[PuppyTailWags]

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 encourage their children to form participate in parasocial relationships with the audience. It nets mad money.

https://www.stitcher.com/show/some-place-under-neith

[davidguetta]

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 in some places ends up at covering the faces of women for the exact same reason. Should we forbid children to go to the pool because sexual creeps might go there ?

On the other hand in many places of Northern europe nudity is more common even in public. That works because they don't culturally associate as much nudity with sex as americans or other parts of the world do.. (You'd obviously get beaten up for masturbating in these places especially with children around.). And that doesn't seem like so bad a thing to me

[germinalphrase]

You’re underselling the social and financial dynamic of specifically recording children in minimal clothing and asking them to perform for anonymous strangers on the internet.

It’s entirely different than standard social standards about clothing and nudity in public.

[ceejayoz]

Precisely.

A prominent example; it's quite the read: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2022-12-18/...

> But it is the suit filed by 11 former members of the Squad that has placed the Piper Rockelle saga at the center of an explosive online controversy. The plaintiffs, all of whom are minors, allege in the lawsuit that Smith offered to show an 11-year-old girl how to perform oral sex, mailed Piper’s underwear to men and pretended to be a raunchy version of the family’s dead cat while inappropriately touching and harassing the children.

> Trimmer, a photographer, said Smith often urged the kids to pose more provocatively for thumbnail photo shoots — the images used to promote YouTube videos. She would frequently tell the Squad members to make ‘sexy kissing faces’ for thumbnails, to ‘push their butts out,’ to ‘suck their stomachs in,’ ‘wear something sluttier’ and would otherwise position Plaintiffs’ bodies in explicitly and sexually suggestive positions,” the complaint said.

> Numerous Squad members also allege that Smith regularly interacted online with a man posing as a young girl named “Megan” who sent her money, a Gucci bag, laptops, lawn furniture and other expensive gifts in exchange for images of Piper. In the lawsuit, Corinne said she witnessed Smith mail “several of Piper’s soiled training bras and panties to an unknown individual,” adding that Smith told her “old men like to smell this stuff.”

They know who the audience is.

[davidguetta]

We don't disagree, I was just not EVEN speaking about that.

This is miles away more horrific.

[PuppyTailWags]

TBH I agree with you that we shouldn't forbid children from wearing standard amounts of clothing (i.e. not much) to go swimming due to creeps existing generally in the world.

I'm talking about intentionally filming one's own children for the viewership of creeps online for perpetual consumption in order to make a profit. This would be akin to making one's living by nonconsensually filming nude beach visitors in northern europe for 8 hrs+/day and uploading that online vs someone just visiting a nude beach.

[eloisant]

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.

[sramam]

Personally, I agree with your view-point.

However, the law you are proposing would prohibit a parent from posting an image of their child winning the spelling bee, in a full suit.

I have no idea how to thread this needle, outside making my personal choices.

[nradov]

I'm not sure where to draw the line in order to protect children, but a blanket ban on posting pictures of them would never survive a First Amendment challenge. US Supreme Court precedents have made it clear that any restrictions must be more narrowly targeted.

[lotsofpulp]

This reminds me of

https://arresteddevelopment.fandom.com/wiki/Milford_School

> Children should be neither seen nor heard.

Surely, kids can be seen in movies, tv shows, news articles about kids competitions or events, etc?

[valarauko]

> That should almost be illegal in my opinion since the child can't consent.

Genuine Q: at what point can the child consent? A lot of people here are talking about a media blackout of their children since the child can't consent, but when does that end? Can a 5-year-old consent to have their pictures posted online? 10? 15?

[blooalien]

I've known 5 year olds who understood the world well enough to make such decisions about their own lives (and surprisingly enough make wise decisions about such things, and able to explain why they feel their choice is valid) but in my experience, that's always been due to good parenting giving the child early access to important "brain functionality" (logic, reason, slowing down and taking time to think before taking action and not just "freaking out" and jumping into a situation wildly, etc.) and those simply aren't skills a lotta parents teach these days (for wildly varying reasons I'm sure). Children like that are a ridiculously rare breed anymore. It'd be nice if the decision about such things depended upon the child being capable of such decisions, but how would one even determine let alone verify that a child's decision making skills were appropriate for that type of choice? Only truly caring parents, other adults who spend a lot of time around the family, and the child themselves could be really truly "in the know" about it…

[valarauko]

My discomfort arises from centering this on the idea of a child's consent. While I admit your point makes sense, it also feels like a slippery slope - "No Chris Hansen, she was one of those rare breeds of 15-year-olds who is capable of giving consent..."

