Talk:Children's Online Privacy Protection Act

Vandalism reverted

Admittedly, I don't know the correct style for reversions of vandalism, but I successively rolled back changes to this article made on August 14, 2015 at 08:27. Certifiablenerd (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible contradiction? Or clarification required

This article states that both the COPPA (which it is about) and the COPA "passed". However, the COPA article states that the COPA did not pass for being unconstitutional. — Timwi 09:10, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Congress can pass laws whether they are constitutional or not. The Supreme Court can overturn laws for being unconstitutional. The law still passed, it was just subsequently overturned.

legal action resulting from COPPA

There has been legal action resulting from COPPA. Toysmart is one example. Another example: the FTC imposed a $30,000 penalty on Lisa Frank, Inc. for COPPA violations. Other examples can be found at the ftc website (ftc.gov) or CARU's website (caru.org).

I think common opinions should be stated in this article

This law is considered quite controversial, and I think this article should reflect that. Since it was first passed, I've heard a whole lot of criticism of this law, for example, that it's unconstitutional as it limits people's freedom, that it was badly implemented, and that it cannot be enforced anyhow. Then you have those who argue that it's necessary, and that it's fulfilling its purpose.

Im 60 years old i think COPPA is stupid. I use instagram and youtube and don't care if you trying to protect us you can just change it to anyone under 10 i hate you COPPa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanandpeopleyaywoohoo (talk • contribs) 19:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The article as it is is quite short, and over-simplifies things. If a law in not unanimously accepted, I feel that should be mentioned. --82.7.125.142 23:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree completely. There should at least be "criticisms" like in most other pages on similar topics. I would have to say this is one of (if not the) most controversial things to have happened to the internet in resent times. --Bky1701 12:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• I also agree. I have a little brother who is under 13 years old, and this law has effected him quite a bit. People should be able to see both sides of it, not just a few paragraphs about the very basic aspects. I think a criticism section or even another article should be made to explain the negative effects of the law. Kate 18:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• I also agree. It's limits personal freedom instead of child protection. What FTC want? Criticism section is needed for this article.Junk Police (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• I also agree. I am 15 years old, but I hate this law. It limits the personal freedom and choosing freedom of children under 13. I have some friends aged below 13 from entire Internet, and they say to me that they feel uncomfortable when joining any forum. It does NOT protect children, it only limits the freedom. So, I want to invite anybody under 13 here, and make a rebellion against this law. I for being against this law was banned 3 times on forums, and most people on forums hate me. So, if anybody under 13 or against this law here, let's make a rebellion! Children under 13 must not be blocked from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, because this is only place where everybody can express themselves. Children under 13 must have freedom of self-expression! Don't block them from entire internet! Scanten kun (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

COPPA sounds like pure communism. Does nothing to actually protect children, it simply is an anti-corporate law that limits personal freedom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.25.130 (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree as it limits personal freedom. The law is quite negatively received by some people. 76.21.122.234 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

opinions in wikipedia

It's true that COPPA is controversial and problematic, and that this reality should be included in the article, but the original article felt a bit too one-sided. However, as a new editor I am hesitant to try to change that balance myself, so I'll just leave it alone and focus on what I know to be factually accurate.

What I'd like to do (when I get some time next week) is just add more factual information about COPPA, such as key details of the rule, examples of legal action (with links), and the recent decision to extend the "sliding scale" mechanism that relaxes the rules for certain websites.

And I welcome any feedback or advice from more experienced editors.

Implementation

The article seems to have a bias against COPPA and a certain ignorance in the law's implementation and real-world execution.

As a professional website producer who works quite often with COPPA, and who's clients include Fortune 100 companies, I simply can't believe without citation the claim that entire sites have shut down purely because of COPPA. I can tell you that building in a check like an email to a parent requesting permission (a very quick, simple and effective method), or requesting a user's age is incredibly easy. My team will take anywhere from 6-18 months to build a major website, and the addition of COPPA is negligible, taking perhaps 2-5 days out of our entire timeline, depending on the method of verification. The law is in fact quite flexible as to how a site checks a user's age. As the person responsible for delivering websites on time and on budget, COPPA just isn't for me a concern from a business or web development standpoint.

If a poster wants to claim websites that market to children all of a sudden are helpless in light of this law and need to shut down completely, we definately need to see verifcation of such a claim, otherwise it's just a business failure excuse.

If we're talking about effectiveness, there is certainly some debate (although, as I wrote, the email verfication has worked just fine for us). But to claim businesses have had to shut down because of the cost of compliance is simply not credible. Getting fined for non-compliance is another issue.

