It's google generated based on what they think is most relevant, they do on desktopThis always disappoints me - why does the Hinch woman and whoever the other one is (I don't watch them) have a listing on the Google result for Tattle but not our very own grooming/trolling Minghams? Why can't we have their name on there? I think, given the nature of Chris Ingham's indiscretions (to put it mildly) the public should see the Ingham name rather than Hinch?? Or has she been up to worse, like Satanic sacrificing?
I feel you. My friends daughter has a YT channel, she only does edits and as far she is concerned they’re not aimed specifically at children or contain anything child related, however she has received warnings about setting her channel to the correct audience, however even she isn’t sure what this will mean for her.
EXCELLENT!It's google generated based on what they think is most relevant, they do on desktop
View attachment 62148
You've visited this page many times
"No, it doesn't work like that" - this is from the guy who couldn't submit his company accounts on time and drove around without legal paperwork. Wait, is he a YouTube policy consultant now?I think you will find it does Mr Ingham. I would suggest a very lot of research or you will get a very lot of fines. It’s not like you have people who would report you or anything is it?
Mrs Hinch would sell her soul to the devil to make some money, hardly on Creepy’s scale with messaging young vulnerable people in my opinionThis always disappoints me - why does the Hinch woman and whoever the other one is (I don't watch them) have a listing on the Google result for Tattle but not our very own grooming/trolling Minghams? Why can't we have their name on there? I think, given the nature of Chris Ingham's indiscretions (to put it mildly) the public should see the Ingham name rather than Hinch?? Or has she been up to worse, like Satanic sacrificing?
It's not unusual anymore to see YouTubers fleecing PR departments for deals and freebies. It's when you see them fleecing kids and vulnerable adults with childlike thinking that situations have to be stopped. COPPA is a good start.
There is no hope and nothing good to come out of COPPA. I want to see the end of the Inghams channel as much as anyone but this new regulation which the FTC have not asked of You Tube, it is all on them, is going to ruin You Tube altogether. Decent channels wanting to do the right thing are going to suffer. They will mark their channel for kids. Not so decent ones are going to make their channels x rated to get around the kids clause (this is not mandated by coppa). You Tube is going to be left with mostly unsuitable content for kids and most parents are oblivious to all this and won't police their children watching it thinking it is still a safe ish platform. No this is far from ok and puts kids more in danger, the viewers of which there are far more, than children of vloggers
Exactly, these rules are being brought into place to protect people which can surely only be a good thing, but not in these people’s minds. How dare they spoil our cash flow..how about get a real job then that would never happen! He could earn the same amount of money by getting off his backside and get proper qualifications like we all do!
Ah yes, another job to add to his cv.EXCELLENT!
"No, it doesn't work like that" - this is from the guy who couldn't submit his company accounts on time and drove around without legal paperwork. Wait, is he a YouTube policy consultant now?
If it means people scamming kids are no longer cashing in £££££‘s a year with lazy content that’s fine by me.
Clearly he hasn’t done his homework. Although I can’t quite understand the people who are actually worried about how the rules will affect them. It’s not like they put out riveting content on a daily basis.I think you will find it does Mr Ingham. I would suggest a very lot of research or you will get a very lot of fines. It’s not like you have people who would report you or anything is it?
No, it is not just my son I am worried about. Yes, it is great if channels like the Inghams suffer because of this but a shed load of decent channels are too. Channels like a friend who does therapy sessions for autistic children. With parental consent, she has put them on her channel for years and got good views. People who may have benefited from her ideas will no longer be able to. People who do educational channels for kids can't anymore. All the how to channels that people go to when they want to fix something. This is massive. Bigger than a few children being exploited by their own parents. I hate family vloggers with a passion and want all of them off you tube but this is the wrong way. This way punishes great creators too.
Those aspects DO sound concerning, so I hope it will be reviewed and tweaked accordingly. I think it's a positive start, though, and it should start ringing alarm bells in some parents' perhaps empty heads that they need to be more clued-up on what their kids are watching online, why, and what's motivating content creators.
