81–90 of 243 posts
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 some good friends who've gone the other way: they've asked that there be as close to no photos or videos of their child on any social media as possible. They don't post about him online, and they keep pictures of him in photo albums. When he was born, they asked all of us to please refrain from taking photos of him without their permission. I completely support this and I intend to do something similar for my…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem I see here is where would the "line" be? That is, when does that video you post on Instagram of your family at Disney or someone blowing out candles at a birthday stop being just a family video and starts being content? I guess the easy way to make that distinction would be if your content is "monetized" but even then it seems like there are many loopholes and gotchas.
> The problem I see here is where would the "line" be? That is, when does that video you post on Instagram of your family at Disney or someone blowing out candles at a birthday stop being just a family video and starts being content? A simpler definition could be how a content is meant to be spread; whether it is "broadcast" vs. "multicast/unicast". Like, I cannot think of any legitimate reasons a kid's "performance"…
> Sharenting is the practice of parents publicizing sensitive content about their children on internet platforms. While the term was coined as recently as 2010, sharenting has become an international phenomenon with widespread presence in the United States, Spain, France, and the United Kingdom. As such, sharenting has also ignited disagreement as a controversial application of social media. Detractors find that it violates child privacy and hurts a parent-child relationship. Proponents frame the practice as a natural expression of parental pride in their children and argue that critics take sharenting posts out of context.
There is a section "Applicable legislation":
> There appears to be little guiding legislation regarding parents' online control over their children's media. While different countries have their respective laws to protect children's privacy, most hand over the responsibility to the children's guardians, which sharenting may exploit as the parent is able to take advantage of their child's power to consent. This presumption in favor of the parent fails to protect the child's privacy from their parents.
> Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations broadly advocates for a child's individual identity. Article 14 outlines the applicable legal guardians' duty to represent the child's best interest.
Which then goes into the specifics for Europe and the United States.
Apparently, this is known as Sharenting and has its own Wikipedia page... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharenting > Sharenting is the practice of parents publicizing sensitive content about their children on internet platforms. While the term was coined as recently as 2010, sharenting has become an international phenomenon with widespread presence in the United States, Spain, France, and the United Kingdom. As such,…
You know this framing is BS because they'd all scream bloody murder if monetizing that content were outlawed. It's not about pride in their children, it's about monetizing their children. Of course it's no surprise that somebody psychopathic enough to do this to their kids would also be comfortable lying about their motivation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem I see here is where would the "line" be? That is, when does that video you post on Instagram of your family at Disney or someone blowing out candles at a birthday stop being just a family video and starts being content? A simpler definition could be how a content is meant to be spread; whether it is "broadcast" vs. "multicast/unicast". Like, I cannot think of any legitimate reasons a kid's "performance"…
Because there's an audience for it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no "pressing need" for any art at all, or many other wonderful things that make our lives better. It's a very shitty criteria to determine whether something should be banned or not.
I find it hard to believe anybody could describe that cover as a "wonderful thing" that "made their life better." If it's really art for the sake of art, art justifying itself, then let it be done for free. I want the monetization of such things banned, because I don't think this is art for the sake of art. I think child modelling is done for the sake of commercial exploitation.
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…
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.
The examples in the article aren't even the worse ones I've seen. There's a class of videos where the parents have a special interest, or specific lifestyle they want to live and not only they force their kids to live that life and do those things, but also record them for views. There's one with a family that lives in an RV (willingly) with very little space and they make the children record videos for views. I also…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it hard to believe anybody could describe that cover as a "wonderful thing" that "made their life better." If it's really art for the sake of art, art justifying itself, then let it be done for free. I want the monetization of such things banned, because I don't think this is art for the sake of art. I think child modelling is done for the sake of commercial exploitation.
I sympathize with your position, but if it leads to us saying "I don't think this art does enough good for society, so it should not exist" then I'm out, and if it leads to us saying "you can say what you want, but you can't make a living off it unless it gets approval by a moral authority" then I'm also out.