Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.comAmazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

JANGBRICKS' YouTube channel

Brickfan50Brickfan50 Zwolle, NetherlandsMember Posts: 415
Since the end of 2019 Jang is not updating his channel with reviews of new sets. There are a couple of set reviews but those are really minor sets. Not the iconic new ones like the latest modulars or Ideas sets, In the past JANG was usually one of the first to make a in-depth review about these.
Instead I see lengthy videos about COPPA and such things. I listened to some of those but I really don't get it. Sounds like an American/YouTube thing? Can someone explain like I'm 5 what 's going on here?

I'm a great fan of JANG's reviews and he's my number one resource for reviews of new sets. (Number two on my list is Brothers Bricks, especially because they have excellent photography -- which is way better than the heavily over-processed pics found here on Brickset -- and number three are the reviews found on New Elementary or Rebrickable) .

Best of all would be if JANG himself would reply :-)
What is your best source for reviews about new sets? Do you miss JANG?
SnizzlebuttsFowlerBricks
«1

Comments

  • CymbelineCymbeline CanadaMember Posts: 500
    According to his website JANGBRICKS is in the process of re-launching on a new platform and leaving You Tube as the new rules since the COPPA decision are too onerous, restrictive, and unprofitable. 
    Jackad7andheBrixfan02
  • BastyBasty LondonMember Posts: 444
    I believe his plan is to launch on Patreon. There is more info on his website if I remember correctly. 
  • gratefulnatgratefulnat SwitzerlandMember Posts: 379
    edited February 2020
    Check this out, be sure to also go through all the comments for 'the bigger picture'
    If I understand correctly he will continue to upload videos to Youtube, which due to his compliance to the COPPA regulations generates considerably less income for him now, so patreon is a new additional option he is considering.
    I don't think he will be disappearing anytime soon thankfully, as I enjoy him very much.
    As well, he has created a completely new studio environment to record his videos which caused quite a bit of down time.
    Cymbeline
  • Brickfan50Brickfan50 Zwolle, NetherlandsMember Posts: 415
    Interesting. I’ve never heard of Patreon but will check. 
    On YT he has more than a million subscribers. Leaving there is a big thing. 
  • DB361DB361 UKMember Posts: 290
    For YouTubers who have millions of subscibers, and hundreds and possibly thousands of videos, it's not just a hobby - it's a career. I would fairly safely assume it's his job. It's literally all he has to pay the bills and feed the family. Given that well over a million people find his videos entertaining enough to subscribe, I don't think him asking for people to donate to allow him to continue making those videos is at all unreasonable.

    In terms of greed and profiteering, I would very much give an evil look towards YouTube themselves. I'm very much of the feeling that they've used COPPA as an excuse to get even more ad revenue out of the creators and into their own pockets.
    wardmBrainsluggedPyrobugandheKungFuKennySteveGexciter1karmajaycozy
  • CaptainPirateManCaptainPirateMan MichiganMember Posts: 353
    As a fellow Lego youtuber, I can attest to these changes that have greatly affected my channel as well. While I am NOT anywhere near the size of Jang, so it's never been a means to provide for my family (just a fun hobby that I make a little bit of money off of). Anyways, we all have to decide to do what we feel is best for us. I personally agree with Klinton, I'm not going to ask people for money just continue to make videos. But again, it's not my career either. But even if it were, I dont think I would go down that road.

    I haven't made a single video in 2020 yet, mostly due to these coppa changes. I've decided that Lego can no longer be my channels focal point. Which is a double edged sword for me. For one, it's how I've built my audience, so it's what they expect. But on the other hand, it DOES get tiresome to discuss one topic ALL THE TIME. So I'm just going discuss all my interests and hobbies, which Lego will continue to be one of them, just no longer the focal point. 

    IMO, the Lego channels that are not changing are possibly making a mistake. I do feel like some are going to be made an example of, so I do respect Jang for making changes, and I've been following his lead to some degree. I just am not going to follow him over to patreon. He might be able to get some revenue at first, but IMO it'll dry up rather fast. People dont want to pay for videos, they just dont. 
    gmonkey76
  • drdavewatforddrdavewatford Hertfordshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 6,742
    I've decided that Lego can no longer be my channels focal point. Which is a double edged sword for me. For one, it's how I've built my audience, so it's what they expect. But on the other hand, it DOES get tiresome to discuss one topic ALL THE TIME. So I'm just going discuss all my interests and hobbies, which Lego will continue to be one of them, just no longer the focal point. 
    I'm not sure that'll solve your problem, since LEGO will still be a focus of your channel. Aside from the stitch-up between the FTC and YouTube which is basically punishing content creators for YouTube's wrongdoings, much of the problem is the FTC's laughably broad "made for children" definition which could be applied to pretty much anything that children might conceivably find interesting. Until the luddites at the FTC find a sensible working definition which takes into account the intent of the content creators (including any warnings and/or stated guidance attached to their content) then pretty much anyone (including yourself if you're making videos which conclude LEGO content) in the US could be hit with a draconian financial penalty.