As a society we have settled on the idea that regardless of the emotional development of a minor, they are materially incapable of granting consent since we believe they do not yet the maturity to comprehend it. I know this is a terrible analogy, but alas, this is where I feel the slippery slope leads by centering this debate on the idea of consent. Yes, there is a material difference in the kinds of consent we're dealing with, but I'm not sure if they're all that different.

[davidguetta]

The real question is not "when can the child consent" (depends on the child, hard to even define) but "where put the legal age for best reasonable protection of the children". I'd be fine with "no minor on social media" < 16.

[valarauko]

> I'd be fine with "no minor on social media" < 16.

I think is pretty broad, but do you suggest no depictions of under 16s on any online media? It's one thing to restrict minors from participating on social media, but are you suggesting their likeness cannot appear online posted by other people? Parents? School yearbook? School social club?

[prepend]

> Should we forbid children to go to the pool because sexual creeps might go there ?

I don’t suggest that, but I think it’s pretty bad to post lots of swimsuit pics to social media. And it’s absolutely horrible to accept money in exchange for 1:1 videos or commissioned photos for internet strangers. There’s no legitimate purposes for adults to ask little kids to pose on swimsuits for them. I’m not sure if it should be illegal, but certainly scorned and people who practice to have appropriate levels of opprobrium.

[PurpleRamen]

> Should we forbid children to go to the pool because sexual creeps might go there ?

It's significant easier to hone your creepiness when you have an endless supply of training-material. It might even help you to discover this side of you in the first place.

> On the other hand in many places of Northern europe nudity is more common even in public.

Not with children. Even in Europe parents are generally quite protective with them. And here the topic of family-influencer and sexualization of their children is also a hot topic.

[watwut]

I have seen naked toddlers in European swimming pools/lakes.

[PurpleRamen]

Toddlers are infants, not children. There is different awareness according to their abilities and demands.

[lotsofpulp]

In the US, toddlers are toddlers, infants are infants. Both toddlers and infants are children.

https://www.verywellfamily.com/difference-between-baby-newbo...

[klyrs]

In the late 90s I was startled by a billboard in Germany which featured a dozenish naked boys, standing shoulder to shoulder and bearing all for the camera. It was an ad for a telecom, if I recall. Some of them had pubic hair, some were too young for that. Reading up on the legality of public nudity in Germany, I wonder if this would still fly today.

[golergka]

Should we make Nirvana's Nevermind cover illegal?

[nradov]

The subject of the Nevermind album cover actually filed a civil suit over child sexual exploitation. His case was dismissed because he had waited too long to file it, so the core legal issue hasn't really been adjudicated.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/05/entertainment/spencer-elden-n...

[_trampeltier]

Today it would be impossible. But also much other things in media. Like the first James Bond Casino Royale (1967). There is a scene in a tube with Bond and a younger than 18 years old girl in a tube. Or a in the movie Kickboxer (1988) with Van Damme. There is a scene when they are on a boat on a river in Thailand. You can see at least one young boy complete nude from frontside. Another scene later in the hospital. The brother just grop the butt from the nurse and everybody is laughing. To watch it today feels very strange.

[stametseater]

Was there ever a pressing need for that cover to exist in the first place? I don't think our society would be culturally impoverished if they had simply taken a picture of something else.

[mablopoule]

Yeah, society would absolutely be culturally impoverished if this would be considered off-limit.

Limiting the space of 'allowed' expression and saying it's okay because culture is not essential isn't really the best path to take as a society.

[jstarfish]

If you Photoshop the penis out, there would be nothing remarkable about the cover. It was child exploitation as a marketing gimmick.

I think the Scorpions did something similar with putting an underage girl on the Virgin Killer album, but that may have been non-photographic (not looking it up).

Decades later, Nirvana is still a topic of discussion because of it (and still earning royalties), while the kid in question whose image is used in perpetuity gets told to pound sand because he missed an arbitrary deadline.

We don't need to exploit children as a form of creative expression. We just don't. Depravity is not cultural enrichment.

[mablopoule]

If you let the penis visible, there is still not that much remarkable. The picture was mainly about a baby swimming toward a bill used as a bait.

