Hacker News Reader

Comment by ceejayoz | Hacker News Reader

If she's under 13, it's likely that's the reason.

Even if you're paying for G Suite, you can't have someone under 13. There is a special, limited type of Google account for sub-13 kids: https://support.google.com/families/answer/7103338

View on HN

Then you'd think it would be easy for Google to have said that instead of giving him no reason beyond "yep it's legit"

Google typically won't give reasons because people use that information to get around blocks.

That seems ethically like a slippery slope explanation. Good thing the legal system doesn't behave this way when one is arrested (in most places).

In the case of COPPA, the slippery slope guidelines of being deliberately opaque come straight from the FTC:

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/com...

"If you choose to block children under 13 on your general audience site or service, you should take care to design your age screen in a manner that does not encourage children to falsify their ages to gain access to your site or service. Ask age information in a neutral manner at the point at which you invite visitors to provide personal information or to create a user ID."

I see your point, but I don't read it the same way you do. This is referring to the age screen test (similar to Steam's on PG 13 or R games). But the poster above was spurned by Google support.

I think the real reason he was spurned is that Google support isn't that effective or responsive in a lot of cases, full stop.

Doubly not relevant for a paid g-suite organization. It’s not like his daughter can just go sign up for an account and lie about her age, the admin has to add users.

The admin is not asked for a birthday. IIRC, it's largely optional - YouTube will require it to watch a violent/sexually suggestive video, at which point you may get locked out if you give a sub-13 one.

For example: https://sunpig.com/martin/2011/07/03/google-made-my-son-cry/

Right, so

>you should take care to design your age screen in a manner that does not encourage children to falsify their ages to gain access to your site or service. Ask age information in a neutral manner at the point at which you invite visitors to provide personal information or to create a user ID

doesn't have anything to do with this. There's definitely no age screen for the kid to lie on, and it sounds like the admin doesn't even provide an age either

It does, at times.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/fbi-would-rather...

> In order to ensure that such wireless collection equipment/technology continues to be available for use by the law enforcement community, the equipment/technology and any information related to its functions, operation and use shall be protected from potential compromise by precluding disclosure of this information to the public in any manner including but not limited to: press releases, in court documents, during judicial hearings, or during other public forums or proceedings.

They don't have to disclose how they inferred the age but they can absolutely say that they'll ban anyone under 13 from streaming. The rule must be made transparent and clear - how they measure it and its boundaries can be somewhat opaque to aid enforcement and prevent reverse engineering

> The rule must be made transparent and clear

The rule itself is transparent and clear.

Whether the rule in as the basis for the action here is not.

It clearly would generally be required (as due process) to make that clear, too, if Google was the government of the US or one of it's states, but they aren't. Absent a contractual obligation I have seen no evidence for, I don't see why they would be obligated to explain this, even if I might find it prerable if they would.

Aren't we all talking about how we would like it to be and not what is legal or contractual? I thought so at least. If we are talking about contract, it's all stacked against us. We have no bargaining power. We have no rights whatsoever. Google absolutely has the right to do what they want within legal boundaries. These discussions and the noise we generate is how we are flexing our muscle and accomplishing what we want from Google.

> Aren't we all talking about how we would like it to be

“Must”, in the post I was responding to, seems to clearly indicate otherwise.

It is possible that word was poorly chosen.

Wait, what about that Ryan kid (who's a proxy for his parents) who does all the reviews for kids' toys and makes millions. Is he in danger of getting nixed?

It depends on who owns the account. Kids under 13 can appear in videos posted by their parents' account.

Maybe Google should have put that in the explanation instead of not giving a reason.

I wouldn't be shocked if the lawyers say COPPA means they can't, as they're not supposed to have any info about the child, including a) that they exist and b) that they're under 13.

That is a possibility, however it would have been helpful if they had said that. I assumed with my permission that she would be able to live stream. She also likes to play Roblox, and I had setup OBS for her. She was honestly pretty sad about it seeing that there are lots of other kids live streaming that appear to be her age.

Then how do kid streaming shows like Ryan’s toy review gather millions of subscribers over several years?

But he also has YouTube Premium family. Family members are often sub 13.

Yes, and there are special types of accounts for under-13 family members.

https://support.google.com/families/answer/7103338?hl=en

Having a Family plan for YouTube Premium (or other Google services) doesn't suddenly make it okay to use regular Google Accounts for young children. There are laws that apply here, and Google has special accounts designed to comply with those laws.

You can't just spin up a regular 13+ G Suite account for those family members, though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com