This is one of those Unfinished Thoughts entries that actually lives up to its name, because these thoughts of mine really are unfinished . . . I am completely unsure of what I should do in regards to the big news concerning YouTube that I'm sure most of you have probably already heard about by now.
The brief rundown of all of this is as follows: YouTube has been found to be in violation of COPPA (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act), and as such, the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) has not only fined them $170,000,000 for their infraction, they're ordering sweeping changes made to the entire site, and said changes are going to have a tremendous effect on everybody who uses the site - especially the creators and producers: namely, each and every single video on YouTube must now be labeled as "made for kids" or "not made for kids."
That doesn't sound like it would be too big of a deal, except that it is: for one thing, if you label your videos as "made for kids," then you, as a YouTuber, will lose a number of basic features and functions that help you build your channel and connect with your audience, such as comments, your subscribers receiving notifications about new videos, your videos being shared and showing up in recommended columns, the ability to add your videos to play lists, and for many YouTubers - monetization. It seems like the simple thing to do would be to just label your videos "not made for kids" to avoid losing such features, right? Not exactly: YouTube will also be implementing an internal, computerized system that will detect if your videos is, indeed, "made for kids" (as in utilizing any kind of kid-friendly audio/visual footage, or basically any content the system perceives to be kid-friendly), and if they detect your videos are made for kids, but not labeled as such, you will face a fine of over $42,000
per video for "abusing the system."
Naturally, a lot of the big-time YouTubers are panicking over this, because if their content is deemed kid-friendly, then they are going to lose a lot of revenue, as one of the conditions of these new changes is they can no longer customize the ads on their content. This part, obviously, means nothing to me since I've never monetized my YouTube content (I can't anyway - you have to have a minimum of 1,000 subscribers, and your content having a minimum of 4,000 hours of watch time in the previous twelve months, neither of which I ever have) . . . but, my channel will still be affected by this in less than savory ways, and it has me concerned about what the best route to take possible is.
One of the main reasons why this is so concerning is that I've never made any of my content specifically to appeal to kids, nor specifically to not appeal to kids; my content is made for any and every body who wants to take a look and enjoy . . . under these changes though, I'm going to have to decide whether or not my content is "made for kids" or "not made for kids." Taking everything into consideration, there are a number of options that I could go with, but the problem is every option has its share of drawbacks as well . . . basically, the idea is seeing which option has the least unappealing drawbacks. Here's what I am looking at and considering as far as these options are concerned:
If I Choose To Stay On YouTube
Option 1
- Since I never make content specifically for kids, I can mark my channel, or even my individual videos are "not made for kids," this way, I don't lose any of the above-mentioned basic functions a small channel needs to try to survive.
- Drawback: My content obviously looks as if it would appeal to kids, with most of it being puppetry (and the stigma that puppets are for kids); many videos include kid-friendly songs; and MORON LEAGUE would be directly affected, as they feature toys from kids movies and other properties (which specifically falls under "made for kids" according to the new system) . . . this could result in me being fined, and I certainly don't have that kind of money.
Option 2
- As noted, it's obvious that my content looks like it would appeal to kids, so I could play it safe, go ahead and label my channel and content as "made for kids," so that way, there's far less risk of being fined for possible mislabeling.
- Drawback: Again, in doing so, I'd basically lose a number of basic YouTube functions that would actually bring in any kind of traffic to my channel and videos.
If I Choose To Go An Alternate Route
Option 1
- There are alternatives to YouTube out there, many of which are reputable and reliable, such as Dailymotion, Veoh, Vimeo, and others; some are even start-up websites that try to emulate classic YouTube, such as ZippCast, UploadSociety, and others. I could very easily migrate my content to any of these outlets, and start building up an audience again from there.
- Drawback 1: The reputable sources like Dailymotion, Veoh, and Vimeo have their share of limitations that YouTube has long done away with, such as time limits, and file size limits - both of which would affect certain videos of mine.
- Drawback 2: I actually have tried other sources like ZippCast and UploadSociety before, but unfortunately, because it's clear they're trying to emulate classic YouTube, they're often shut down repeatedly by Google's spies. Not only that, but because they try to emulate classic YouTube, the video playback on many of them only go up to 480p.
Option 2
- I could go the route James Rolfe did with Cinemassacre, or Doug Walker with ThatGuyWithTheGlasses, and launch my own website to showcase my content, though I still would need a source to host my videos on so they can be embedded on the site.
- Drawback: Having to register a domain, and not only paying for that, but also paying for web space, bandwidth.
It seems to me the easiest and most logical option for me to take is to just label my content as "kid friendly," lose all of those basic features, and just let my channel die . . . YouTube has already been doing all it can to kill my and other small channels across the platform since about 2013, why continue to prolong the slow, agonizing death any further?
Supposedly, a number of YouTubers (many with their own lawyers) have been converging on D.C., and speaking to the FTC about how this will be affecting us, and supposedly, the FTC
is listening and considering looking into other ways of handling the situation that would be far less severely harmful to YouTubers . . . maybe we'll see something happen in the final hour before all of this goes into affect, but I'm not going to hold my breath about it.