    The FTC do at least acknowledge that the current state of affairs is harming content creators, and they're undertaking a COPPA consultation exercise, but whether that results in a more sensible solution is anybody's guess.
    Astrobricksgmonkey76andhe
  • CaptainPirateManCaptainPirateMan MichiganMember Posts: 353
    I've decided that Lego can no longer be my channels focal point. Which is a double edged sword for me. For one, it's how I've built my audience, so it's what they expect. But on the other hand, it DOES get tiresome to discuss one topic ALL THE TIME. So I'm just going discuss all my interests and hobbies, which Lego will continue to be one of them, just no longer the focal point. 
    I'm not sure that'll solve your problem, since LEGO will still be a focus of your channel. Aside from the stitch-up between the FTC and YouTube which is basically punishing content creators for YouTube's wrongdoings, much of the problem is the FTC's laughably broad "made for children" definition which could be applied to pretty much anything that children might conceivably find interesting. Until the luddites at the FTC find a sensible working definition which takes into account the intent of the content creators (including any warnings and/or stated guidance attached to their content) then pretty much anyone (including yourself if you're making videos which conclude LEGO content) in the US could be hit with a draconian financial penalty.

    The FTC do at least acknowledge that the current state of affairs is harming content creators, and they're undertaking a COPPA consultation exercise, but whether that results in a more sensible solution is anybody's guess.
    Well I'm talking about going from 95% Lego videos to about 15%, so it'll be quite a drop. The thing with youtube, is you have to sell yourself, your personality. Yes, the subject matter brings people in, but its YOU that keeps them coming back. So I think I'll be ok in the long run. I can still make Lego videos, but I wont be able to monetize them (or will get significantly less income from them). Which in all honesty is ok. Over the last 2-3 years Lego videos on youtube (as a whole) are not nearly as popular as they were 5 years ago. I'm not just talking with me, but Jang and everyone else as well. Around the release (or slightly before) of the the first Lego movie was Lego's peak in popularity. Since then, it's been a bit of decline. Still quite popular overall yes, just not AS popular. For me personally, my biggest money making videos are videos that were made back then, even now. My newer videos dont do near the numbers my older ones did, and still do. 

    A couple of times this past year I did some videos on Arcade1up (I have 5 of their machines), and those videos KILLED my Lego videos in views. Why? For a couple of reasons, for one the product is HOT right now. For two, it was bringing in new viewers (while my subscribers are who watch my Lego videos). My Lego viewers were a bit put off buy the arcade stuff, yes. But what can you do? So that's where I'm going to have to go now, as well with my other hobbies/passions. I have to sell me, and hope people can relate to me. All while I do general "eclectic" interests (arcades, video games, Lego, music, movies, other collectables). 
  • sklambsklamb speaker of American EnglishMember Posts: 512
    Since the end of 2019 Jang is not updating his channel with reviews of new sets.
    Instead I see lengthy videos about COPPA...can someone explain like I'm 5 what 's going on here?

    I second this request, having heard nothing about such a problem until seeing this thread!
  • drdavewatforddrdavewatford Hertfordshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 6,742
    Tkatt said:
    It doesn't matter if you're not in the United States because if you use Youtube you agree to the U.S. law since it is a U.S. company.
    Good luck to the FTC enforcing a $42K fine outside the U.S., given that they have no jurisdiction.
    andhe
  • CyberdragonCyberdragon Maryland, U.S.AMember Posts: 541
    edited February 2020
    COPPA compliance isn't just about lost revenue and fines...it's much worse.

    If you tick the little "kid friendly" box to comply with COPPA it disables pretty much everything except ratings on your channel or video (last I saw from people). This includes comments, sharing, favorites, playlists (outside of the owner's), exc. It basically cripples your channel or affected videos by killing most of your viewer interaction. Nobody wants to watch or put out a video when they can't give or get good feedback, which is absolute death to new/small channels.

