Author: abbyeastvold

Security online is feeling more like a rarity than a norm. Despite the stupidity of my teenage years, I have been fortunate enough to not be the victim of any cyber attacks. I recently got into my first car accident. While I was fortunate enough not to get hurt, it taught me an important lesson: just because something has not happened to me does not mean it cannot happen to me. Last week I found way more information publicly available through a Google search of my name than I thought was out there. While the information available was concerning, it only scratches the surface of privacy concerns.

The biggest privacy concern for me is how much Google and Facebook control my Internet usage. Of all changes I will be making, freeing myself from Google and Facebook is the most crucial change. I must say this change will not be easy and may never be truly complete. Foolishly, I have signed up for sites using Google or Facebook to login, forsaking security for convenience. Google likely knows virtually everything about my life, as I have used Google Maps, G-Mail and Google Chrome for years. Accessing either account could give a hacker endless access to my information.

Freeing myself from Google especially is going to take a lot of work. Some of the steps will be minor, though. For one thing, I will begin using DuckDuckGo for my search engine needs. Google tracking my information for advertisements concerns because that means that the information is stored and could fall into the wrong hands. Another change I will be making is switching from Chrome to Safari for further privacy. I originally used Chrome because I had a Windows computer and found Internet Explorer to be clumsy and obnoxious. Now that I have MacBook I can use Safari.

Password security has been a critical weak point in my online browsing. I found it simpler to use similar passwords for everything so I did not have to memorize so many passwords. Writing them in a journal was always an option, but I was always concerned that I would lose the journal and my security would be foiled. I was pleased to find out this week about about the existence of password managers. Now I will be fixing two problems. For one, my accounts will be more secure because the passwords will be better. Second, forgetting my password will no longer be an issue for me. For further security, I will also use two-factor authentication. My mortgage company recently made this mandatory at log in and I will be looking to do so on as many sites as possible.

While some of these changes will take a long time, particularly loosening Google and Facebook’s grip on me, they are certainly worthwhile. A malefactor accessing my information could have more damage than I can imagine. This week I learned that more of my information is collected and used than I thought. Even though I believed myself to be secure, I was not. No matter how many changes I make I also realize I will never be completely secure online. Despite the fact I was driving the speed limit and obeying traffic signals a few weeks back, my car was still totalled by a reckless driver. No matter the strength of my passwords or authentication practices, if someone wants my information they can get it. I have come to expect that anything I do online can be dug up. I am just going to work harder to bury it further.

New media and technology has posed complex legal issues surrounding copyright. I, personally, have seriously considered publishing content on YouTube, but have decided against it in part because of its problematic copyright policies. For example, YouTuber Casey Neistat was too afraid of copyright strike to play a song in his video even though the artist had sent him a copy of the song personally. It’s become an ongoing joke on YouTube, but the issues for content creators are real. YouTubers risk losing their advertisement revenue or having their video removed even if the music is played by someone else in the background out of the creator’s control, such as at a restaurant or event. This is an obvious issue for YouTubers who may have spent a great deal of time making a video only for it to get claimed.

I want artists to receive fair compensation for their work. However, Kirby Ferguson argues that the process of creating new works is to copy, transform and replicate existing works. Even those with the legal right to a work relied on on the work of someone else to create theirs. Further, copyright laws were made before the ability to create and share media was available to the masses. Despite the fact that technology has rapidly changed the way media is created and shared, the laws have not been able to keep up. On top of that, the standard for what constitutes as a new work is highly subjective.

YouTube’s overzealous and flawed attempt to prevent copyright infringement through Content ID has resulted in a paradox: the platform created to give the masses the ability to create and share content has favored those who have had the beginning from the start. Outside of Hollywood, it is near impossible to obtain permission from everyone who has rights to a work. Content ID is also flawed because it does not consider works clearly covered under fair use, such as educational material or a short clip of a song. While I have benefited from YouTubers’ opportunity to earn revenue from their videos, YouTube has not figured out how to allow creators to legally use copyrighted works to enhance their videos and monetize their work.

I love watching Youtube and have benefitted from YouTubers creating better content due to monetization. The opportunity for people to create and share videos outside of the narrow walls of Hollywood is appealing and worth pursuing. YouTube’s copyright strike and Content ID systems has limited the ability for creators to do this, though. Obviously, YouTube must adhere to the law and artists deserve compensation for their work. The law is not designed for a platform such as YouTube and YouTube’s ardent enforcement of law has undermined its original function.

