolishness.

Maybe that’s what I am, a fool, because I have chosen to turn off targeted ads on my channel. I refuse to be a part of this at any age, not just for children.

I’m gonna lose 90% of my revenue!

Let’s talk about the biggest counter-argument of both the content creators who don’t want anything to change, and, I suspect, Google and YouTube. According to their own data, 90% of their revenue comes from targeted ads. So if targeted ads go away, they’ll lose 90% of their revenue, right? Well, maybe. Because what we’re not being told is how many targeted ads vs untargeted ads they show. If 90% of the ads they show are targeted, and 90% of their revenue is from targeted ads, I’d say they don’t stand to lose much, honestly.

Actually, that’s not exactly true, because they charge more for targeted ads. So if you’re an advertiser, you pay extra to get in on that targeted ad game, and they’ll sell you on how it’s so much more effective it is, even though there’s evidence to show that it’s might not be. Mind you, I haven’t seen the data. I don’t know how much more effective targeted ads are at getting people to click on something. It’s possible that the only difference between targeted and un-targeted ads is how much they charge for them and how many they show, accounting for the difference. If everyone opted out of targeted ads it’s possible the click-through will be the same, but you’ll still make less money over all. I doubt that’s the case, but near as I can tell the data isn’t out there, so I can’t draw any real conclusions.

The point is we don’t know. We don’t know how many targeted vs untargeted ads are being shown, and if those targeted ads were replaced with untargeted ads what we can expect the revenue drop to be.

Yes, opting out of targeted ads will probably lower your income stream some. But probably not as much as 90%. Null hypothesis based on the data I have on hand (none) you might expect a 45% drop. Still bad, nearly half in fact, but not the panic inducing 90% they’re trying to scare you with.

But there’s something else to consider here. Why would Google and YouTube be so resistant to stopping serving targeted ads to children? There’s another data point that we don’t have here. What percentage of that targeted ad revenue is from targeting children? I’m guessing it’s a pretty damningly high number.

So everyone who is fighting to keep their targeted revenue may very well be fighting to keep targeting children with predatory advertising practices.

And if I’m honest, the thought that I participated and benefited from preying on emotionally immature children for my gain, even in just a little bit, even if I didn’t know it, makes me sick now that I do know it, and I can’t keep doing it.

What should YouTube be doing

I just feel like this needs stating again: Google and YouTube should be filtering on a per-user basis, not a per video basis.

Their systems should identify and keep track of if a user is a child (which is allowed by COPPA) and adjust their system so that they don’t collect any more data on that individual, nor show them targeted ads. In fact I’ll bet their algorithm can even see through children who make fake accounts. Then, YouTube should disable comments, playlists, and all other features for that user regardless of the video they’re watching. They should not be putting the burden of deciding if that data should be collected on individuals who have no control over who watches their videos. Yes, children’s content will be seen more by children, generally, but that doesn’t mean that everyone one who watches a “for children” video will be a child, nor does it mean that children won’t watch videos marked as not for children, unless YouTube uses Google’s analytics data do that. It’s their choice who watches what videos.

YouTube’s current per-video solution is not, in my opinion, COPPA compliant and will do nothing if the FTC comes knocking again, and I don’t know why they think it will.

Why don’t I just quit?

All of this has had me thinking maybe I should just throw in the towel myself. Who needs the frustration, right?

But if I’m honest, I can’t quit. And if I’m honest, I don’t want to quit. I don’t want to stop making content for you. I just don’t want to make content for YouTube after this.

In some ways, I’m also a little trapped. I have an obligation to a few manufacturers to test their machines, and I have to make those videos before I can quit. So despite what I might want, I’m going to have to be on YouTube for a little while longer. But I’m definitely considering some alternatives in the future. And I’m dreaming big. So far Patreon and Kickstarter have been very good to me. Much better than YouTube both in terms of treating me well and paying me for my work better than YouTube is. The audiences of my Twitch streams are growing every time, so maybe there’s a future there. Heck, I even love Minecraft, so maybe I’ll do some more of that there. Or maybe the future lies in another direction. Something… unexpected.

Either way, I think you’re going to see less effort go into my YouTube in the new year. It’s time to come to terms with the fact that YouTube doesn’t want me there. I’ve had a good run. My videos aren’t going anywhere. But I want the freedom to do what I want to do. I’m not breaking any laws, so why should my content be restricted like I am? I think this is it. It’s time to go exploring. If you see me on YouTube it will probably be either something with minimal effort or something with a hope of maximum impact, but either way I’m going to be much more strategic going forward. Come join me on Discord if you’d like to help shape that future.