There is at least one picture of me (not on social media, admittedly), as a toddler, buck naked in a pool with another toddler. It was (and still is) and innocent picture even with the visible genitalia. So no, it's not automatically "depravity" to show nude people, even kids.

Don't be mistaken, I'm not for child exploration, stuff like kids beauty pageant, or over-exposed young people are downright creepy, but I'm reacting at the idea of making any representation of kids taboo.

[akaij]

> If you Photoshop the penis out, there would be nothing remarkable about the cover.

Says you.

> Decades later, Nirvana is still a topic of discussion because of it (and still earning royalties), ...

I think the album's popularity and the royalties aren't solely attributable to the cover :)

> We don't need to exploit children as a form of creative expression...

There is no pornography, no sexual abuse, in fact there's nothing sexual about it at all, and the parents were paid for the photo. Please help me understand how it constitutes exploitation.

[peterashford]

How? In what way would not having a child's penis on an album cover have impoverished society?

[golergka]

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.

[peterashford]

That's much broader than the argument that I think is being made - or should be made. Which is that the need for an album cover art doesn't justify making public images of a nude child who clearly cannot consent to such.

[stametseater]

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.

[karaterobot]

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.

[golergka]

> I find it hard to believe anybody could describe that cover as a "wonderful thing" that "made their life better."

I didn't say that this art cover is such a thing. I attacked your criteria of a "pressing need" with this description, this argument is independent of discussion about this particular cover.

> I want the monetization of such things banned, because I don't think this is art for the sake of art.

I don't think anyone should be able to ban other people from committing voluntary transactions. The band wants to sell the album. I want to buy it. Somebody else's opinions on what is and what isn't art are not relevant to either of us.

[snapplebobapple]

While I find parents doing this extremely concerning I am personally really hesitant to change anything because I can't think of any way to change it that doesn't seriously hinder normal and not creepy parental uses of images/videos of their children. We are already running into overreach problems trying to curtail the stuff we clearly need to curtail (i.e. that guy having to deal with the police for sending his kid's pediatrician a picture of some problem) I can't imagine what that would end up like if it happened on a large portion of videos shared with your kids in it.

[ryandrake]

I like the (for some reason downvoted) reasonable suggestion by someone else to simply not monetize videos containing children. Doesn't YouTube already have some kind of classifier that finds children in videos, which lets them turn off commenting on those videos? Just extend that to also de-monetize them.

Sure, it doesn't solve the problem of child videos using other monetization channels like product placement, sponsorships and so on but don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

[brightlancer]

Will this apply to Hollywood movies which star minors? Or AMA winning musicians who are minors?

If we exempt them from your new rules, why?

We need to be very careful about Well Intentioned rules (or worse, laws) because they will be applied selectively and in ways the authors didn't intend.

[ryandrake]

I don't know--those are edge cases, let the legislators figure them out later. Too often we give up with "it can't be done" because we can't find a perfect solution for every little edge case. Instead of at least taking an imperfect but vital first step, we do nothing.

[stametseater]

> While I find parents doing this extremely concerning I am personally really hesitant to change anything because I can't think of any way to change it that doesn't seriously hinder normal and not creepy parental uses of images/videos of their children

Ban the commercialization of videos and images containing kids. No more child actors, singers, models, etc. Remove the child labor law exceptions which have been given to these industries.

[floren]

> No more child actors

it'd make movies better, anyway

[zirgs]

That guy had to deal with the cops, because Google spied on him and didn't even bother talking to him first to find out why he took those pictures, but immediately assumed the worst. Thankfully the cops investigated the case and concluded that it wasn't a crime.

[lp0_on_fire]

I think it's a relatively easy line to draw.

If you're posting content to the public (i.e. random strangers), you're on one side of the line. If you're posting content in a controlled manner to people consisting of friends and family you actually know, you're on the other side of the line.

[watwut]

This would made half summer family albums on Facebook illegal. People share fotos of swimming kids on public spaces all the time. And no, those fotos are not sexy nor meant to be.

[eloisant]

Do people really post their family albums publicly?

Posting privately for your extended family yes, but that should never be posted publicly.

[watwut]

Yes they do. Internet if full of it. Usual intention is to show it to friends and family. In 99.99% of case, no one outside of family cares at all. The photos of kids posted on public albums nobody cares about are massively outnumbering youtube starts earning money on making their kids into internet stars.