Implementation not on wiki

Am I allowed to do this if I am 12? I didn't even have to put in my email, dumbasses. PETN 01:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that by its autobiography policy, Wikipedia does not want the kinds of autobiographical information that COPPA regulates. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 17:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There are sources!

The article now has sources, thanks to a nice editor. :) I'm going to remove the "article does not cite sources..." notice.

Just so you know. RexyRex 23:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, can we get some sources on sites catering to kids that had to be shut down because of COPPA? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC) I have been blocked on Community Central Wiki for COPPA, if that helps. --71.237.4.44 (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Foreign Countries

Does the COPPA apply to foreign countries? IE, someone from, let's say Sweden, joins a website with their server in the US. Are they applicable to the COPPA?

COPPA theoretically applies to any website operator who directs their website/service to US children or knows that their website/service is used by US children. However, if they and their servers are based entirely outside of the US, the US authorities will not be able to enforce COPPA against them in practice. Still, it would be prudent for such operators to comply with COPPA if they have any ambitions to expand to the US one day.

Similar laws exist in other countries.

How about some references or links elsewhere on wikipedia.

Lots of countries have "personal data protection" laws (more than 100 countries as of 2015) which apply to collection of personal data from people of all ages. Not many have laws specifically regulating the collection of personal information online from children. COPPA is quite a specific law because the US doesn't have a broader personal data privacy law.

COPPA suit settled for record amount

FTC Press Release: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/09/xanga.htm

Xanga statement: http://press.xanga.com/2006/09/07/statement/#more-5

Remove paragraph concerning photographs of children?

I would suggest removing the paragraph indicated below concerning photographs of children. The cited reference ("one US government department") appears to be referring to its own internal policy concerning photographs of children, not to any COPPA requirement.

"The application of the Act to photographs of children is a matter of interpretation that is yet to be tested in the courts. However, one US government department says "There is no restriction on the dissemination of photos of children, if they are taken in public spaces, with no identification, and are used only for editorial (not advertising) purposes. The use of pre-arranged photos, taken in a protected environment such as a school or hospital, and showing a highly-defined and recognizable image, requires a release"[3]

--merilee 17:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)MerileeNC

COPPA effects

Even though the law is enforced on US of A servers, sites using COPPA contradict Canadian and UK human rights laws. Should we include? --MisterLambda (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

One-sidedness

I think this article is kinda one sided. It doesn't have a "Controversy/Criticism" section, and it just says the bare minimum of things, as if it's trying not to leak out anything against it. Steel Wool Killer (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. This law is really an adultist law and it really discriminates children. It contradicts the UN Children's Rights Convention. Scanten kun (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

YES!! I so agree with you! This law should be REVERTED!! 98.97.33.196 (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Criticisms Section Added

I recently added a Criticisms section to resolve any disputes on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.215.201 (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that. It limits the children's rights of freedom of speech and self-expression, and pursuits happiness. 81.162.216.13 (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I could remove the neutrality banner I put in now, due to the section you made. Thanks. Steel Wool Killer (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Legal Document needing cleanup

This article is written like a legal document. Why don't we change it so that it has a more encyclopaedic tone? It also needs reference cleanup and it's sources need to be verified. I just tagged the page recently. DSCrowned^(Talk) 10:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO POST THIS?

Reply if you want, because are underage anonymouses (a.k.a. underage people that are not logged in-to Wikipedia) allowed to browse Wikipedia?? --180.72.25.251 (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

If they are indeed anonymous, how would Wikipedia know if these users were underage? Dimadick (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for extremely late reply, but is it ok if they edit some articles as well? SFW articles? --180.72.209.178 (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC) (original thread poster)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160325192817/http://www.siliconvalley.com/larry-magid/ci_26432286 to http://www.siliconvalley.com/larry-magid/ci_26432286

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Coppa and Youtube 2019

International Youtube users are affected by US COPPA A.D. 2019:

You're legally required to comply with the US Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and/or other laws. You're required to tell us if your videos are Made for Kids. Use the new upload tool. Learn more...

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9527654?hl=en-GB

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2019

Verify statement that "the FTC of the United States threatened to fine content creators $45,000 for each mislabeled video" - citations are especially needed for a claim like that.

From my understanding of COPPA (with the disclaimer that I am not an attorney or by other means enabled to give legal counsel), the end-users of YouTube are not considered "operators" under COPPA and thus, are not subject to its penalties (see "Operator means..." under section section §312.2 here. ) Easebaker (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Why dosent Wikipedia follow COPPA??

