To see the fault, consider its application: children find the motion and lights outside of the car window highly appealing during a night drive, thus traffic signals are directed to them. Second, and more importantly, the template language above is predicated on a false presumption: if children find something appealing, then that thing must target children. So, it’s a paradoxical argument: developers target kids in a web space that actively excludes kids. In addition, the language used to describe the apps in the app stores is simple and would be appealing to a child under age 13.įirst, the Terms of Use for Apple’s and Google’s app stores have expressly prohibited under 13 use since their creations in 20, respectively and, review of an app store description is part of each platform’s app approval process. that would be highly appealing to children. In the 20 Complaints against app developers Tin圜o (at ♡7), LAI Systems (at ♡9), and Retro Dreamer (at ♢2), the FTC’s application of the “directed to” standard was a slapdash template: ’s kids’ apps contain brightly colored, animated characters including
Worse yet, these factors are misapplied by the FTC in its complaints, and subsequently by courts in their orders. (Does this image look much different than the screen caps from the apps above? The South Park kids in this scene are considering occupation of the school cafeteria as part of the 99% political movement.) Instead, activities like standing in the lunch line, sitting in class, and playing on the playground are used as comedic contrast to the school-aged characters’ mature conversations. In other words, quantitative factors such as “child-oriented activities” wouldn’t actually indicate child-targeting by South Park. Parody and nostalgia ooze from the characters’ voices, actions, costumes, and locations. And, these aren't the only indicators of adult orientation.
Yet, the show's language and situations mark it as unmistakably adult-oriented. Kid-friendly celebrities? Occasionally, check. Bright colors with abrasive music and voices? Check, check, and check. The South Park DefenseĬonsider South Park as an illustration of the inefficacy. Rogers to Steve from “Blue’s Clues,” several kid-targeted shows include adult characters, and several adult shows like South Park contain child characters.
Third, it’s inaccurate to suggest that character age correlates to audience age. And, the 8 factors in Section 312.3 don't actually describe that difference. More importantly, there's an obvious difference between Homer Simpson and the middle-aged, balding caveman in the Tiny Village app shown above. For example, does The Simpsons: Tapped Out target kids since Homer Simpson is present on the app's icon? (Does a character meeting every definition of “unfit father” really capture the U13 demographic?) Of course not. Second, confusing use of animated characters for mere presence of animated characters (as the FTC has done) leads to drastically different conclusions about targeting. So, is sneezing a kid thing or an adult thing? ) ( Sneezies is a game where tapping on floating fuzzballs pops them for points and causes them to sneeze–the "subject matter" that the FTC considered as a factor. Still other factors (e.g., (4) “use of animated characters”) are not clearly qualitative or quantitative. Other factors seem qualitative (e.g., (2) visuals) that is, they’re simply categories for further inquiry. Some factors seem quantitative (e.g., (6) child-oriented activities) that is, their mere presence is indicative of child targeting. Superficially, the factors seem useful.īut, they’re surprisingly problematic on inspection. The “directed to” factors include: (1) subject matter, (2) visuals, (3) audio or music, (4) use of animated characters, (5) age of models, (6) child-oriented activities and incentives, (7) kid-friendly celebrities, and (8) language. Section 312.3 deems it “unlawful for any directed to children” to collect a kid’s personal information without notice and parental consent, where “directed” means “targeted” to kids. How has this slipped under the radar for so long? Confounding Construction And third, the FTC poorly applies those factors to online game developers. Second, it poorly describes the factors for that distinction. First, the COPPA statute poorly distinguishes kids’ content from any other online content. And notably, COPPA’s “directed to” standard for determining whether online services target children under 13 is shockingly bad. In light of the FTC's 4 new Commissioner nominees, it's worth taking a critical look at the FTC's actions in recent years.
0 kommentar(er)