    That said, let's get to 1M and beyond!
    https://www.change.org/p/youtubers-and-viewers-unite-against-ftc-regulation
    drdavewatfordPyrobugandhe
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 20,309
    Tkatt said:
    It doesn't matter if you're not in the United States because if you use Youtube you agree to the U.S. law since it is a U.S. company.
    Good luck to the FTC enforcing a $42K fine outside the U.S., given that they have no jurisdiction.
    I guess you have to weigh that up with never travelling to or through the US.
    pharmjod
  • stluxstlux LuxembourgMember Posts: 2,447
    And the FTC ensuring you get banned from YouTube, in case YT didn't do that themselves already. Doesn't matter where you're located. So even if they don't manage to get you to pay the fine, they will be able to take away your livelihood. (For people where this is a job, like Jang)

    Google messed up, and now that they have been caught they have as usual chosen the easiest solution for them, and offload all responsibility to content creators.
  • drdavewatforddrdavewatford Hertfordshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 6,742
    stlux said:
    And the FTC ensuring you get banned from YouTube, in case YT didn't do that themselves already. Doesn't matter where you're located. So even if they don't manage to get you to pay the fine, they will be able to take away your livelihood. (For people where this is a job, like Jang).
    Agreed, except that the vast majority of YouTubers don't make a bean from their content, so losing their channel is the worst that those outside the US will face, and hence my point that draconian warnings about big fines are academic and irrelevant for all but a small percentage of OUS YouTubers. It doesn't make the shameful stitch-up between the FTC and Google right, of course, but it does limit the damage OUS.
    stlux
  • Brickfan50Brickfan50 Zwolle, NetherlandsMember Posts: 415
    @Huw: about the quality of review photos: I'm preparing a post in the forum that is dedicated to this: https://forum.brickset.com/categories/photography
    I will make side-to-side comparisons. I just need a couple of days because I'm too busy with other stuff at the moment :-) 


  • jason1976jason1976 LondonMember Posts: 281
    edited February 2020
    Can't believe no one has linked to the Family Guy FTC song while you can still find it on Youtube!

    Note that it's a bit rude so not COPPA friendly......

  • HuwHuw Brickset Towers, Hampshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 7,014
    edited February 2020
    Brickfan50, I look forward to reading it.
    Mr_Cross
  • CyberdragonCyberdragon Maryland, U.S.AMember Posts: 541
    jason1976 said:
    Can't believe no one has linked to the Family Guy FTC song while you can still find it on Youtube!

    Note that it's a bit rude so not COPPA friendly......

    They made fun of the FCC, not the FTC.
    jason1976
  • jason1976jason1976 LondonMember Posts: 281
    jason1976 said:
    Can't believe no one has linked to the Family Guy FTC song while you can still find it on Youtube!

    Note that it's a bit rude so not COPPA friendly......

    They made fun of the FCC, not the FTC.

    Well spotted! I was hoping nobody would notice! ;)
  • daewoodaewoo DFWMember Posts: 731
    COPPA compliance isn't just about lost revenue and fines...it's much worse.

    If you tick the little "kid friendly" box to comply with COPPA it disables pretty much everything except ratings on your channel or video (last I saw from people). This includes comments, sharing, favorites, playlists (outside of the owner's), exc. It basically cripples your channel or affected videos by killing most of your viewer interaction. Nobody wants to watch or put out a video when they can't give or get good feedback, which is absolute death to new/small channels.

    That said, let's get to 1M and beyond!
    https://www.change.org/p/youtubers-and-viewers-unite-against-ftc-regulation
    Why would I support that?  YouTube/Google violated a LAW (not a simple rule/regulation) that has been on the books since 1998.  I support that law.  Quite frankly, the petition is aimed the wrong direction.  It should be aimed at YouTube/Google who were at fault to begin with, not at the agency tasked with enforcing an actual law.
    klinton
  • drdavewatforddrdavewatford Hertfordshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 6,742
    daewoo said:
    COPPA compliance isn't just about lost revenue and fines...it's much worse.

    If you tick the little "kid friendly" box to comply with COPPA it disables pretty much everything except ratings on your channel or video (last I saw from people). This includes comments, sharing, favorites, playlists (outside of the owner's), exc. It basically cripples your channel or affected videos by killing most of your viewer interaction. Nobody wants to watch or put out a video when they can't give or get good feedback, which is absolute death to new/small channels.

