Influencer parents and the kids who had their childhood made into content • Hacker News Board

Re: Influencer parents and the kids who had their childhood made into content

#171

Post by blooalien » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 7:58 PM UTC

valarauko wrote: post #140

davidguetta wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have weirdly mixed feelings on your comment. - I agree that parents who publicize their children on social media are massive creep in my opinion, who do a massive invasion of the child privacy. That should almost be illegal in my opinion since the child can't consent. - At the same time saying that no skin should ever be shown ever because "it titills sexual creeps" is a dark road that points in a direction which i…

> That should almost be illegal in my opinion since the child can't consent. Genuine Q: at what point can the child consent? A lot of people here are talking about a media blackout of their children since the child can't consent, but when does that end? Can a 5-year-old consent to have their pictures posted online? 10? 15?

I've known 5 year olds who understood the world well enough to make such decisions about their own lives (and surprisingly enough make wise decisions about such things, and able to explain why they feel their choice is valid) but in my experience, that's always been due to good parenting giving the child early access to important "brain functionality" (logic, reason, slowing down and taking time to think before taking action and not just "freaking out" and jumping into a situation wildly, etc.) and those simply aren't skills a lotta parents teach these days (for wildly varying reasons I'm sure). Children like that are a ridiculously rare breed anymore. It'd be nice if the decision about such things depended upon the child being capable of such decisions, but how would one even determine let alone verify that a child's decision making skills were appropriate for that type of choice? Only truly caring parents, other adults who spend a lot of time around the family, and the child themselves could be really truly "in the know" about it…

Re: Influencer parents and the kids who had their childhood made into content

#172

Post by brightlancer » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 7:58 PM UTC

bnralt wrote: post #62

PeterisP wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because an adult can do almost all jobs where child labor would be used, usually it's just that adults are more expensive; but in acting we don't really want to say that movies are prohibited to show kids or that all kid roles must be played by adult actors. Like, do we want to make a rule that a family drama must be filmed without showing that family's kids? If not, then we have to permit child acting at least…

You might well be right, but it's odd when you really think about it. We're allowing behavior we deem immoral or harmful to happen in cases where we think it makes our entertainment a bit better.

Child labor laws are presented as intending to protect the child, but the reality is it's created to protect adult workers from cheap competition.

That's what PP described (even if they didn't realize it):

"It's because an adult can do almost all jobs where child labor would be used, usually it's just that adults are more expensive;"

It's not about morality or protecting children from harm; that's just the lie that's used to sell it.

Re: Influencer parents and the kids who had their childhood made into content

#173

Post by sneak » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 7:59 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #149

dlisboa wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going into parenthood with that mentality is a surefire way of making sure the children won't care at all about that "obligation". People take care of their families because of a bond that has nothing to do with blood. That bond is uniquely about mutual feelings and as a parent we have only a few years to make that bond last a lifetime. If it's formed on top of obligations and resentment it'll break the first chance…

Only in societies, like certain parts of America, beset with pathological levels of individualism. In healthy societies, that obligation generally doesn’t lead to resentment because (1) it’s a mutual and reciprocal obligation; and (2) people understand that they have roles and obligations that arise by virtue of their very existence as a human being. To be clear, in this particular example the parents are breaching t…

No. The reciprocal obligation that people have, having been taken care of as children, is that they take care of their own children in turn.

Parents are adults who can and should care for themselves. You aren't born into debt.

To expect both your parents, as well as your children, to be responsible to you at both ends of your life is selfish and entitled.

Re: Influencer parents and the kids who had their childhood made into content

#174

Post by sneak » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 8:00 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #147

PuppyTailWags wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More importantly, assuming that children are born owing their parents anything leads to deeply unhealthy societal outcomes: - This enables abusive parenting styles and forces adult children to need to unlearn this lie in order to come to terms with their abuse; - This enables parents having an outsized influence on adult children, such as controlling their sexuality, interests, physical location, etc; Frankly: the pa…

Nobody chooses to be born. Does that mean that there are no moral obligations that arise by virtue of one’s existence as a human? Can obligations only arise from voluntary choice? “Choice” is not the be-all end-all of morality (or, really, even particularly important). The obligation for parents to care for their children and vice versa arises from the nature of people and the nature of the relationship. Parents have…

> Parents have an obligation to care for children even when they didn’t choose to have children.

People who didn't choose to have children are not called parents.

> Conversely, children have an obligation to care for parents even though they didn’t choose to be born.

You've offered nothing to support this supposed (but not really) symmetry. This seems like back-rationalization of some cultural norm or tradition (especially when coupled with your anti-individualism swipes in the other comment).

Perhaps your beliefs are not as preordained as you may believe.

Re: Influencer parents and the kids who had their childhood made into content

#175

Post by ouid » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 8:08 PM UTC

Kye wrote: post #168

ouid wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Munchausen's by proxy is real, and the consequences of it are at least as damaging as denying children access to medical transition services. I believe that you have taken the position that this child is really experiencing gender dysphoria, but it's at least an equally plausible scenario that the parents are responsible for that too. This is a serious hole in the argument for providing gender affirming care to child…

There's no denial of the problem, only of the attempt to elevate it into something more common than it is in an obvious ploy to make gender affirming care harder to access with a time-honored "won't someone think of the children!" moral panic that's already having negative effects on adult trans people's access to care.

There is extremely active denial of the problem. The parent comment didn't even consider this as a possibility.

Moreover, your comment is also an example. You can't simultaneously describe yourself as not denying the problem while completely dismissing that problem as "moral panic designed to deprive adults of access to care".

I am completely on board with giving adults access to care. I am significantly more hesitant to give parents access to medical interventions for their children. Please do not warp my words.

