The point is that there are some things so risky for kids that parents shouldn't be able to "consent for them". One of those things is child labor.
> This argument is weirdly circular.
Circular doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
Parents have control over their children, but society has put boundaries on what they can do to them because parents are capable of great harm. There's nothing circular about that.
“Mommy vlogging” as it’s been called, is disgusting but openly accepted child exploitation across YouTube and TikTok.
Especially the cases where the children are obvious victims of abuse. Some people literally use (and treat) their children as props, for internet points.
They're literally child actors. It is child labor.
It's regularly exploitative and should be under at least the same laws as child actors are under, with all the protections in place that child actors have for the money they earn, etc.
And while we're at it, we should probably re-evaluate child actor laws to make sure they're sufficiently protected from the bad actor and actor strategies that have evolved since the original child actor laws have gone through.
The entire point of child labor laws was to get kids out of dangerous situations like working in coal mines. Being recorded isn’t labor, isn’t dangerous. Isn’t negative at all.
> Being recorded isn’t labor, isn’t dangerous. Isn’t negative at all.
Tell that to Brooke Shields and many other children who were sexualized on camera with the consent of their parents and still have psychological damage.
There have also been parents who literally tortured their children on YouTube for laughs[1].
The title was "Illinois set to define using your kids in social media videos as child labor", not "Illinois set to define using your kids in social media videos as coal mining."