Sharing content on YouTube still appeals to me as a hobby. Their issues with copyright law and monetization have lead me to not want to receive revenue from YouTube. Monetization of videos further limits the works allowed to be used. The ability to earn money on YouTube is also what fuels copyright strikes. I do not want to earn revenue from such a fickle system. As platforms such as YouTube continue to develop, the question must be asked of what fair use and copyright infringement are when anyone with a smartphone can be a filmmaker.

The safety of children on YouTube is widely debated. YouTube is certainly an attractive option for parents looking to entertain kids. It’s a free service with seemingly endless content that most kids can run themselves. I’ve even watched my two year old niece do it (have mercy on anyone who comes between her and Peppa Pig).  On the flip side, concerns have risen not only among parents, but also with FTC leading to YouTube getting fined $170 million. Many have suggested either to not allow kids to use YouTube or to trust the parental controls more than they probably should. This can make it hard for users to find quality information. I have searched the Internet high and low, reading articles, blogs, tweets, and even attempting to find YouTube videos to explain the issues surrounding kids’ use of YouTube. With that in mind, here is a list of the best sources I have found that can help users not only understand the issues, but also how they can be savvy users of the platform.

• Google, YouTube To Pay $170 Million Penalty Over Collecting Kids’ Personal Info– NPR, September 4, 2019
  This article I reviewed a few weeks ago is still one of the best overviews of the recent FTC fines imposed on YouTube and the issues the fines address, mainly that children’s online privacy was being violated.

• YouTube kids: how unboxing, gaming and toy reviews took over– The Guardian, September 5, 2019
  This raises good questions about “kidfluencers,” the digital culture they are surrounded in, and what parents should know about kids creating media online. “The ubiquity of video cameras today empowers people to scratch the itch for fame and notoriety like never before. My only hope is that this digital generation will grow up better equipped to navigate the challenges of the online world than their analog born parents.”- Richard Sprenger

• Raised by YouTube– The Atlantic, November 2018
  This is an older article, but it raises many good questions that are becoming more relevant, first about the validity of educational children’s content the second question I found over and over on Twitter today: why has YouTube not moved all of its kids content on to YouTube Kids?

• Parents Shouldn’t Fear Momo. They Should Fear How Little They Understand YouTube.– Buzzfeed News, March 1, 2019
  This opinion piece offers advice from Lori Getz, a well-known cyber education expert. In response to panic over Momo, Getz concludes parents need to be actively involved in their children’s online activity.

• For the first time, parents will be able to limit YouTube Kids to human-reviewed channels and recommendations– TechCrunch April 25, 2018
  This article is also from 2018, but it gives a good overview of the controls parents can use in the YouTube Kids app to filter the content themselves. It also criticizes YouTube for not putting the controls in from the beginning of the app, which would have prevented problems such as the algorithm filter leading to disturbing and inappropriate content.

• On YouTube’s Digital Playground, an Open Gate for Pedophiles– The New York Times, June 3, 2019
  In February 2019 a YouTuber by the moniker MattsWhatItIs posted a video exposing a wormhole of sexually suggestive videos of children, resulting in YouTube shutting down the comment section on videos containing children. This article address the fact that the issue with the algorithm that allows the wormhole to happen still exists and people still have easy access to the content.

When discussing sponsored content on YouTube aimed at children there is one channel that cannot be ignored: Ryan ToysReview. With that being said, it is no surprise, according to The New York Times, the channel has come into question with the FTC. The article says that Ryan ToysReview was the subject of a complaint filed by Truth in Advertising following the FTC ruling I discussed last week when YouTube was fined $170 million. Along with the complaint filed by Truth in Advertising, the commission was also asked to look into the channel by several senators for for undisclosed sponsorships with Carl’s Jr. The article is well written, including links to sources where appropriate, comments from both sides of the situation, and a balanced approach.

Because the article was published in The New York Times, I already knew that this would likely be a credible article. That being said, I still looked for similar reports from other news sites. These articles from Buzzfeed News, Fox News, and NBC News all gave similar facts about the story, raising the credibility. The article also offered several links throughout the article, making it easy to track down many of its sources. The links offered access to a variety of sources. The most credible links were links to documents of the actual complaints filed with the FTC. The FTC was also sited for a 2017 warning to influencers to adequately disclose information. A link to Ryan ToysReview YouTube channel is provided. These links are relevant to the story and help readers to understand what Ryan ToysReview content is and of what the channel is being accused.

