[_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.