    That said, let's get to 1M and beyond!
    https://www.change.org/p/youtubers-and-viewers-unite-against-ftc-regulation
    Why would I support that?  YouTube/Google violated a LAW (not a simple rule/regulation) that has been on the books since 1998.  I support that law.  Quite frankly, the petition is aimed the wrong direction.  It should be aimed at YouTube/Google who were at fault to begin with, not at the agency tasked with enforcing an actual law.
    Except the agency that you're defending have cosied up to Google and allowed them to dump responsibility for COPPA onto the content creators, while the law that you support is so badly conceived that it's helping to destroy the livelihoods of many who pose no threat to those that the law is supposed to be protecting. On the plus side, at least the FTC are undertaking a consultation on the law, which even they acknowledge may be in need of an overhaul.
    Pyrobugandhethenosmadejp86GothamConstructionCoCyberdragon
  • OdeinoichusOdeinoichus CanadaMember Posts: 361
    daewoo said:
    COPPA compliance isn't just about lost revenue and fines...it's much worse.

    If you tick the little "kid friendly" box to comply with COPPA it disables pretty much everything except ratings on your channel or video (last I saw from people). This includes comments, sharing, favorites, playlists (outside of the owner's), exc. It basically cripples your channel or affected videos by killing most of your viewer interaction. Nobody wants to watch or put out a video when they can't give or get good feedback, which is absolute death to new/small channels.

    That said, let's get to 1M and beyond!
    https://www.change.org/p/youtubers-and-viewers-unite-against-ftc-regulation
    Why would I support that?  YouTube/Google violated a LAW (not a simple rule/regulation) that has been on the books since 1998.  I support that law.  Quite frankly, the petition is aimed the wrong direction.  It should be aimed at YouTube/Google who were at fault to begin with, not at the agency tasked with enforcing an actual law.
    Except the agency that you're defending have cosied up to Google and allowed them to dump responsibility for COPPA onto the content creators, while the law that you support is so badly conceived that it's helping to destroy the livelihoods of many who pose no threat to those that the law is supposed to be protecting. On the plus side, at least the FTC are undertaking a consultation on the law, which even they acknowledge may be in need of an overhaul.

    Point of order, I have heard conflicting things on this front. Some sources claim that the FTC did suggest Youtube should have alternatives to just Kid Friendly or Not, but Youtube chose not to acknowledge this and just went with the ultimate Band-Aid approach. So again, the FTC are not the ultimate villains here. Youtube lazily applied a quick fix solution to ultimately play at compliance.

    Personally the FTC didn't handle things the best way, but Youtube is equal parts to blame and definitely the larger bad guy here. In certain respects.

    andhePyrobugstluxgmonkey76panchox1klintonizx
  • Brickfan50Brickfan50 Zwolle, NetherlandsMember Posts: 415
    Huw said:
    Brickfan50, I look forward to reading it.

    Here you go...
  • CyberdragonCyberdragon Maryland, U.S.AMember Posts: 541
    daewoo said:
    COPPA compliance isn't just about lost revenue and fines...it's much worse.

    If you tick the little "kid friendly" box to comply with COPPA it disables pretty much everything except ratings on your channel or video (last I saw from people). This includes comments, sharing, favorites, playlists (outside of the owner's), exc. It basically cripples your channel or affected videos by killing most of your viewer interaction. Nobody wants to watch or put out a video when they can't give or get good feedback, which is absolute death to new/small channels.

