Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

teenvogue.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 243 posts

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

#51

Post by barry-cotter »

colechristensen wrote: post #27
snapplebobapple wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I find parents doing this extremely concerning I am personally really hesitant to change anything because I can't think of any way to change it that doesn't seriously hinder normal and not creepy parental uses of images/videos of their children. We are already running into overreach problems trying to curtail the stuff we clearly need to curtail (i.e. that guy having to deal with the police for sending his kid'…

For starters, zero monetization of any social media content involving children. Second step, zero public posts involving children, maybe with some narrow carveouts.

Is the aim to pathologise children as such or to pathologise any interest in and interaction with them?

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

#52

Post by PuppyTailWags »

davidguetta wrote: post #25
PuppyTailWags wrote: post #7

This article unfortunately doesn't cover a much darker part of the TikTok children: exploitation of the children for the titillation of online creepers. The Some Place Under Neith podcast goes into this extensively [their "Parasocial Pits Of Hell" series]. It's completely legal to vlog your children in swimming outfits or a similar level of skin exposure, have the children sing or perform for their "fans", and encour…

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…

TBH I agree with you that we shouldn't forbid children from wearing standard amounts of clothing (i.e. not much) to go swimming due to creeps existing generally in the world.

I'm talking about intentionally filming one's own children for the viewership of creeps online for perpetual consumption in order to make a profit. This would be akin to making one's living by nonconsensually filming nude beach visitors in northern europe for 8 hrs+/day and uploading that online vs someone just visiting a nude beach.

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

#53

Post by barry-cotter »

omnicognate wrote: post #9
afavour wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's really difficult because one person's heartwarming family content is another person's child exploitation. IMO there should be a rule that no children appear in public social media content (private would be fine) but I'm sure a great many people would be offended by that. It's tough when shitty parents have the legal right to be shitty.

"Heartwarming family content" is a wonderfully shuddersome phrase.

[flagged]

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

#54

Post by fullshark »

theshrike79 wrote: post #3
Overtonwindow wrote: post #2

I feel terrible for kids like this whose entire lives are put on the Internet and there's nothing they can do about it. Like that poor autistic kid, whose mother used him to make videos and make money, and then "re-homed" him like he was an animal.

And the people who adopted a disabled kid from China I think, made their content and found them a new home when stuff got too hard.

I'm not sure but I think you are referencing the same story? I looked and only really found media about this:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/202...

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

#55

Post by eloisant »

davidguetta wrote: post #25
PuppyTailWags wrote: post #7

This article unfortunately doesn't cover a much darker part of the TikTok children: exploitation of the children for the titillation of online creepers. The Some Place Under Neith podcast goes into this extensively [their "Parasocial Pits Of Hell" series]. It's completely legal to vlog your children in swimming outfits or a similar level of skin exposure, have the children sing or perform for their "fans", and encour…

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…

Going to the pool and posting online are 2 different things.

I would be happy with a law forbidding to post public pictures of your underage kids, regardless of skin exposure.

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

#56

Post by watwut »

joenot443 wrote: post #43

> When the family’s channel started to rake in the views, Claire says both her parents left their jobs because the revenue from the YouTube channel was enough to support the family and to land them a nicer house and new car. “That’s not fair that I have to support everyone,” she said. “I try not to be resentful but I kind of [am].” Maybe I was raised differently, but it sounds like her family got the deal of a lifeti…

The people supporting their parents financially should not be 7 years old tho. It is a lot of pressure for a kid.

> I know it's easy to paint Claire as having been exploited here, but can one not look at the bigger picture and see that this is clearly a positive thing for their family?

Something being good for parents and siblings does not necessary imply it is good for the kid. The distinction matters. Sometimes it is a balancing acts and other times it is simply an exploitation.

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

#57

Post by eloisant »

watwut wrote: post #41
lp0_on_fire wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a relatively easy line to draw. If you're posting content to the public (i.e. random strangers), you're on one side of the line. If you're posting content in a controlled manner to people consisting of friends and family you actually know, you're on the other side of the line.

This would made half summer family albums on Facebook illegal. People share fotos of swimming kids on public spaces all the time. And no, those fotos are not sexy nor meant to be.

Do people really post their family albums publicly?

Posting privately for your extended family yes, but that should never be posted publicly.

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

#58

Post by germinalphrase »

davidguetta wrote: post #25
PuppyTailWags wrote: post #7

This article unfortunately doesn't cover a much darker part of the TikTok children: exploitation of the children for the titillation of online creepers. The Some Place Under Neith podcast goes into this extensively [their "Parasocial Pits Of Hell" series]. It's completely legal to vlog your children in swimming outfits or a similar level of skin exposure, have the children sing or perform for their "fans", and encour…

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…

You’re underselling the social and financial dynamic of specifically recording children in minimal clothing and asking them to perform for anonymous strangers on the internet.

It’s entirely different than standard social standards about clothing and nudity in public.

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

#59

Post by PurpleRamen »

davidguetta wrote: post #25
PuppyTailWags wrote: post #7

This article unfortunately doesn't cover a much darker part of the TikTok children: exploitation of the children for the titillation of online creepers. The Some Place Under Neith podcast goes into this extensively [their "Parasocial Pits Of Hell" series]. It's completely legal to vlog your children in swimming outfits or a similar level of skin exposure, have the children sing or perform for their "fans", and encour…

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…

> Should we forbid children to go to the pool because sexual creeps might go there ?

It's significant easier to hone your creepiness when you have an endless supply of training-material. It might even help you to discover this side of you in the first place.

> On the other hand in many places of Northern europe nudity is more common even in public.

Not with children. Even in Europe parents are generally quite protective with them. And here the topic of family-influencer and sexualization of their children is also a hot topic.

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

#60

Post by ryandrake »

snapplebobapple wrote: post #22
PuppyTailWags wrote: post #7

This article unfortunately doesn't cover a much darker part of the TikTok children: exploitation of the children for the titillation of online creepers. The Some Place Under Neith podcast goes into this extensively [their "Parasocial Pits Of Hell" series]. It's completely legal to vlog your children in swimming outfits or a similar level of skin exposure, have the children sing or perform for their "fans", and encour…

While I find parents doing this extremely concerning I am personally really hesitant to change anything because I can't think of any way to change it that doesn't seriously hinder normal and not creepy parental uses of images/videos of their children. We are already running into overreach problems trying to curtail the stuff we clearly need to curtail (i.e. that guy having to deal with the police for sending his kid'…

I like the (for some reason downvoted) reasonable suggestion by someone else to simply not monetize videos containing children. Doesn't YouTube already have some kind of classifier that finds children in videos, which lets them turn off commenting on those videos? Just extend that to also de-monetize them.

Sure, it doesn't solve the problem of child videos using other monetization channels like product placement, sponsorships and so on but don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

Post reply on HN