The article offers statements from relevant parties. Truth in Advertising’s complaint was referenced multiple times in the article. There were also statements from the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood’s executive director, Josh Golin. Shion Kaji, father of the star of Ryan ToysReview Ryan Kaji, was also quoted in the story. The statements from each group seemed appropriately placed. Specifically, the quote from Mr. Kaji did not seem to be placed in a way to raise further suspicions about him or the motives of the channel. A source that possibly could have been quoted was the FTC. While warnings from the FTC were cited, they were older warnings not specific to this situation. I am also curious about Carl’s Jr. Ryan ToysReview has done sponsorships with many companies, but it is Carl’s Jr. who allegedly sponsored the videos accused of not properly disclosing the affiliation. Carl’s Jr. is a relevant party in the situation.

As a final consideration the article seems to give a mostly fair account of the story. As stated above, both the parties question the channel and a representative of the channel were given coverage. The article does not seem to further incriminate the channel by misrepresenting or lacking comment. This article seemed to have the most neutral coverage I could find. The other articles I mentioned above seemed to use subtle means of giving harsher portrayals of the channel than necessary.  In the end, the article seems to be asking the question of not only whether the channel acted in accordance with the law but also if following the current laws is enough. Mr. Kaji said that the channel worked within the FTC rulings, but Mr. Golin argued that simply saying something is sponsored is not enough for preschoolers to understand the difference between advertisements and content. Considering the influence that Ryan ToysReview has, it does not seem unfair for them to be questioned in the article.

In conclusion, I would give this article an A-. Readers can easily navigate the sources to gain a clearer understanding of the story because they are appropriately linked. The article seemed to give fair coverage. Most relevant parties were given opportunities to comment. The article seemed to appropriately question the actions of Ryan ToysReview without misrepresenting the channel. The only thing stopping me from giving the article an A is that I believe a quote from Carl’s Jr. would have been appropriate given the circumstances. While the article was not lacking for not including a comment from the FTC, it would have been a relevant addition.

Over the past year, YouTube’s practices on content aimed at children have come into question. As a leading source for children’s entertainment content YouTube has also become a major avenue for advertisements directed at children. This has led to action from the FTC to correct some of the practices that YouTube used to attract advertisers to their platform when children’s content is involved. I found four articles covering the recent changes and what it will likely mean for YouTube creators and users alike.

NPR gave one of the most thorough reports of the fines imposed on YouTube from the FTC. The article describes the total of $170 million YouTube must pay for tracking user information on content aimed at children, resulting in targeted ads appearing on children’s content. This is also one of the first articles that I found that offered a statement from a special interests group saying that they were glad there would be fewer ads aimed at children but felt the FTC should have done more to fix the problem. I consider this article to be news. The article offers statements from both YouTube and a special interests group that is against YouTube’s practices. The article does not overtly favor one view over the other or offer critiques of either view. This seems to be a report of what has happened.

Cnet.com also covered the FTC ruling here. This coverage is news. The article includes comments from both YouTube and the father of Ryan from RyanToyReviews, one of the biggest creators of children’s content on the platform. This article was comprehensive, giving background of the changes and the circumstances that led up to the suit from the FTC and concluded by explaining that other big online companies are also in the sights of the FTC for similar suits.

A Pennsylvania newspaper published this opinion piece on the FTC rulings. The piece is clearly labelled as an opinion piece, which helps readers to know that it is an opinion piece. The article offers the opinion that other states should look into filing similar suits that the state of New York filed against YouTube. The piece argues that if YouTube violated children’s privacy laws in New York they likely did in other states.

Finally, a writer for USA Today posted an opinion piece calling for parents to continue to monitor their children’s YouTube usage. This article is clearly labelled as an opinion piece, making it easy for me as a reader to identify it. Further, the author makes no attempt to hide her concerns with letting kids use YouTube unsupervised. She does offer some anecdotal evidence and does not hide that there are some statistics she does not know about the issue. These are excusable in opinion pieces. It does not appear that the article is meant to be taken as a news report in anyway. Rather, it is one writer’s warning to parents based on her experience.