PS: You might describe Munchausen's by proxy as a rare condition, but its prevalence is on the order of 1% of the population, which happens to be at parity with the rate of gender dysphoria in the population. It is not a rounding error.

Re: Influencer parents and the kids who had their childhood made into content

#176

Post by dlisboa » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 8:12 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #149

dlisboa wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going into parenthood with that mentality is a surefire way of making sure the children won't care at all about that "obligation". People take care of their families because of a bond that has nothing to do with blood. That bond is uniquely about mutual feelings and as a parent we have only a few years to make that bond last a lifetime. If it's formed on top of obligations and resentment it'll break the first chance…

Only in societies, like certain parts of America, beset with pathological levels of individualism. In healthy societies, that obligation generally doesn’t lead to resentment because (1) it’s a mutual and reciprocal obligation; and (2) people understand that they have roles and obligations that arise by virtue of their very existence as a human being. To be clear, in this particular example the parents are breaching t…

I'd advise against judging health of personal interaction in a society based on interactions between parents and children. Calling one healthy over the other has many issues.

Just one example: in India people help one's families to a huge extent. But kids are also brought up under heavy use of corporal punishment and there's a high degree of family involvement in children's affairs, such as dictating career choices and marriage. Is that a healthier society?

If societal pressure is the only reason why people take care of their families, what's the point? So I don't find it individualistic if someone does not feel obliged to help, it's much more complex than that. There should be more between a parent and child than obligation and well-defined roles. I help my family because I love them, because they raised me to love them, not solely because they're my ancestors.

Re: Influencer parents and the kids who had their childhood made into content

#177

Post by 50 » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 8:12 PM UTC

PuppyTailWags wrote: post #102

rayiner wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Children are not born owing their parents anything. Yes they are. That is the function of children with respect to parents in the circle of life, just as it is the function of parents to care for children. Not all obligations are ones you voluntarily undertake. Of course there are boundaries to the scope of that obligation. But those are defined by society, not "consent." The problem in Claire's story is that the p…

More importantly, assuming that children are born owing their parents anything leads to deeply unhealthy societal outcomes: - This enables abusive parenting styles and forces adult children to need to unlearn this lie in order to come to terms with their abuse; - This enables parents having an outsized influence on adult children, such as controlling their sexuality, interests, physical location, etc; Frankly: the pa…

"Parents who expect gratitude from their children (there are even some who insist on it) are like usurers," says Kafka in his 1914-1923 diaries.

Re: Influencer parents and the kids who had their childhood made into content

#178

Post by valarauko » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 8:14 PM UTC

blooalien wrote: post #171

valarauko wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That should almost be illegal in my opinion since the child can't consent. Genuine Q: at what point can the child consent? A lot of people here are talking about a media blackout of their children since the child can't consent, but when does that end? Can a 5-year-old consent to have their pictures posted online? 10? 15?

I've known 5 year olds who understood the world well enough to make such decisions about their own lives (and surprisingly enough make wise decisions about such things, and able to explain why they feel their choice is valid) but in my experience, that's always been due to good parenting giving the child early access to important "brain functionality" (logic, reason, slowing down and taking time to think before takin…

My discomfort arises from centering this on the idea of a child's consent. While I admit your point makes sense, it also feels like a slippery slope - "No Chris Hansen, she was one of those rare breeds of 15-year-olds who is capable of giving consent..."

As a society we have settled on the idea that regardless of the emotional development of a minor, they are materially incapable of granting consent since we believe they do not yet the maturity to comprehend it. I know this is a terrible analogy, but alas, this is where I feel the slippery slope leads by centering this debate on the idea of consent. Yes, there is a material difference in the kinds of consent we're dealing with, but I'm not sure if they're all that different.

Re: Influencer parents and the kids who had their childhood made into content

#179

Post by Kye » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 8:18 PM UTC

ouid wrote: post #175

Kye wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no denial of the problem, only of the attempt to elevate it into something more common than it is in an obvious ploy to make gender affirming care harder to access with a time-honored "won't someone think of the children!" moral panic that's already having negative effects on adult trans people's access to care.

There is extremely active denial of the problem. The parent comment didn't even consider this as a possibility. Moreover, your comment is also an example. You can't simultaneously describe yourself as not denying the problem while completely dismissing that problem as "moral panic designed to deprive adults of access to care". I am completely on board with giving adults access to care. I am significantly more hesitan…

>> "Please do not warp my words."

You too?

I've been down this road. I'm not going to say anything that can convince you.

edit: You might want to consider not using the same rhetoric as folks who call people groomers for not wanting kids to kill themselves because they can't get treatment for their dysphoria. Reconsider your sources of information if you sincerely feel hurt by being seen in the same light. You are parroting propaganda.

Re: Influencer parents and the kids who had their childhood made into content

#180

Post by ouid » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 8:22 PM UTC

Kye wrote: post #179

ouid wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is extremely active denial of the problem. The parent comment didn't even consider this as a possibility. Moreover, your comment is also an example. You can't simultaneously describe yourself as not denying the problem while completely dismissing that problem as "moral panic designed to deprive adults of access to care". I am completely on board with giving adults access to care. I am significantly more hesitan…

>> "Please do not warp my words." You too? I've been down this road. I'm not going to say anything that can convince you. edit: You might want to consider not using the same rhetoric as folks who call people groomers for not wanting kids to kill themselves because they can't get treatment for their dysphoria. Reconsider your sources of information if you sincerely feel hurt by being seen in the same light. You are pa…

You might want to consider that having trouble convincing other people is explained at least as well by having a bad argument as the other people being bigots.