• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Stalker

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
6,769
Watching a family on YouTube who upload their entire lives for profit and I think it's kind of crazy. I don't know if they should have the right as parents to broadcast their entire child's lives. What happens when those kids reach 18 and decide fuck no they didn't want that?

Thread title.

Should it be illegal to publically upload videos of your family until the children involved has grown to 18 and can consent to usage of their footage?
 

Kor of Memory

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
1,669
Completely forbidden? Ehh.. maybe. At the very least it deserves a discussion.

Like Child Actor laws, there needs to be some things in place that at least attempt to protect the child and their rights from the exploitation of their parents. Good luck getting anything before some big tragedy, though.
 

Poppy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,286
richmond, va
i think for normal life things that aren't regulated ultimately it's going to be left up to the conscience of the parents

dealing with the decisions your parents made is the burden of all children
 
OP
OP
Stalker

Stalker

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
6,769
No. You don't need to make everything you don't like a law
Genuinly seems less of a "I don't like this" and more of a safety and well being of children being impossible to gaurentee, ability for abuse and general privacy issue.

If someone decided they wanted to come record you all day every day would that be fine without your consent?
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,263
What happens if the parents get rich uploading videos of the kids and instead of investing them in idk, a college fund they just waste the money on beer.

I wonder how the kid would feel.
 

XDevil666

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,985
Watching a family on YouTube who upload their entire lives for profit and I think it's kind of crazy. I don't know if they should have the right as parents to broadcast their entire child's lives. What happens when those kids reach 18 and decide fuck no they didn't want that?

Thread title.

Should it be illegal to publically upload videos of your family until the children involved has grown to 18 and can consent to usage of their footage?
That will happen once one of those kids grows up starts filing law suits against there parents ;)
 
OP
OP
Stalker

Stalker

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
6,769

MainMain

Alt-Account
Banned
Jun 16, 2019
232
Shujin Academy
Should be regulated like how TV is in regards to children. Though siding with the parents, a lot of the time the money goes towards the child's college fund, so there's at least some good that comes from child toy unboxing videos featuring children in them.
 

SENPAIatLARGE

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,501
You're never going to stop kids from being on social media, and parents from uploading pictures and videos of their kids. This is some dumb ERA pearl clutching.
 

C.Mongler

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
3,887
Washington, DC
Uh, no. This seems extreme and really unpractical. Like just as a random example that came to mind, are we saying a kid like Greta Thunberg shouldn't be able to be in the public eye and doing what she's doing? I don't see any harm in it (in fact I think she's great), but your hard stance indicates she would/should be censored until a certain age.
 

Illusion

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,407
What happens if the parents get rich uploading videos of the kids and instead of investing them in idk, a college fund they just waste the money on beer.

I wonder how the kid would feel.
There is a Simpsons Episode for that.
medium.jpg
 

Fushichou187

Member
Nov 1, 2017
3,332
Sonoma County, California.
I worked for a long time at an organization that ran, amongst other things, after school programs in elementary schools in middle schools in the community where I lived. Not being able to photograph or video— essentially to document and share— The programs being run would've been a nonstarter. The common solution is to provide a media release form explaining what we could be documenting and examples of what it could be used for, and then to have the child's parent or legal guardian consent's on their behalf.

As far as parents profiting off their children by live-streaming their life, I think banning that type of content wholesale is also not going to go anywhere. You probably would find more traction if platforms categorized those types of videos as a specific genre, and required some form of additional consent from all individuals older than 5 or 6 being featured in more than one video, and retaining the right to opt out (but not retroactively) from future content should they no longer be comfortable.
 
OP
OP
Stalker

Stalker

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
6,769
Gonna be fair, you bring up a good point. It's more or less the responsibility of the parent, ultimately, to regulate a child's exposure. Educate the parents.

But by that same sentiment most of us parents arn't uploading our childrens entire lives daily and we arn't doing so for a reason.
 

Strangelove_77

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
13,392
What about images and videos of kids being nice to animals? Can we keep that?
 

MainMain

Alt-Account
Banned
Jun 16, 2019
232
Shujin Academy
But by that same sentiment most of us parents arn't uploading our childrens entire lives daily and we arn't doing so for a reason.
Are you alright with private archives of family home videos? Would me, as a parent, sending a picture of my son or daughter to my mother through text messaging break this theoretical bill you are proposing? I'm interested to see how you would flesh this out in these near-edge cases.
 
OP
OP
Stalker

Stalker

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
6,769
Are you alright with private archives of family home videos? Would me, as a parent, sending a picture of my son or daughter to my mother through text messaging break this theoretical bill you are proposing? I'm interested to see how you would flesh this out in these near-edge cases.
Absolutely. I'm fine with those examples because they are neither for profit or exposing your child to millions of unknown viewers

Again my key gripe here is "PUBLIC Sharing" or/and "for profit"
 

Vyrak

Banned
Jan 12, 2018
663
Absolutely. I'm fine with those examples because they are neither for profit or exposing your child to millions of unknown viewers

Again my key gripe here is "PUBLIC Sharing" or/and "for profit"

Both of which are very present in the very exploitative entertainment industry.
 