The issue is trying to ban an innocent thing - photo of a kid in state normally seen in public vs "making kids perform for camera, encourage them children to form participate in parasocial relationships with the audience".

No kid ever build parasocial relationship by having photo in family album, even if public. And photos of kids are as old as photography.

One could make regulations about monetization of such things I guess. Monetization does not just happens randomly. You have to enter into contract with social network to send you money, you fill taxes. That could be workable, theoretically.

[nradov]

If you post something on Facebook for "friends", and you have 5,000 friends, then is that really any different from posting publicly? And who counts as "extended family"? Like are third cousins in or out? And if you tag anyone in your post then it's also visible to all of their friends as well.

It's important to protect the private lives of our children. But it's very challenging to draw clear, enforceable lines in criminal laws and social media terms of service.

[colechristensen]

For starters, zero monetization of any social media content involving children.

Second step, zero public posts involving children, maybe with some narrow carveouts.

[mablopoule]

Yes, let's narrow even more the kind of content allowed in platforms with draconian laws.

"I'm sorry mister, but we can see chidren playing in the park at 44:28 in the hour-long documentary you've produced, so we had to remove the video."

/s

[Ekaros]

I think it is entirely reasonable to totally ban any media that has any person who haven't given explicit release on their likeness. It isn't too much to ask for valuing everyone's privacy.

[snapplebobapple]

That wouldn't have knock on effects like utterly destroying investigative journalism or anything.... There are tons of things that people would censor if the above were law that are not in the public interest to be censored.

[brightlancer]

In the US, there is no general expectation of privacy in a public place.

Implementing your proposal is also unreasonable: before one took a photo of their spouse in the park, they would have to clear the background of all persons or get their explicit consent.

[Ekaros]

Maybe allow private use, but to publish anywhere for example in social media or other media absolutely.

[_trampeltier]

In theory is already illegal, because it is child work. So I guess it is illegal in most countrys anyway.

[barry-cotter]

Is the aim to pathologise children as such or to pathologise any interest in and interaction with them?

[NotACop182]

Same can be said about child beauty contest.

[stametseater]

And the movie and music industries. Humorous video about this serious topic, which outlines the problem of parents selling their kids to these industries in a palatable manner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJh6jgnqn_s

There should be a general blanket ban on parents monetizing their kids. We don't need child actors in movies, most stories can be written to avoid their necessity. And maybe very soon, it should be feasible to replace child actors with CGI.

[mschuster91]

Child pageants are creepy AF. They are perfect targets for creeps - former President Trump, for example, got alleged by five women to have walked in on girls as young as 15 while they were changing [1] -, but even without that level of creepiness, the sexualization of young girls has been closely linked to mental health issues down the road [2].

And this legalized pedophilia industry makes 5 billion dollars a year[3]. Unbelievable.

[1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kendalltaggart/teen-bea...

[2] https://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report

[3] https://truthout.org/articles/child-beauty-pageants-a-scene-...

[bcrosby95]

My wife and I watched a season of this stuff just to gawk at how terrible/creepy it was. Then we felt bad about contributing towards its popularity and stopped.

[mc32]

Wholly agree and people do recognize it as such. Also child actors (though they don't have all things in common, one thing they often have in common is exploitation by their parents/guardians as well as industry).

[ouid]

Yes it can...

[BurningFrog]

AFAIK, it's empirically established that access to pornography lowers rape rates.

So maybe access to videos of lightly dressed children, icky as it may feel, lowers the rate of pedophile rape.

[PuppyTailWags]

The concern isn't that these children will be raped or that pedophiles will rape them. It's much more subtle: these are children who are taught from a young age to be exploited. They are taught not to have boundaries with strangers, to tie self-worth and sense of self to external validation, and to squash down their own feelings of discomfort or even danger in order to placate authority figures around them. These are all things that they will have to spend a lot of resources and time unlearning to grow into healthy adulthood, hampered by the fact that videos of their exploitation will be continually on the internet for everyone to see for the rest of their lives.

[pfannkuchen]

I think this assumes that pedophiles are born with an attraction to children, as opposed to somehow having formed a mental association between children and sex through environmental factors. I wonder if there is evidence in either direction? From an evolutionary perspective the latter would be my default assumption, as the postulated evolutionary rationales for, say, homosexuality, at least, would not really apply to pedophilia.