    That said, let's get to 1M and beyond!
    https://www.change.org/p/youtubers-and-viewers-unite-against-ftc-regulation
    Why would I support that?  YouTube/Google violated a LAW (not a simple rule/regulation) that has been on the books since 1998.  I support that law.  Quite frankly, the petition is aimed the wrong direction.  It should be aimed at YouTube/Google who were at fault to begin with, not at the agency tasked with enforcing an actual law.
    Except the agency that you're defending have cosied up to Google and allowed them to dump responsibility for COPPA onto the content creators, while the law that you support is so badly conceived that it's helping to destroy the livelihoods of many who pose no threat to those that the law is supposed to be protecting. On the plus side, at least the FTC are undertaking a consultation on the law, which even they acknowledge may be in need of an overhaul.
    Exactly, it's been on the books since it took forever to load images let alone video with your 64K modem. They could not have concieved of or planned for a massive online video hosting service where people can earn enough money to make a living off of. It 100% needs to be modernized, just like all physical safety laws update with new tech.
  • klintonklinton CanadaMember Posts: 1,228
    It's being enforced in an effort to stave off tracking the online activity of children, and then targeting them specifically. There is no possible better application of the law. I mean, seriously. How anyone has an issue with this is just a bit absurd, no?
    It really does suck that "youtubers" who've come to depend on the income have had the rug pulled out from under them. That'd be an awful position to be in. The fact is that they were profiting off of the direct exploitation of children though, knowing or otherwise. The ad revenue they're losing should never have existed in the first place. The money they were raking in was generated by Google's shady AF algorithms, cobbled together from data they had no business compiling. Whether or not they deny creating content for children (a really hard sell when you're discussing products found exclusively in toy stores and departments), the revenues in question were dependent on that backend asshattery. It was directly linked to Google deliberately selling ad content to advertisers looking to target children. I get ads for viagra and cars on most any other content on youtube, but Lego channels always offered up spots for toys and kids films.
    There are no innocent parties here. It's shady AF, top to bottom. At the very best, there are people who didn't stop to question the source of thier income. At worst there was blatant flouting of regulations set in motion to curb the brainwashing of impressionable minds. It's a very real concern. As a child of the onslaught that was the 80s, I've scads of irrational attachments to products and brands that I've carried into adulthood. All of them the direct result of far less aggressive tactics than what Google plays at. Blocks of animation and ads were limited to specific hours of the day, not assaulting kids at every turn all day, every day.

    daewoo
  • daewoodaewoo DFWMember Posts: 731
    daewoo said:
    COPPA compliance isn't just about lost revenue and fines...it's much worse.

    If you tick the little "kid friendly" box to comply with COPPA it disables pretty much everything except ratings on your channel or video (last I saw from people). This includes comments, sharing, favorites, playlists (outside of the owner's), exc. It basically cripples your channel or affected videos by killing most of your viewer interaction. Nobody wants to watch or put out a video when they can't give or get good feedback, which is absolute death to new/small channels.

    That said, let's get to 1M and beyond!
    https://www.change.org/p/youtubers-and-viewers-unite-against-ftc-regulation
    Why would I support that?  YouTube/Google violated a LAW (not a simple rule/regulation) that has been on the books since 1998.  I support that law.  Quite frankly, the petition is aimed the wrong direction.  It should be aimed at YouTube/Google who were at fault to begin with, not at the agency tasked with enforcing an actual law.
    Except the agency that you're defending have cosied up to Google and allowed them to dump responsibility for COPPA onto the content creators, while the law that you support is so badly conceived that it's helping to destroy the livelihoods of many who pose no threat to those that the law is supposed to be protecting. On the plus side, at least the FTC are undertaking a consultation on the law, which even they acknowledge may be in need of an overhaul.
    As a parent, I find ALL parties involved in violating the law to be contemptible and have no sympathy for them.  Can the law be revised?  Sure.  That's where you lobby the lawmakers in Congress, not the agency tasked with enforcement of the law.  The petition, and the mindset behind it, are flawed, at best. 
    560Heliport
  • CyberdragonCyberdragon Maryland, U.S.AMember Posts: 541
    edited February 2020
    daewoo said:
    daewoo said:
    COPPA compliance isn't just about lost revenue and fines...it's much worse.

    If you tick the little "kid friendly" box to comply with COPPA it disables pretty much everything except ratings on your channel or video (last I saw from people). This includes comments, sharing, favorites, playlists (outside of the owner's), exc. It basically cripples your channel or affected videos by killing most of your viewer interaction. Nobody wants to watch or put out a video when they can't give or get good feedback, which is absolute death to new/small channels.