Border

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,859
Yes, let's make sharing family videos illegal because I don't like what some morons on YouTube are doing.
 

TheCthultist

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,456
New York
Y'all gotta stop with these "should it be illegal to..." threads.
We don't need more laws in place that are going to hurt people just because you dont like the implication of something they're doing.

Rather than a "we need a law stopping this" approach, just say you don't agree with what's happening and what you think could be done to change it in a reasonable way... because "let's get the government and law enforcement involved in tearing apart a family physically or financially for uploading videos of themselves to youtube" isn't a reasonable approach.
 

MainMain

Alt-Account
Banned
Jun 16, 2019
232
Shujin Academy
Absolutely. I'm fine with those examples because they are neither for profit or exposing your child to millions of unknown viewers

Again my key gripe here is "PUBLIC Sharing" or/and "for profit"
Going deeper into this, what would you classify as "public"? What I mean by this, is that Facebook has tons of privacy settings, to where I can hide all of my posts to only those who are friends with me. If I post a picture to my facebook of my son/daughter that is set to "Friends Only", would that be considered public? Or is public the "millions of unknown viewers" you mention here, where the post is set to "Anyone" in regards to viewing settings.
 

Kthulhu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,670
In the US COPPA applies to kids under 13. That'd make more sense to me, but only if it applied to user generated content and not professional content.

I myself have mixed feelings on this. Just because you have a kid doesn't mean when they're an adult they're gonna be cool with their pictures being out there. Once it's online it can be hard to get offline.
 

Deleted member 32561

User requested account closure
Banned
Nov 11, 2017
3,831
No.
People sometimes use freedoms in ways we disapprove of.

This doesn't mean we should strip them away unless there is clear and present danger.

Uploading video of your kid doing silly kid things is far from being a clear and present danger. Any danger in allowing it is already covered by stalking laws or child abuse laws, or by laws restricting the production of specific materials that inherently require abuse to create. A wholesale ban of children in video is silly.

Perhaps it's tacky to you. That's fine, you're free to feel that way, and shun those who do. But there's nothing inherently harmful about the act.
 
OP
OP
Stalker

Stalker

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
6,769
Going deeper into this, what would you classify as "public"? What I mean by this, is that Facebook has tons of privacy settings, to where I can hide all of my posts to only those who are friends with me. If I post a picture to my facebook of my son/daughter that is set to "Friends Only", would that be considered public? Or is public the "millions of unknown viewers" you mention here, where the post is set to "Anyone" in regards to viewing settings.

Public is basically the millions of unknown viewers here.

My thought process is basically a Child has little to no way to object successfully to their image being used if they don't want it. Parents are the ruling body of that child typically. Now for the billions of good parents this isn't an issue, they respect the wishes of their child. But with the rise of youtube and other such platforms the ability exists for unscrupulous parents to use their children as a unpaid workforce of actors (in worst scenarios) for profit.

As a whole that's a lot to unpack, The children are the work force and they arn't being paid, they can't consent to the labour or their breach of privacy because they are too young legally to do so.

There's plenty of replies in this thread from people crying they wouldn't be able to upload their children's spelling bees and such but that's not really a valid concern in my eyes. Why does your child's spelling bee need to be public what's wrong with just sending it via text to family and friends it concerns. The children's breach of privacy in the texting scenario is the same breach of privacy they would endure if those family members attended the event or the have ever met them face to face it's nothing that's part of life. But in the 2010's and beyond theirs been a shift in what is shared with the rise of VLogs and other things it's possible that parents can both profit without scrutiny from their child and that child is now visible to millions when it might not be the wishes of that child or the adult they will become and they have no real way to object or put an end to it.
 

MainMain

Alt-Account
Banned
Jun 16, 2019
232
Shujin Academy
Public is basically the millions of unknown viewers here.

My thought process is basically a Child has little to no way to object successfully to their image being used if they don't want it. Parents are the ruling body of that child typically. Now for the billions of good parents this isn't an issue, they respect the wishes of their child. But with the rise of youtube and other such platforms the ability exists for unscrupulous parents to use their children as a unpaid workforce of actors (in worst scenarios) for profit.

As a whole that's a lot to unpack, The children are the work force and they arn't being paid, they can't consent to the labour or their breach of privacy because they are too young legally to do so.

