I have a younger-than-thirteen daughter who would love to be able to post her video creations to YT too, and have her own channel. I had created a gmail account for her before, then she tried to create her channel and was asked for her DOB which she answered truthfully resulting in… not only no channel, her whole email was blocked and, according to their statement, eventually deleted. Yes, mea culpa.
YT for kids is welcome, but alas, does not yet help make my little one happy. Is there a way to let little ones publish their own creations on their own terms? anywhere?
Lying about your age to get around a low-stakes boneheaded policy is about as white as a lie can get.
I still use my fake birthday (Jan 1 1984) for online accounts even though I'm 25. It's not exactly Rosa Parks level civil disobedience but it seems like the least I can do. January 1 birthdays both allow the provider to cover their ass and allow you to register your contempt for the silliness in a measurable fashion.
I still believe that COPPA (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act) is, overall, beneficial legislation that puts in place the minimum rules for protecting children's PII. As the Internet becomes more accessible to a younger audience, we should be considering the societal benefits of such legislation and how it should evolve with the technology. It's shortsighted to fault Google for complying with the law.
COPPA doesn't ban Google from providing services to kids. It just means they have to put additional precautions in place if they do - which obviously costs money, so their default position has been to opt out of servicing kids at all. This youtube announcement obviously represents a realization that that cost may be worth bearing... presumably because raising a generation of youtube-savvy kids is going to build their market for the next generation.
I don't know enough about COPPA to know who to blame. There are two possibilities:
1. COPPA goes too far
2. Google has done a cost/benefit analysis and decided that it's cheaper to ban children than to lead the charge in teasing out the edge cases
If #2 is the case it's absolutely reasonable to blame google. Of course, deciding who to blame isn't productive, what we really want to do is lobby for change. Now that google is playing the lobbying game they're a reasonable party to appeal to regardless of whether #1 or #2 is closer to the truth.
For me, that's where it gets interesting: as I understand, it is perfectly legal for Google to provide services to children, but they must obtain parental consent, first . The problem is that isn't something they're interested in doing.
When this happened to my son, rather than deleting everything and losing all his contacts and emails with his auntie etc etc, google just demanded I pay a bribe of 50 cents on a credit card, on the hilarious assumption that the only people in a family with access to CC are parents. At least this is how they did it back in the good old days.
>on the hilarious assumption that the only people in a family with access to CC are parents //
Hilarious? How do under-13s get banks to issue them credit cards? Presumably they only allow the payment from a CC connected to an account rather than a payment card (I assume payment gateways do that sort of differentiation).
Even if some under-13s can access and use a credit-card it seems likely to me that the vast majority would be blocked by such a system. I can see kids stealing cash from their parents, perhaps, but stealing when you know it's going to appear on their bank-statement?? Just to use YouTube? Then you need to be able to actually perform the payment; no-one else [that I know of] knows my CC password and it's certainly not written down anywhere.
I got a debit card when I got my first bank account at 10 years old in ~2001. I didn't pay for anything online with it until my mid teens (when I had a job), but I do remember having to use it to verify my account for the SecondLife teen grid.
Virtually all bank accounts come with debit cards nowadays, if your parents are forward thinking enough to set you up with a bank account then you could have a card very young.
I got a debit card somewhere around becoming a teenager. But it was probably a decade later that I got my first _credit_ card. They're quite different things.
In the UK under 18 you can't usually be held to a contract and so you don't have to pay back a credit card debt - this makes companies more than a little reluctant to lend to under 18s. You can't get a credit card until you're 18.
Citizens Advice (an established UK charity) say:
>"If you are under 18, it is a criminal offence for anyone to send you material inviting you to borrow money or obtain goods or services on credit or hire purchase. However, if you are over 14 but under 18, you can enter into a credit or hire purchase agreement if an adult acts as your guarantor."
Of course it might vary enormously in other countries but I'd be surprised if it was wildly different in USA?
The "Clean" episode  of PBS's "How We got to now" explored how in one particular case drinking beer was preferred over drinking water. If I recall correctly (the video is no longer available for streaming) drinking water became contaminated and it was observed that regulars to a bar fared better health-wise, leading to the assumption that beer/alcohol was safer.
Whether that story fed the myth discussed in the above article or not, I don't know, but maybe it wasn't entirely baseless as it suggests.
More than Black Mirror, it reminded me of Wall-e, where humans have become so atrophied from not doing anything. I need a device to rid me of the burden of locking the door, or putting on some PJ's. Ironically the constant use of screens and devices emitting blue-light even in bed has a more direct (and detrimental) impact on sleep quality than all those sensors, and the small cognitive-bandwidth gain, will. And of course, I reserve the right to change my mind later.
There's no real special technology there, if you do the math on their claim it works out to a maximum power draw from the charger of 12-15W, which is about on par with most tablets. This is just a function of having a large surface area to dissipate waste heat.
The whole answer is non-comital. "There's no reason" ... "Of course, Microsoft can’t make decisions for other companies or predict the choices that they might make in the future." And to me that signals "We don't know and frankly don't care".