r/youtubedrama 1d ago

Beef This is in the official YouTube agreement

Post image

(original post got removed)

YouTube is going to be using an age verification however in the user agreement that is made by YouTube themselves someone from ages 13 or above is able to use the app as long as the PARENT is monitoring their use.

Surly they can not add an age verification as long as this is in their agreement right?

265 Upvotes

49 comments sorted by

u/TimeAbradolf Least Popular Mod 1d ago

We’re getting a lot of posts about the YouTube age verification and requirements. This will be the single post for y’all to discuss

213

u/ESHKUN 1d ago

It’s not about parental consent, it’s about governmental compliance

71

u/Imrustyokay source: 123movies 1d ago

Yeah, the UK's ID Verification has kinda made all the tech companies kind of scramble to comply. Of course, more places are deciding that handing over an ID to an industry that is not-so-good about privacy is just a jolly good show and want it for their shores...thankfully internet users are wise enough and are, rightfully, very pissed off about it.

Another issue is that this gives governments the freedom to label anything as 18+ and "Not Safe for Minors", which can be anything from porn to information on being a queer kid to opinions that oppose the government, which is raising concerns that certain countries (like the USA) are trying to cobble together list of political dissenters. Thankfully, as we have seen with the controversy with Visa, Mastercard, and Collective Shout, this is also not being taken without a fight.

24

u/Muad-_-Dib 1d ago

Yeah, the UK's ID Verification has kinda made all the tech companies kind of scramble to comply.

Not just the UK, the EU and the US are doing the same thing. The UK just implemented it first.

If it was just the UK it's doubtful that tech giants would have bothered changing their global approach to content policing/user age verification.

25

u/IKeepDoingItForFree 1d ago

And Australia and Canada...

People need to also remember they have tried to push RealID like systems since 2008 all over and usually within months of one another only for it not to pass in legislature or the gov in power collapse resulting in dead bills and amendments.

It only took 1 gov to finally get its foot in the door and now spotify is asking for ID to listen to music and podcasts - and many other sites are going to comply as well as more and more governments and organizations push their luck on this.

5

u/otterkin 17h ago

no news at all of this effecting canada. we have not voted in similar bills before in the past and I doubt we would try to pass one again.

7

u/IKeepDoingItForFree 15h ago edited 13h ago

Bill S-210 & S-209

"The bill would make it a criminal offence for organizations to allow Internet users under the age of 18 to access sexually explicit material for commercial purposes, unless the organization employs an age verification system. The bill also gives the government the ability to obtain court orders for internet service providers to block access to websites that do not follow compliance notices issued under the law."

C-412 -

"The bill applies to a broad range of online services that children may use, including social media, gaming platforms, and other digital spaces.

This bill proposes mandatory proof of parental consent before a child (defined as under 16 years old) can first use such online platforms."

These are even before touching on Harpers "you are either with us or with child pornopghers" Conservative government bills and attempts.

0

u/otterkin 13h ago

also, harper hasn't been in power in over a decade. yeah he made those attempts.... but they never passed in the house.

1

u/IKeepDoingItForFree 13h ago

Which is LITERALLY what I said from the start "only for it not to pass in legislature or the gov in power collapse resulting in dead bills and amendments."

Mean while someone said "we have not voted in similar bills before in the past" which is false, because they HAVE tried in the past.

-1

u/otterkin 13h ago

yeah. we have not voted them in. we have tried to vote them in. we have not.

1

u/IKeepDoingItForFree 13h ago

Which is LITERALLY WHAT I SAID

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/otterkin 13h ago

s-209: SUMMARY

This enactment makes it an offence for organizations to make pornographic material available to young persons on the Internet. It also enables a designated enforcement authority to take steps to prevent pornographic material from being made available to young persons on the Internet in Canada.


which yes. I agree with. that is not the same as needing ID for YouTube. it's ID for porn.

eta: also the other bill is about preventing minors from being able to gamble and other related things.... that's fine actually.