    That said, let's get to 1M and beyond!
    https://www.change.org/p/youtubers-and-viewers-unite-against-ftc-regulation
    Why would I support that?  YouTube/Google violated a LAW (not a simple rule/regulation) that has been on the books since 1998.  I support that law.  Quite frankly, the petition is aimed the wrong direction.  It should be aimed at YouTube/Google who were at fault to begin with, not at the agency tasked with enforcing an actual law.
    Except the agency that you're defending have cosied up to Google and allowed them to dump responsibility for COPPA onto the content creators, while the law that you support is so badly conceived that it's helping to destroy the livelihoods of many who pose no threat to those that the law is supposed to be protecting. On the plus side, at least the FTC are undertaking a consultation on the law, which even they acknowledge may be in need of an overhaul.
    As a parent, I find ALL parties involved in violating the law to be contemptible and have no sympathy for them.  Can the law be revised?  Sure.  That's where you lobby the lawmakers in Congress, not the agency tasked with enforcement of the law.  The petition, and the mindset behind it, are flawed, at best. 
    Interpretation of a law in cases is a major part of the whole process here in the US. This is why the Supreme Court exists to interprete constitutional law made almost 250 years ago to apply to the modern world, even though there is an ammendment process to change it. A law made about the internet as it was in the late 90s is just about as relatively ancient and does need modern interpretation. Blanket enforcement of law like that is going nowhere in terms of progress. Yes, Google is responsible for using nuclear reaction to this instead of taking burdon off the users, but then again the FTC went just as nuclear on Google so what did they expect, a big corporation to play nice? Law tries to crush big company -> big company squashes average citizen
  • daewoodaewoo DFWMember Posts: 731
    Interpretation of a law in cases is a major part of the whole process here in the US. This is why the Supreme Court exists to interprete constitutional law made almost 250 years ago to apply to the modern world, even though there is an ammendment process to change it. A law made about the internet as it was in the late 90s is just about as relatively ancient and does need modern interpretation. Blanket enforcement of law like that is going nowhere in terms of progress. Yes, Google is responsible for using nuclear reaction to this instead of taking burdon off the users, but then again the FTC went just as nuclear on Google so what did they expect, a big corporation to play nice? Law tries to crush big company -> big company squashes average citizen
    The Supreme Court does not exist to, "interprete constitutional law made almost 250 years ago to apply to the modern world".  If a law needs updating, it is the role of the legislative branch to do so, not the courts.
    gmonkey76
  • madejp86madejp86 IllinoisMember Posts: 284
    daewoo said:
    Interpretation of a law in cases is a major part of the whole process here in the US. This is why the Supreme Court exists to interprete constitutional law made almost 250 years ago to apply to the modern world, even though there is an ammendment process to change it. A law made about the internet as it was in the late 90s is just about as relatively ancient and does need modern interpretation. Blanket enforcement of law like that is going nowhere in terms of progress. Yes, Google is responsible for using nuclear reaction to this instead of taking burdon off the users, but then again the FTC went just as nuclear on Google so what did they expect, a big corporation to play nice? Law tries to crush big company -> big company squashes average citizen
    The Supreme Court does not exist to, "interprete constitutional law made almost 250 years ago to apply to the modern world".  If a law needs updating, it is the role of the legislative branch to do so, not the courts.
    And here is the main flaw. Most of the lawmakers today don't care. They got into politics to make money and nothing else. If there is nothing in it for them, they dont do anything
    gmonkey76Pyrobugeggshen
  • daewoodaewoo DFWMember Posts: 731
    madejp86 said:
    And here is the main flaw. Most of the lawmakers today don't care. They got into politics to make money and nothing else. If there is nothing in it for them, they dont do anything
    Agree 100% with that.
    gmonkey76
  • MooreFXMooreFX CaliforniaMember Posts: 84
    klinton said:
    The fact is that they were profiting off of the direct exploitation of children though, knowing or otherwise.
    That is a horrible thing to say. YouTube creators had no idea that Google was tracking children.  Knowing or otherwise?  I hope you never get caught up in something not of your making and being accused of exploiting children. I created a few videos for grandmas to make rubber band bracelets with their grandchildren, since my techniques were too advanced for most children to make on their own.  I have labeled all my videos for children now.  I monetized my videos in 2014, having no idea about tracking. A comment advised me to, so I clicked the check box. That doesn't mean that before being monetized that Google wasn't tracking. I didn't make videos to make money, but to share ideas. I did make quite a bit for my videos, since no one else in the world was making bracelets like mine. I think most Lego YouTubers were in the same situation, made videos to share ideas, that morphed into something bigger. They may have even quit or scaled back other work to create videos. Videos are time consuming to make, that is why I stopped making mine. YouTube Creators had no idea of the tracking and no one, not even you, has the right to accuse them of any ill intent. 
    SteveGgmonkey76PyrobugLittleLoriCyberdragonReccesnowhitie
  • samiam391samiam391 A log cabin in PA, United StatesMember Posts: 4,418
    klinton said:
    The fact is that they were profiting off of the direct exploitation of children though, knowing or otherwise. 