Tell me! AlexCruz289 (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

COPPA and Youtube

COPPA is not allowing ad revenue on channels with all of its videos marked as “made for kids” which is NOT cool. They need ad revenue to make money and EXIST. So COPPA needs to get sued and shut down for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.253.233.145 (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I reverted your comment to the previous revision, due to you removing/breaking SineBot’s markup, and not signing yourself (you do so with four tildes, for future reference. These things: ~ ). You apparently misunderstood that it was an automated bot action. If you want to replace your commentary about it “being slavery”, go ahead. But this isn’t a forum for you to express your opinions. Read WP:FORUM and WP:NOT for guidelines on what is acceptable on Wikipedia. Talk pages are for improving content, not making personal pronouncements. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Reasons for these rules?

I still don't understand why on Youtube Videos labelled as "Made for Kids", you're neither allowed to comment on the video nor save to the playlist. Honestly, how is commenting or saving a video to a playlist unsafe for children? Pacingpal (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea, I just know that I hate this law! I agree, it DOES NOT MAKE SENSE 98.97.33.196 (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal: "Impact of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act on YouTube" ==> "Children's Online Privacy Protection Act"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No contrary opinion expressed in over two weeks, so I will complete the merge. No unique content in the "Impact of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act on YouTube" so it will be just a redirect. TJRC (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Impact of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act on YouTube here to Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. "Impact..." consists of a single sentence (it used to have more, but the additional text was an infringement from the New York Times). The impact of the law should be dealt with in the article on the law, unless and until it is shown to be so ungainly and large that it's worth splitting out.

The fact that the article sought to be merged is limited to the impact "on YouTube" does not make it any more likely to be worth having a separate article; in fact, it makes the Impact article even more niche. TJRC (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Merge plainly not notable on its' own. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 19:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Un-merge proposal

I just promised not to infringe texts from NYT, I'm urging the editor to reverse the merger. Gwapo461 (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The basis for the merger was the lack of independent notability of the subject, not the infringement. TJRC (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Definition of "personal information"

Unless I've missed it, this article doesn't actually define what is meant by "personal information". I would say that is a necessary bit of information to include (and particularly relevant to the question raised above by Pacingpal about why it is apparently illegal to create a YouTube playlist containing "made for kids" videos). Iapetus (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Should there be a section about how some kids don't need protection?

The COPPA law was created based on the stereotypical child, who is immature and stupid, and therefore would not know how to be safe on the internet. Should there be a section about how not all kids are like that, and it's unfair how all kids are treated like that? Perhaps in "Criticisms"? Also, children never got a say in the creation of this law, and I don't think parents did either, so that should go in "Criticisms" too. 174.250.212.229 (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC) (forgot password to account, using mobile network)

"made for kids" has ruined youtube

title says it all Esaïe Prickett (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Original Research issue for 203.29.141.94

Hello 203.29.141.94 (talk · contribs).

Here is the rationale for my revert of your change shown on this diff

First of all, your statement of "This didn't make much sense considering TikTok was made for people above 13." is violating WP:OR as it is clear that this statement is not made by reliable sources, thus this constitutes original research that could not be used in Wikipedia. If a reliable source (WP:RS) stated this, you can add it on the article.

Also, your statement that "The only people at fault here are both the FTC and parents of children under 13 years of age." is also violating WP:OR, with the same rationale as above.

Your statement that "A lot of children below 13 especially children between 9 to 12 are not happy with this feature and do not like it they claim to miss being able to use the features that anyone can do such as commenting, subscribing and and notifications. They are also not pleased that the recommendations they get as it is normally videos based for children who are not even in pre school yet, some even lie about their age just to access the rest of the features of Youtube." and refers to this is also violating WP:OR as the video in question didn't support the statements. Comments made on the YouTube videos does not constitute sources that are WP:RS so this particular statement will still be WP:OR.

Your final statements "By all means it is recommended to take advantage of freedom of speech to say that the COPPA laws should be changed for being too broad and should only take action if the data collecting is harmful. Also from the person making this paragraph here is a bit of criticism. Kids who are 9 and above would wanna watching gaming videos over finger family songs and being forced to learned colors. Also the FTC has no right for suing a video simply because it was not marked as made for kids. No other government have complained about Youtube collecting data from children so at the very least allow Youtube to allow the current features for all ages in other countries. " is also WP:OR as it is not stated by sources that are reliable and verifiable.

Thank you, and please ask me if you have any questions! SunDawn (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

This law is stupid.

This law is stupid and immature, just like how the adults who made it think kids are! 98.97.33.196 (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

An new house bill that lower minimum age to use social media from 13 to 10 (Original research issues for 74.48.17.205)

Someone has added new content about an new house bill that lower minimum age to use social media from 13 to 10, and It's was an original research? Lui Star HR 8752 (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

 Reverted. General Ization ^Talk 19:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)