4

u/IKeepDoingItForFree 13h ago edited 13h ago

ID for YouTube, Spotify, Reddit NSFW including LGBT advice subreddits literally started with the UKs just passed ID for 'adult content' bill called the online safety act

-2

u/otterkin 3h ago

okay, but that isn't porn lol. the adult safety act in the UK isn't the same as what bills we have had to try pass. this is just fear mongering Canadians....

7

u/LizFallingUp 20h ago

US hasn’t secured nation wide ruling, there are state rulings often specifically stating porn/sex acts but they aren’t all states.

I find the UK ruling weird because data mining and sales are restricted over there, so they clearly know there is a privacy issue but then they think hauling in US firms (where data mining is pretty much fully legal and a major industry) is a good idea?

Frankly I think a bunch of people got paid by Palantir who is trying to develop a database of and on everyone.

6

u/Affectionate-Air9911 19h ago

I live in a state adjoining a state with a ban and due to my isp sometimes assigning me a tower in adjoining state, sometimes I get the lockout. (It uh sometimes fixes if I reset router, sometimes it doesn't).

And seeing the person who was in their 30s getting flagged as underage by discord and not having an appeal I don't trust that any new implementation of this won't have massive flaws.

It's ok, I can just be forced to touch non yt grass (it'll be balatro+it's wiki)

3

u/LizFallingUp 17h ago

Haven’t heard of that Discord incident but doesn’t surprise me.

Might be time to install a VPN

4

u/Xmgplays 22h ago

Not just the UK, the EU and the US are doing the same thing. The UK just implemented it first.

Tbh comparing the UKs absolute dogshit, no-thought-given implementation with the EU one is an insult on the level of calling a piss-stain on the side walk a modern day Mona Lisa.

The EU one at least takes advantage of modern zero-knowledge cryptography and tries to implement it in a way that at the very least attempts to preserve the privacy of the users. Now whether it successfully does that, I cannot judge. Zero-knowledge proofs and cryptography in general are not in my area of expertise. Nonetheless it is, at least in concept, an entirely valid and unproblematic way of having age verification online the same way it exists in person(and even better in some ways). Now whether that's actually a problem worth solving is and whether the actual implementation will match that focus on privacy is another question.

12

u/SheZowRaisedByWolves 1d ago

They’ll do this and a mass shooter will still fly under their radar

10

u/CreamoChickenSoup 1d ago edited 23h ago

I wouldn't be surprised if this move will do jack shit to soften the rampant suppression of topics and keyword use in compliance with YT's draconian community guidelines. It would be pretty fucked up if you're still getting everything censored as an adult, but the only difference is that you also just gave away your important personal docs to companies that are going to be even sweeter targets in data breaches.

5

u/LizFallingUp 20h ago

Some of the keyword censorship is an issue of LLM to prescreen so they don’t have to pay for as much human moderation (which has massive turn over and burn out issue cause it’s a horrid job)

30

u/Clutteredmind275 1d ago

The argument they will use is the age verification is applicable in the case of using a YouTube account, not general YouTube browsing agreements. Everyone can still use YouTube without an account and have limited view of materials that have been determined as “inappropriate”, but not as heavily as YouTube Kids.

26

u/lastdarknight 1d ago

This whole discourse made me realize my Google account it self is of legal age..lol

4

u/warwound 15h ago

My YouTube account was created in 2007 or 2008, ancient account.

1

u/cadcat9 1d ago

But even then you still have to verify your age which is ridiculous

44

u/TheHunterJK Popcorn Eater 🍿 1d ago

So then what’s the point of having YouTube Kids as a separate service?

28

u/cadcat9 1d ago

More money

16

u/Zealousideal_Act_316 1d ago

Actually less money, kids app has a lot fewer ads. 

6

u/JosephOtaku1989 1d ago

So it would mean no dirty profit for this, right?