From reading a variety of articles covering YouTube and its protection of children I found many different views about YouTube. The company seems to rely heavily on children’s content for revenue as it is the easiest to get big companies such as McDonald’s to support. FTC regulations and concerns from parents are making this far more difficult. I found heavy media coverage over the changes coming for YouTube and what it will mean for creators and viewers alike.

When I am not at work or doing homework, I can likely be caught watching YouTube. I use YouTube daily for entertainment, news, and other information (many of my home projects have been guided by helpful videos). The issue of demonetization and advertising continues to be a popular conversation especially among YouTubers who have lost their revenue for a spectrum of reasons. One of the biggest reasons for demonetization is for what YouTube dubs as inappropriate content. This is because advertisers do not want to have their brands associated with potentially offensive content. This has led to a significant share of monetized content being aimed at children. The issue now becomes complicated as many of the people viewing and creating monetized content  are breaking YouTube’s terms of use requiring that users are at least 13 years old. As a response to this and growing concerns of children accidentally encountering inappropriate content on the platform YouTube has just launched YouTube Kids. YouTube Kids is supposed to make it easier for parents to monitor what their children watch and harder for the inappropriate content to slip in, although YouTube warns that it still can get through.

As a daily user of YouTube, I am interested in how YouTube itself and YouTubers earn revenue. I know that kids are increasingly becoming more and more reliant on YouTube for entertainment. I think this issue raises good questions about the role of parents in both monitoring children’s media consumption and teaching children media literacy skills. I have seen a fair amount of coverage over this issue. Much of the coverage seems to be critical of YouTube. In my opinion this seems fair as children’s safety is involved and YouTube is the leading video streaming platform.

On Wednesday August 21 I tracked my media usage, both what I produced and what I consumed. As it was my day off and I am in my first week of fall classes my media habits were a bit different than they are most days. I will address where I deviated from my typical routine later in this post.

My Media Diet Log

7:45 A.M.I woke up and checked my Facebook for notifications then caught up on my Instagram feed and stories on my phone. While I check the feed throughout the day, I only check stories once when I wake up and once before bed. After I was done checking social media I checked my email and remembered I needed to re-enroll for health insurance through work so I did that on my phone’s Internet browser. This all took around 20 minutes.

8:15 A.M. I left my house to head to an appointment and listened to a local radio station along the way. I typically listen to a pop station. When I got out of appointment around 9:00 I listened to the radio again on my way home.

9:15 A.M. Because it was my day off, my husband and I watched an episode of “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” on Amazon Prime while we ate breakfast when I got home.

11:00 A.M. We headed to a local coffee shop. While there I read the assigned reading for this class and then watched the lecture videos. I also posted my introductory discussion post for my class. My husband let me snap a few candid pictures of him on my phone.

1:00 P.M. We headed home for round two of “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” while my husband ate lunch. Typically, we would not watch two episodes within a few hours of each other but we were at the season finale and were on the edge of our seats.

2:00 P.M. My friend and I met for lunch. I caught a short snippet of an NPR segment on gun control, but not enough to understand the particular conversation they were having. I trust NPR’s work, but I know that they still occasionally make mistakes.

6:00 P.M. I began work on my French class using the website for the textbook we are using and posting an introductory discussion post for the class.

8:00 P.M. I made myself some dinner and turned on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver videos on YouTube. I like to watch Last Week Tonight to get a general understanding of an issue, but I often will further research the issue. His segments are relatively short for the complexity of issues he addresses so I find it best to further research. I caught up on the local news on the KIMT (my local news) website. They are good for local news, but their resources are limited and there are many inexperienced reporters on staff. I also read the Daily Briefing on The New York Times which I like to use when I do not have much time to read the news. Their work is mostly credible and I like that the Daily Briefing gives the most relevant news quickly.

Some Reflections on My Media Diet

Perhaps the biggest thing I noticed was that I take in more media than I put out. I occasionally post a picture to Instagram, rarely post a Facebook status, and daily write for school and for personal enjoyment, but not as much as I access media. I also noticed most of my media usage was Internet based. I do not have cable, so my only interaction with broadcast media is typically if my radio is on in the car. On a typical day I  read the news on my phone more frequently than on this particular day because I’ll check the news on my breaks at work. I also will usually also watch a variety of YouTube videos, both for entertainment and to learn new skills. My husband and I also tend to look at memes on Reddit before bed.

I have set up my blog and now I am ready to post.