    That's quite the blanket statement. Pun intended.
  • mathewmathew Member Posts: 2,098
    edited February 2020
    klinton said:
    As a child of the onslaught that was the 80s, I've scads of irrational attachments to products and brands that I've carried into adulthood. 

    You might as well stick yourself in a bubble then.  Influencers exist everywhere in this world.  You need to be able to think for yourself.  Parents need to teach this to their children.  I'm not saying it's easy....it's far easier to just let your kids be plugged in.  But I'll be damned if I want to live by the rules of a nanny state that allows the big boys (Google) to pass the blame to the little guys (Jang and other YouTubers).  The truth is that Google is the State.
    PyrobugCharmiefcbGothamConstructionCogmonkey76MooreFXCyberdragonsnowhitie
  • izxizx USAMember Posts: 36
    FYI JANG is back with his new COPPA-compliant studio setup and getting through backlogged reviews on Youtube, including bigger sets like the ISS and Tuning Workshop. I like the new style better actually.
  • drdavewatforddrdavewatford Hertfordshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 6,742
    izx said:
    FYI JANG is back with his new COPPA-compliant studio setup and getting through backlogged reviews on Youtube, including bigger sets like the ISS and Tuning Workshop. I like the new style better actually.
    What's he doing differently in order to be COPPA-compliant?
    andhe
  • andheandhe UKMember Posts: 3,705
    I think he is now appearing in front of the camera to make it 'less child-friendly' :D I think that was his words, not my comment. I think the idea being that kids aren't as likely to be interested or perhaps YouTube has some bots that sense toys in videos or something...
    drdavewatford
  • BrainsluggedBrainslugged England (the grim North)Member Posts: 2,057
    edited February 2020
    One of his videos I watched had a link to a web page that explained it a bit. Regardless who Jang's videos were for, the fact that they consisted 100% of close ups of kids' toys and nothing else would have made it very hard to argue that they weren't aimed at kids. The potential crippling fines and complete removal of his channel just wasn't worth the risk of continuing as he had done. It must completely suck having the revenue from his 4000+ videos switched off like a tap though.

    I wonder what would happen if he'd just continued as before, but just sworn like a sailor throughout his reviews. "Look at the quality of this fucking printing across Poppy's tits from Trolls!".

    I also wonder what's happened to the revenue streams from the utter shite videos my daughters watch. There's one young girl my 8-year-old loves who posts loads of videos of herself playing video games (amongst other things). I find her voice absolutely grating, but I think she has millions of subscribers and evidently made a fortune from the videos (as they have also involved her and her brother dropping iPhones off their balcony). 
    drdavewatfordPyrobugandheomniumpanchox1BOBJACK_JACKBOB
  • drdavewatforddrdavewatford Hertfordshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 6,742
    I also wonder what's happened to the revenue streams from the utter shite videos my daughters watch. There's one young girl my 8-year-old loves who posts loads of videos of herself playing video games (amongst other things). I find her voice absolutely grating, but I think she has millions of subscribers and evidently made a fortune from the videos (as they have also involved her and her brother dropping iPhones off their balcony). 
    My son tells me that the numerous Fortnite channels he follows, some of which have absolutely huge numbers of subs and are about as "made for kids" as it's possible to be, are ignoring the new requirements to flag their channels as such and are continuing as-is.

    I guess at some point YouTube will need to be seen to be "doing something", be it to designate these channels as "made for kids" themselves, or close people down who refuse to comply. Or maybe the FTC will start to prosecute. Or maybe nothing at all will happen, and those like Jang who have been proactive will have worried for nothing. We shall see....
  • andheandhe UKMember Posts: 3,705
    edited February 2020
    I also wonder what's happened to the revenue streams from the utter shite videos my daughters watch. There's one young girl my 8-year-old loves who posts loads of videos of herself playing video games (amongst other things). I find her voice absolutely grating, but I think she has millions of subscribers and evidently made a fortune from the videos (as they have also involved her and her brother dropping iPhones off their balcony). 
    My son tells me that the numerous Fortnite channels he follows, some of which have absolutely huge numbers of subs and are about as "made for kids" as it's possible to be, are ignoring the new requirements to flag their channels as such and are continuing as-is.
    I wonder how many 14 year old YouTubers' parents are going to get walloped with a fine when their kid hasn't complied with COPPA.