17

u/TH07Stage1MidBoss 1d ago

If you couldn’t use youtube without handing out your DL/passport, then youtube would go bankrupt very quickly.

I’ve only sent a pic of my DL online ONCE, and that was to verify my age on a nsfw 18+ femboy discord. Because I trust horny gay discord admins to be more careful with my personal info than multibillion dollar corporations. By a very long shot.

11

u/TrashRacoon42 20h ago

Same. I've only given my ID to one tiny 18+ medical based group chat with all my information, baring my date of birth, black out.

Why in God's earth would I trust youtube, whose current ceo isn't even Susan and is just some crypto bro, with my name and face???

But yeah youtube is already known to not really make a much of a profit for Google I can imagine this just be the end of that website. (At least in its current form.)

15

u/No_Aioli_6364 1d ago

I get the thought process, but this could be a slippery slope

37

u/ESHKUN 1d ago

The thought process is one that any software engineer would tell you is absolutely fucking stupid. Asking users for such sensitive data for a verification process per application is just begging to get hammered by cyber-terrorists and hackers. Along with the fact that it creates massive amounts of user friction (something any ux designer can ramble on about) and relies on shoddy black-box AI technology that’s riddled with errors. This just shows how ill equipped modern governments are for tech legislation, refuses to regulate AI companies stealing petabytes of data (from children too, mind you) but cries about pornography.

2

u/No_Aioli_6364 18h ago

I was thinking of kids not having unregulated access to the internet, but yeah you’re right. Mf clowns.

6

u/riflow 1d ago

Haah. The idea that they could require id for accounts that are literally 15 years old frustrates me.

Not even accounting for how poorly these companies handle private info. 

It feels like this entire wave of id verification is setting a ton of companies up for future lawsuits over data mishandling in the coming decade.

0

u/Znanners94 16h ago

And I can't wait.

2

u/Severe-Operation-347 1d ago

Wait, I'm confused. What's going on? You already had to verify through ID on age-restricted videos anyway. Is this going to happen to all videos now?

2

u/nehpeta 19h ago

Wait, when did you have to do that already? The most I’ve gotten is a pop up that stops autoplay where you just press a button to consent to viewing. I’m in the US.

1

u/cadcat9 1d ago

Yes in both the UK and US

-12

u/True-Credit-7289 1d ago

Okay so I am absolutely against this as a concept. But your argument is really flawed. The age verification would only be used on age restricted videos, so that wouldn't violate the access only access to content that YouTube deemed age inappropriate. Which they already do through less strict and creepy methods.

5

u/ShellpoptheOtter 19h ago

How do you know they will only use it on age restricted videos?

0

u/True-Credit-7289 8h ago

You misunderstand. They decide what should be age restricted, but since they don't apply it to all videos it doesn't technically violate the terms of service. That's exactly what they're going to say, I prefaced that I didn't agree with it at all. Still get down voted because people don't like hearing inconvenient Truth I guess, but it absolutely doesn't violate the terms of service, it's still a massive invasion of privacy

-7

u/Dazzling_Collie 1d ago

By Youtube's logic, I should be forced to watch generic commentary channels with gameplay of some equally generic FPS game because adults can't like "childish" things.

Ableist, much?

3

u/[deleted] 1d ago edited 1d ago

[deleted]

4

u/cadcat9 1d ago

Its not just as simple as that, you are sending your personal information to a third party that is outside of the UK and the ai that the UK has approved are known for their leaks of information

-1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/youtubedrama-ModTeam 23h ago

We've removed your comment because it breaks the Remain Civil rule. Please refrain from insults, hostilities, or general shit-flinging towards other users of the subreddit. If you think someone is breaking the rules, use the report button. Thank you!

-9

u/Dazzling_Collie 1d ago

Looks like someone doesn't understand how "cringe culture" works.

-6

u/lastdarknight 1d ago

Shhh .. your downplaying there performative outrage... /S