[bhouston]

I guess the solution is to try to take some of the law's protecting child actors and apply them to influencers? https://www.wrapbook.com/blog/child-actor-labor-laws

I think it is hard, because influences are in random jurisdictions and just arise without much structure. Maybe it can be controlled at the platform level, like YouTube and TikTok as they are the ones funnel money to these influencers? It would require some creativity and a lot of desire.

[_fat_santa]

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.

[polygamous_bat]

> 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" needs to be on tiktok. Facebook/whatsapp, maybe, if you're sharing it only with your friends, or even YouTube with linked-only if you want to send the link to grandma. But why would you ever want to publicly post a video of your child for five million+ viewers?

[lotsofpulp]

Would you have allowed America’s Funniest Home Videos?

Or sharing of videos on Youtube like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Bit_My_Finger

Of course, when there was no money in it, it was easier to assume children were not being harmed or otherwise manipulated for the purpose of making the video.

[jstarfish]

AFHC and the stations that aired it were at least accountable to the FCC (and advertisers) if things got weird. Advertisers knew what the show entailed.

There is no such licensing or enforcement mechanism for amateur online content creators (except 2257), and the "stations" are absolved of any complicity (230). Advertisers have little idea what content they're sponsoring since content delivery is a shell game. Creators can pivot from toy unboxing videos to dildo recommendations mid-stream without any oversight.

It took upstream payment processors going rogue to force compliance with 2257, because apparently we don't have a functional government to enforce its own laws anymore. The situation is not at all the same.

[lotsofpulp]

Yes, so I would think the first solution is proper enforcement of existing laws.

[educaysean]

Because there's an audience for it?

[stametseater]

There's an audience for kitten crush videos too. Demand for a thing doesn't excuse producing the thing.

[colechristensen]

>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?

When you do it on an account that makes money or is even tangentially involved with making money.

[watwut]

When it earns money? When you just post video on Instagram, there is no way you will get money magically. You need to enter into contract somehow. That goes for any social network. Literally none of them will send you money unless you actively initiates it.

[bhouston]

I think you can have some triggers, like X views or Y followers and at least Z videos or something like that and also that they have monetization turned on. Make it high enough that it excludes 99.9% or more of people posting family videos.

[polygamous_bat]

One problem with this approach is that a lot of times monetization in tiktok or instagram happens through third party sponsors/product placements, rather than directly between the platform and the content creator.

[mola]

Not sure amount of views or likes really matter. If you are interested in profiting from your kid, you will actively promote their content. It's rare to reach a lot of popularity without active promotion. I would draw the line there. Actively promote your kid Social network content should be just banned.

[bnralt]

I always found it strange that child labor laws have an exception for acting. From what I've seen, acting is probably a worse job for kids than many of the jobs that are outlawed.

[PeterisP]

It's because an adult can do almost all jobs where child labor would be used, usually it's just that adults are more expensive; but in acting we don't really want to say that movies are prohibited to show kids or that all kid roles must be played by adult actors.

Like, do we want to make a rule that a family drama must be filmed without showing that family's kids? If not, then we have to permit child acting at least in some way.

[bnralt]

You might well be right, but it's odd when you really think about it. We're allowing behavior we deem immoral or harmful to happen in cases where we think it makes our entertainment a bit better.

[brightlancer]

Child labor laws are presented as intending to protect the child, but the reality is it's created to protect adult workers from cheap competition.

That's what PP described (even if they didn't realize it):

"It's because an adult can do almost all jobs where child labor would be used, usually it's just that adults are more expensive;"

It's not about morality or protecting children from harm; that's just the lie that's used to sell it.

[Eisenstein]

You are making a moral judgement and applying it to everyone -- but I think you are in the minority in thinking that. Most people don't see children actors and think of them as being harmed and the production immoral.

[ryanklee]

I believe the parent comment's point would be better formulated as: We make an exception for child actors but do so thoughtlessly; if we applied the same lines of moral reasoning that leads us to prevent children from working elsewhere, many of those lines would prevent us from making an allowance for paid child actors. But we fail to make the application of those lines of reasoning in this case because of cultural loopholes and blinders, not any limitation in the reasons themselves.

The one line of reasoning I can think of that does limit itself in this regard is the one says "there are no good adult substitutes for child actors, hence an exception," but this is a very cynical moral ground for child labor laws, as there are probably many potential exceptions that could be forced here that we would find profoundly repugnant and we would have to abandon that line of reasoning or be forced to admit we are more interested in industry outcomes than the welfare of children or our moral worth.

[Eisenstein]

Well, the difference is also that many children want to act -- I don't think any children want to work in a meat processing plant. Are we do deny them artistic expression because we think it is morally strange? We allow many exceptions to things for strange reasons because we are humans and are kind of strange. We allow kids to homeschool and we allow them hobbies -- if their hobby is acting should they not be allowed to be paid for it as long as they homeschool?

There is no 'moral' answer. We, as a society decided that children acting is fine and that it is not outrageous and we like watching entertainment with children instead of exclusively adults. People are concerned for good reason because hollywood is predatory and when lots of money is involved then people act out of bad interests instead of the child's interests, but that is tertiary to the fact that acting is allowed for children to do and we allow them to get paid for it.

[CSMastermind]

I wonder if we'll reach a point where AI can convincingly stand in for child actors.

[Eisenstein]

You could argue that acting is a child doing something they want to do as artistic expression. Like, could you ban a kid from playing a concert if they are good at violin or piano; or could you ban them from selling their artwork or their singing?

[bnralt]

People are fine with kids selling someone some arts and crafts they made, but most people don’t think children should be making things in factories. Likewise, a school play is completely different from the life that most children actors live.

[Kye]

Wil Wheaton talks about this a lot. A good entry point if you don't want to read through his blog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eoDeIw7G1I

Seeing how he's overcome all that, beat alcohol, and was able to find a place in the world of media that was about his interests rather than his mother's is inspiring, but a lot of kids don't make it out so well-adjusted. And even here it took decades.

[afavour]

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.

[bhouston]

Maybe a law where if your views of your videos with your kids have more than X followers or Y views on more Z videos -- it is definitely not just for friends and family and it isn't just a random video going viral. I could see that working.

I think that the solution is to have all such people register with no exceptions. Just make X and Y and Z high enough that it excludes the large majority of people.

[omnicognate]

"Heartwarming family content" is a wonderfully shuddersome phrase.

[ubermonkey]

I'm not some Rand-worshiping libertarian, but I do think the immediate response of (more or less) "there oughta be a law" whenever something negative gets press is maybe not ideal.

These people should probably be shamed publicly for this kind of exploitation, for sure. And things like the Coogan law should be applied when the kids are a big part of the brand.