    drdavewatford
  • izxizx USAMember Posts: 36
    izx said:
    FYI JANG is back with his new COPPA-compliant studio setup and getting through backlogged reviews on Youtube, including bigger sets like the ISS and Tuning Workshop. I like the new style better actually.
    What's he doing differently in order to be COPPA-compliant?
    Per JANG's excellent recent blog post, TLDR is:
    • COPPA has kids, not-kids and mixed-audience categories. If Youtube implemented the mixed category, there would be no problem to begin with but as it is, you can only mark videos as kids/not-kids.
    • Before: In all of his 4000+ videos so far, "the first and only things you see in every single video are toys that are made for kids." (bold/underline in original).
    • After:  "Now, instead of the first & only thing you see in the video being COPPA factor-matching kids toys, you first see an adult, dressed in regular clothes, speaking as an adult directly into the camera to the imaginary viewer who is clearly not a child. ... I now have both visual and audio establishment of clear intent from the first second of every new video.  Further reinforcing this, the entire long freeform narrative segment that ends each video features again, that adult, talking at length in the same way (if not with an even higher apparent age target)."
    • JANG says that this new strategy is not a "guarantee that I won't ever be hassled by YouTube or even the FTC" but "I feel I now stand in a strongly defensible position, where before I absolutely did not."
    PyrobugBumblepantsdrdavewatfordomniumsnowhitiegmonkey76BOBJACK_JACKBOBBrickfan50
  • izxizx USAMember Posts: 36
    andhe said: 
    I wonder how many 14 year old YouTubers' parents are going to get walloped with a fine when their kid hasn't complied with COPPA.
    I think the bigger (and IMO, justified) worry is that YouTube will simply take the shortcut of deleting a questionable channel before the FTC even thinks about getting legally involved.
    drdavewatfordandhe
  • drdavewatforddrdavewatford Hertfordshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 6,742
    izx said:
    izx said:
    FYI JANG is back with his new COPPA-compliant studio setup and getting through backlogged reviews on Youtube, including bigger sets like the ISS and Tuning Workshop. I like the new style better actually.
    What's he doing differently in order to be COPPA-compliant?
    Per JANG's excellent recent blog post, TLDR is:
    • COPPA has kids, not-kids and mixed-audience categories. If Youtube implemented the mixed category, there would be no problem to begin with but as it is, you can only mark videos as kids/not-kids.
    • Before: In all of his 4000+ videos so far, "the first and only things you see in every single video are toys that are made for kids." (bold/underline in original).
    • After:  "Now, instead of the first & only thing you see in the video being COPPA factor-matching kids toys, you first see an adult, dressed in regular clothes, speaking as an adult directly into the camera to the imaginary viewer who is clearly not a child. ... I now have both visual and audio establishment of clear intent from the first second of every new video.  Further reinforcing this, the entire long freeform narrative segment that ends each video features again, that adult, talking at length in the same way (if not with an even higher apparent age target)."
    • JANG says that this new strategy is not a "guarantee that I won't ever be hassled by YouTube or even the FTC" but "I feel I now stand in a strongly defensible position, where before I absolutely did not."
    Thanks for the very helpful summary.

    What about his old videos, though? Has he just marked them "made for kids", or is he banking on old content being somehow exempt? 
  • iwybsiwybs PlutoMember Posts: 270
    He's marked all his old videos as for kids, so right now his only monetized videos are the ones uploaded since the new year, with the new setup.
    drdavewatfordMooreFXandheizx
  • CyberdragonCyberdragon Maryland, U.S.AMember Posts: 541
    Have all the comments and everything been disabled on all the old videos, or has Google finally realized that's an incredibly stupid thing to do?
  • BrainsluggedBrainslugged England (the grim North)Member Posts: 2,057
    Have all the comments and everything been disabled on all the old videos, or has Google finally realized that's an incredibly stupid thing to do?
    As they are now "for kids", all comments and ads automatically disabled. Along with Jang's income. So he's gotta build his revenue pipeline from scratch. Gotta hurt having the rug pulled out from under you like that.
    andhePyrobuggmonkey76izx
  • SteveGSteveG TNMember Posts: 35
    Some of the other 'toy' channels like retroblasting have started adding a pre-roll explicitly saying that they are a nostalgia channel and for adults and not for kids. 

    I work in paid traffic for a living and was not shocked at all when Youtube passed the problem on to the creators while being the root cause of it all to begin with. 

    CharmiefcbPyrobugBrickfan50
Sign In or Register to comment.

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Please use our links: LEGO.com Amazon

Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy Brickset.com

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.