Talk:Children's Online Privacy Protection Act

message: 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)
thread_title: Vandalism reverted

message: 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)
thread_title: I think common opinions should be stated in this article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Implementation not on wiki

message: 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)
thread_title: There are sources!

message: 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)
thread_title: Remove paragraph concerning photographs of children?

message: 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)
thread_title: COPPA effects

message: 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)
replies: text: YES!! I so agree with you! This law should be REVERTED!! 98.97.33.196 (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  One-sidedness 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticisms Section Added 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Legal Document needing cleanup 

message: 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)
thread_title:  HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO POST THIS? 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: . It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2019 

message: Tell me! AlexCruz289 (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why dosent Wikipedia follow COPPA?? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  COPPA and Youtube 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reasons for these rules? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Un-merge proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Definition of "personal information" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Should there be a section about how some kids don't need protection? 

message: title says it all Esaïe Prickett (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "made for kids" has ruined youtube

message: Hello .
Here is the rationale for my revert of your change shown on this diff
First of all, your statement of  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  is also violating WP:OR, with the same rationale as above.
Your statement that  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  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)
thread_title:  Original Research issue for 203.29.141.94 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This law is stupid. 

message: 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)
replies: text: . General Ization Talk   19:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  An new house bill that lower minimum age to use social media from 13 to 10 (Original research issues for 74.48.17.205)