Said Sarah Adams, a "child-safety advocate," quoted in "There are almost no legal protections for the internet’s child stars/Illinois is considering a law, but a similar effort in Washington state failed, and Congress hasn’t tackled the issue" by Taylor Lorenz (WaPo).
There are so many issues mixed together here. The privacy question is very different from entitlement to the money if the material is successfully monetized. So many parents (and other relatives) put up photographs of children and would, I'm guessing, feel outraged to be told they are doing something wrong. Is government going to chill this free expression? Is it different if the parent's expression makes money? Does that turn the children into child laborers?
I'm not saying it is ethical to use children this way, just that it's invasive and repressive for government to try to do something about it.
The monetization only works because huge numbers of people watch videos that feature children. Would they watch if this material is in fact something that ought to be regarded as child abuse? The viewers are — to some extent — monitoring what is going on. Maybe we won't watch if we think the child isn't treated with great care and love (and at some point, we'll contact the authorities).
Posts
25 comments:
I would never put my children up on the internet for other people's enjoyment. What a horrible thing to do to your children to satisfy your own emotional or financial desires.
Taylor Lorenz. That settles it.
The route to political power is
1. Discover a new "public problem." Usually something that had been just a personal moral failure.
2. Take ownership of it. (Example, mothers against drunk driving. And, coincidentally, child abuse.)
The political power motive is now added to with desire for ratings, in a new player.
The mechanism covered by sociologist Joseph Gusfield "Contested Meanings."
See Terri Shields, mother of Brooke Shields. I knew her father (Frank), and always thought that he was well rid of Terri. Just a coincidence that Brooke graduated 10 year behind me at Princeton, but it was nice to get a picture of her at her first P-Rade.
"Isn't it better if real human beings are not used in making porn?"
I agree. But let's wait to hear from Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels.
So many people want a say - through government intervention - in matters that are none of their business.
“Imagine being one of these kids and having every single day of your life exploited on a family vlog, and getting to be 18 and seeing nothing in your bank account. Or every moment of your life being monetized and commercialized, the invasion of privacy goes so deep."
Privacy schmivracy. Imagine the IRS coming after you for tax evasion.
This made me look up Ryan Kaji going back some years. We discovered his videos, toy opening and amusement parks, when we were fostering very young children.
Leaning off topic, but I'm skeptical (or cynical) and avoid most animal "rescue" videos under the assumption that it's all a setup. What sent me down that road was a young, pretty, and suspiciously rough looking Russian (or similar) woman coaxing a malnourished and obviously abused and frightened dog out of a gutter. I couldn't help but think her pimp set the whole thing up for YouTube clicks.
As a rule, The DoDo is about the only one I trust.
Assuming that the innocent are being exploited is sadly a rational default position (and nothing new).
Yeah! More privacy for working children! What exploiter of child labor could possibly object to more privacy?
I've always suspected Talor Lorenz of being one of Chairman Xi's numerous press puppets.
This confirms it.
Taylor Lorenz is a fictional character.
Taylor Lorenz. That Taylor Lorenz?
Sorry, I don't give a fuck about what a censor Nazi for the regime has to say about anything unless it's how to censor people.
So many parents (and other relatives) put up photographs of children and would, I'm guessing, feel outraged to be told they are doing something wrong.
Well they are doing something wrong if the photos are going on a public forum. Posting photos on Facebook where only "friends" can see them is fine, but posting them where anyone can see them endangers the child. That's why kids' faces are customarily blurred out in news stories. The compensation issue is secondary.
Isn't Taylor Lawrence the world's oldest (44 or so) emotional teenager? She needs to be protected from exploitation by adults. In her case, she is also the expoitative adult.
Like Ahab, she will pursue her prey (Chaya Raichik of Libs if TikTok) to the ends of the earth.
Unfortunately, when it comes to fame, too many parents see their children as an income stream first, and the child's wellbeing as a distant second. See pretty much any kid in showbusiness, or kids who have significant talent at a sport.
The problem is that once that income stream is established, the pressure is there to keep it going, no matter what the child wants. The cute actor that everyone loved has to stay a cute kid, even through growing up, puberty, friendships and heartbreak, etc. The pop singer has to keep performing. The athlete has to keep going, no matter the physical or emotional toll (or abuse).
What children think they want, believe they need, and fathers go along to get along... for social progress, and mothers are preoccupied with remaining affordable, available, and taxable in the modern family.
I'm not going to try to get around the WaPo paywall for Taylor Lorenz, so I'm going off your description. There are two issues - privacy and money.
The money issue is easier - above some de minimus amount, some should be set aside for the child, using similar rules as already exist for Hollywood, child modeling, etc. De minimis - $500? $100/yr? Cost of an internet connection over the time the parents are posting content of their kids?
The privacy issue is harder. Maybe allow adults (maybe over 21?) to request removal of images of themselves as children? Putting a little time delay means that grandma has already seen the picture and uncle Bob already downloaded that really funny one, so there's really not much harm any more.
See “Pretty Baby, the new documentary about Brooke Shields, made with her participation.
Parents: keep your children offline. Be parents. Do your job.
Huge numbers of people are watching family vlogs that feature child stars? I doubt it. Grandparents, maybe.
Author Taylor Lorenz - No Thank You.
I came across this in a discussion of "The Truman Show" movie:
"Putting aside any questions about the legality of a movie like "The Truman Show," the act of creating that kind of programming would be incredibly ethically and morally reprehensible. For his entire life, Truman Burbank has been filmed and watched and not allowed even a second of privacy. All of his most embarrassing moments would have been public fodder for the entire world to see whenever they wanted. On top of this, he has no idea what's going on, so he can't even try to mitigate his behavior to become more socially acceptable.
To do that to another human being would be incredibly callous and show a complete disregard and lack of respect for human life. Truman has a right to live his life in peace and independence just as any other person, so not even allowing him to decide if he wants to be on the show is a horrible transgression against Truman's rights. While he might not realize it, Truman's dignity and integrity are shredded to bits by having his most intimate and personal moments broadcast to the world
Read More: https://www.looper.com/1109226/the-ending-of-the-truman-show-explained/
"Huge numbers of people are watching family vlogs that feature child stars? I doubt it. Grandparents, maybe. "
The term "family vlogs" is yours. I said "huge numbers of people watch videos that feature children." That is absolutely true. You don't seem to know about TikTok. I am very familiar with it. YouTube also. There are parents who make clips of their child being cute and interesting. It's very popular.
Ever heard of "Charlie bit my finger" or "David after dentist"?
Post a Comment