[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.

[ryanklee]

What children do or do not want is an unreliable signal of what is good for their long-term well being.

Being paid changes the dynamic in a deep way from being a hobby. It opens up the floodgates of manipulation and abuse.

How is it at all tertiary? It's the primary point: we don't allow children to work for pay because of the potential for abuse; children get paid to act; many child actors are abused as a result of extracting money from them and their labor.

We make an exception because it is convenient, not well understood by the public, and we all benefit from the resultant entertainment.

[Eisenstein]

> What children do or do not want is an unreliable signal of what is good for their long-term well being.

Sure, you can make them do things or forbid them from doing things you deem inappropriate or detrimental -- if they are your own kids. When society tells other parents what to do or not to do, then we are in different territory.

> How is it at all tertiary?

Forbidding all work is one end of the spectrum which is obviously stupid (no lawn work, no babysitting, etc) while forbidding no work is obviously stupid (let 12 year olds operate construction cranes). It is finding the in between that is difficult.

Acting for money is fine when it is what, $50 for a community gig? Or $5000? What if they are exceptionally talented? Or you say, nope, zero dollars for anything a minor produces since they cannot produce things of value?

Where do you draw the line?

Hence, the 'lots of money' part is tertiary to the 'we let them do it' part.

[CSMastermind]

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