There's plenty of replies in this thread from people crying they wouldn't be able to upload their children's spelling bees and such but that's not really a valid concern in my eyes. Why does your child's spelling bee need to be public what's wrong with just sending it via text to family and friends it concerns. The children's breach of privacy in the texting scenario is the same breach of privacy they would endure if those family members attended the event or the have ever met them face to face it's nothing that's part of life. But in the 2010's and beyond theirs been a shift in what is shared with the rise of VLogs and other things it's possible that parents can both profit without scrutiny from their child and that child is now visible to millions when it might not be the wishes of that child or the adult they will become and they have no real way to object or put an end to it.
I regards to what you said about using children as unpaid workers, I mentioned this before, but what would your response be to the parents who say the money is being saved for the child's future (e.g., college funds, possible 401K, etc.)? With these regards only really applying to the youtube channels that are currently monetized with the parents' children/children being heavily featured.
 
OP
OP
Stalker

Stalker

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
6,769
I regards to what you said about using children as unpaid workers, I mentioned this before, but what would your response be to the parents who say the money is being saved for the child's future (e.g., college funds, possible 401K, etc.)?
Seems easy to prove or disprove via a quick audit of the potential offenders finances
 

The Albatross

Member
Oct 25, 2017
39,199
No, I don't think it'd be consistent with how we defer to parents for other things that require consent. For instance, parents or guardians are always the go-to for granting consent for their children in anything from vaccines, to public school attendance, to sports participation, travel, and everything else.

But, still, I'm uncomfortable sharing photos and videos of my children online. I know my wife does on Instagram, and it's not ... to make my daughter "Instagram famous" or something, but it's because our daughter is such an important part of our lives, and my wife regularly shares cute photos of her, videos of her doing silly things, her first steps, etc., and the people who care about us like watching those videos or seeing those photos.

I upload thousands of photos/videos of my daughter to Google Photos, and share those with my parents, in-laws, close relatives and family friends. They love seeing the photos and videos. I think making this illegal might be too strict.

Clearly there's something uncomfortable about parents who monetize their children without their consent and try to turn them into social media stars. There's something we don't like about as a culture, for the same reason that -- when I was younger -- I hated the child beauty pageants and other people might hate child participation in sports, science fairs, and other perfomative acts that parents push their children into. Unfortunately, I don't think the framework of making those things illegal is the right thing to do, but I'm definitely uncomfortable with many of them.

When it comes to something like child labor or "unpaid volunteerism," I think that's a bit of a stretch. When I was a kid I was an unpaid "volunteer" (Actually it was always involuntary...) raking leaves every weekend in the fall, mowing the lawn every Saturday in the summer, shoveling snow in the winter, and doing the dishwasher or helping out around the house. I wasn't paid for this. When my kids are of age, I'm not going to pay them to do their chores. But, I also lived under my parents' roof for ~18 years, they bought my clothes, got me gifts for christmas and birthdays, paid for and cooked meals; it's part of being in a family. I'll likely raise my kids the same way.

I'm still uncomfortable uploading videos of my kids to public spaces, I don't think I ever really will, but I don't think that a law banning it is the right approach... Rather merely address each situation individually. Instances that are objectively harmful to the children should be investigated using the tools we have -- child and family services, for instance.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Stalker

Stalker

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
6,769
I
Well alright, would you want to give an example of this? Let's say with Ryan ToysReview.
I don't know anything about that channel.

I assume they buy kids toys and they review them for viewers and in return earn typical youtube income revenue?

Is that's the case then the earnings would only be subtracted from the families finances when the children are bought toys or for their education fees.

Recipes will prove the money went in the toys.
 

Deleted member 11413

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
22,961
No, but there needs to be more regulation about child labor related to making YouTube videos and the like. I'd be fine with independent platforms like YouTube making rules like this, but the government should NOT criminalize harmless things like family videos or pictures on Facebook or something...for obvious reasons.

Laws can have a litany of unintended consequences even when well-intentioned, which is why blanket banning things is almost always short-sighted and a bad idea. Also this would be incredibly unconstitutional regarding the 1st Ammendement.
 

DJ_Lae

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,909
Edmonton
I think it would just lead down a massive spiral of everything else that parents give consent for their kids to do or take part in.

But if you take Ryans Toy Review, which I think is a festering pile of shit in terms of content and quality. That becomes different as they're essentially monetizing their children but without the regulations that the entertainment industry is subject to (ie, how long the kid is allowed to work at once, between what hours, etc).

But that's wholly different than just uploading pictures of your kid for family and friends to see.
 

MainMain

Alt-Account
Banned
Jun 16, 2019
232
Shujin Academy
I don't know anything about that channel.

I assume they buy kids toys and they review them for viewers and in return earn typical youtube income revenue?

Is that's the case then the earnings would only be subtracted from the families finances when the children are bought toys or for their education fees.

Recipes will prove the money went in the toys.
While I'm aware that this is more or less implications on a theoretical perspective of this issue, I'll be contacting the company to request a Tax ID to search up public records to see how the money is being spent.