How would you feel if your entire life was watched and replayed by an infinite number of strangers? For every moment, the good, the bad and the ugly, to forever be cemented in history? And, worst of all, for you to be able to do nothing about it? This is not a plot line from some Sci-fi movie or a remake of The Truman Show. This is reality.
When parents post a photo or video of their child on social media, it may seem like a harmless gimmick, an opportunity to share a snapshot of their little one’s life with like-minded people. Most won’t even think twice before pressing ‘upload.’ It has simply become the norm. But what many parents forget is that their children are simply too young to consent to being plastered over the internet — a place where their image will live forever, even after it has been deleted.
Now, with the rise of family channels on YouTube, it is time we had a meaningful discussion about the toll of growing up in front of the camera on children.
Violating Privacy
Family channels are social media accounts which centre around documenting family life. These vlogs have amassed a legion of millions of loyal followers searching for parenting tips or curious about how the children of their favourite social media stars are growing up. Often, the kids are the stars of the show. Their shenanigans provide entertainment, while their faults are a perfect opportunity for reform and education. But being a ‘kidfluencer’ can have a devastating effect on a child’s mental health.
Dr Faith Gordon, a law professor at the Australian National University, is an outspoken critic of family vlogs. She argues that they pose several ethical issues:
‘Home is a place where you would envisage having a level of privacy; however, when you’re being filmed and recorded and even family holidays are documented, that privacy isn’t available [for kidfluencers].’
Gordon also highlights how these children, who ‘are in a less powerful position’ than the adults behind the camera, will struggle to resist being in videos. She warns that this could have a detrimental impact on the parent-child relationship off-screen.
With over a third of Gen Alpha claiming they want to be influencers, many would jump at the opportunity to feature in their parents’ videos. However, children are simply too young to understand the implications of having an online presence and that their digital footprint will last forever. Family vloggers have been known to share outlandishly personal information with their followers. But why should strangers know every aspect of these children’s lives? Do these kids want their most private moments on the internet for millions to see? It may not bother them now, but it will when they are older.
Exploitation Made Easier
Playing Devil’s Advocate, it’s not as if children have never been exposed to fame before social media came along. Clips of 10-year-old Britney Spears competing on Star Search and tween Zendaya auditioning for the Disney Channel still circulate on the internet.
There is no shortage of child actors, beauty pageant contestants and pop stars who were too young to understand how their newfound fame would affect them later in life. And it is no secret that many underage stars are put in front of the camera by parents looking to make a fortune from their children.
What is undeniable is that social media has made exploitation easier than ever before. Instead of going to a talent agency or contest, hoping your child will be chosen for stardom, now all parents have to do is keep uploading new content of their darlings until they rack up enough views. And in a world where anything can go viral on social media, it has never been easier for children to become instant internet sensations. But at what cost?
A Lack of Rights
Across the globe, kidfluencers lack the fundamental rights afforded to other workers. And to be clear, that’s what they are: workers.
Shari Franke is the daughter of Ruby Franke, the owner of the infamous 8Passengers family YouTube channel. According to Shari’s account, the relationship between them was not that of a mother and child. Shari was treated more as an employee. A short video could take eight hours to perfect, and punishments for not wanting to participate were severe. The full extent of Ruby Franke’s abuse was exposed in August 2023 when Shari’s brother turned up at a neighbour’s house, malnourished and with duct tape around his ankles. The case of the Frankes clearly highlights how years of horrific maltreatment can hide behind the glamorous and distorted lens of social media.
Even if kidfluencers aren’t at the receiving end of child abuse, it doesn’t mean they aren’t being financially exploited. Remember, the number of hours they work each week is not capped. They do not have the legal right to safe working conditions, nor are they entitled to any of the earnings from the videos featuring them. In most cases, the money generated from family content will go to the parents or guardians who run the channel.
When child protection laws continue to severely lag in the digital age, very little is stopping unscrupulous parents from profiting off their children. There is, however, encouraging evidence that we are finally waking up to the threat posed by social media to youngsters. Australia recently banned children from using social media. France grants citizens the right to be forgotten, allowing those under the age of 16 to request that a photo of them be removed from an online platform without parental consent. And the state of Illinois passed a law requiring kidfluencers to be compensated for their contribution to monetised videos, with the money being placed in a trust. But the vast majority of countries still do not offer any sufficient form of protection for kidfluencers.
It’s time that changed. Each flash of the camera or click of the recording button is another second of a young person’s childhood being monetised, another reminder that their right to privacy has been ignored and their innocence exploited. How can we allow this to continue?
DISCLAIMER: The articles on our website are not endorsed by, or the opinions of Shout Out UK (SOUK), but exclusively the views of the author.
