this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
356 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

59579 readers
6183 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Regulation could disrupt the booming “kidfluencer” business::undefined

all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bemenaker 184 points 1 year ago

Good this is shit we don't need

[–] ConditionOverload 133 points 1 year ago

One of the most toxic "businesses" in existence. Completely based on exploitation, even more so than normal commercials and TV shows ever have done.

[–] [email protected] 95 points 1 year ago

Stopping child labour could stop child labour.

You don't say?

[–] Dankry 67 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Some child influencers are born to “momfluencers”, inheriting large followings before they have learned to walk. The LaBrants, a family based in Tennessee, have accumulated millions of followers documenting their lives online. They run Instagram accounts for each of their children; their youngest, aged one and four, already have 1.4m followers on a joint profile

You know, we’re just now reaching the point where there are adults who’ve had their entire lives documented on social media without their consent by well meaning parents and I think that in and of itself has always been a selfish and irresponsible thing to do. But this is a whole different level of crazy. I can’t begin to imagine the amount of greed motivating these people to rob their own children of their privacy and force them into some “kidfluencer” role before they can even talk. Those “momfluencers” may be getting wealthy from all this but they’re morally bankrupt.

[–] db2 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

well meaning

You sure about that one? Because I'm pretty sure it comes from selfishness, not altruism.

[–] Dankry 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You sure about that one.

Yes. I believe the vast majority of parents since the beginning of the social media age simply never even considered the potential privacy issues at play when they filled their accounts with pictures of their kids. They were just proud parents sharing their lives with friends and family.

Just because I think it’s selfish and irresponsible does not mean I think the average parent was acting with malicious intent. Social media was brand new for everyone, I’m not going to judge someone too harshly for failing to understand that their social media activity over the years could undermine their children’s right to privacy.

[–] theragu40 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Honestly, people are just trying to share pictures and life updates with friends and family. At least, the kind of people the person you replied to is referring to are. It wasn't something I thought much about until my wife (who is a teacher and more attuned to kids and privacy issues) mentioned she didn't want our kids to have a ton of people posting pictures of them everywhere. Once I sat and thought about it I was in complete agreement but it quite honestly hadn't crossed my mind before that.

[–] Buddahriffic 1 points 1 year ago

And, knowing how shit people in general are, I bet there's death threats involved if they decide they don't want those followers anymore and just want to be left alone.

[–] Tygr 1 points 1 year ago

That’s just sad. I was a very introverted kid and this would have done severe damage to me.

[–] xX_fnord_Xx 46 points 1 year ago

Imagine being a five year old and being forced to film an unboxing vid whenever you got a toy in the mail.

Imagine becoming popular online at 6 and the toys start coming in the mail so fast you can't even play with them, there is always more unboxing to do.

Imagine being 14, and everytime you tripped, sneezed, misspoke, cried was documented and shared across a dozen networks.

[–] Ddhuud 44 points 1 year ago

Aka child labor exploitation.

[–] LillianVS 42 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So they should, child labour laws should apply to these kids just as any other business. The money earned from these videos need to be paid to the child. Even if it's in a trust fund where the kid can take it out when they're old enough and can make better decisions. Like child tv stars they need to only have to work a set amount of hours, no longer.

When I say this I'm talking about toy channels, I'm not talking about the mumfluencer channels. This kind of constant forceful filming of their childrens every moment should be stopped, kids need to have privacy, it's known to be detrimental to their mental health when they're constantly documented, and they are also far more likely to get bullied because of it.

I can't begin to imagine all my bad childhood memories being immortalised thanks to a pushy parent who saw me as a money machines more than a person.

[–] Hazdaz 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We can thank that piece of shit Reagan for originally loosening the rules that involved marketing to kids back in the 80s.

It's been downhill ever since. Nowadays kids doing the influencing by marketing to other kids is the ultimate move for greedy corporations. We need to rein in the amount of marketing we do to kids.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But think about the corporate profits. Isn't that worth all the pain and suffering? /s

[–] inspxtr 35 points 1 year ago

did not know “kidinfluencer” is a thing. the exploitative, child labor nature of such concept, the detrimental mental health effects of such practice, on kids no less. definitely something we can live without.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Translation: We won't be able to make money off these children if you treat them like human beings.

[–] devious 6 points 1 year ago

Oh no, won't somebody please think of the parents right to exploit their children!

It is honestly depressing that there is a need to regulate something so seemingly obvious - but here we are.

[–] ExaptationStation -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Are there any devil’s advocate arguments in favor or non-harmful benefits of a parental- supervised, version of this, though? Not expecting much.

I’m just as honestly ignorant about this crap as most of the other folks here, but genuinely curious, so I don’t just go with my knee jerk reaction (ban this shit, it’s harmful for society) without considering facts of which I’m unaware.

¯_(ツ)_/¯

[–] foggy 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

\

You dropped this

[–] thebestaquaman 1 points 1 year ago

I don't get why people are downvoting you? You're literally asking for "devils advocate arguments" and saying your immediate reaction is to oppose this.

Come on people, be better than just downvoting a legitimate question from someone who admits to being uninformed.

[–] jantin -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah yes, the trickle down economy.

When pathological exploitation of children's every day for attention money trickles down from Hollywood to common people.

[–] metallic_substance 7 points 1 year ago

I'm as critical as anyone of trickle down econ, but I'm not sure if you could have missed the point by a wider margin