The Ethics of Family Vlogging
Should child labor laws apply?
We’ve seen them around the internet, even if we don’t consume their content. The Pinterest perfect home, the fashionable, pastel colors wearing mom and, the stars of the show, the kids. Lined up from tallest to shortest, wearing almost identical outfits, but with fun little twists. The dad appears, some times, but seems to only be there to assure that this is a perfect, traditional, nuclear family, he never seems to do anything in particular. The aesthetically pleasing, easily packaged parenting advice and family fun will likely support the entire family for as long as people will watch, meaning, as long as the kids are still cute.
In the past month, we have seen a darker side of family vlogging, with Myka Stauffer (and her husband James) and 8 Passengers, a channel run by Ruby Franke, coming under fire for allegations of neglect and abuse.
But I have to ask: If you removed the parts of these channels that anyone, parent or not, instinctively knows are wrong — like taking a child’s bed away or, in the worst case, abandoning your child — would there still be a problem? The answer, for many, is yes.
No names or photos of the children involved will be included in this article, not that it makes a difference at this point, since, for the most part, their privacy has been non-existing since birth.
When you look up Myka Stauffer on YouTube, her content seems innocuous. It’s mostly morning routines, organization and saving tips, spring cleanings, and bedroom makeovers. All with bubble-gum pink lettering over heavily saturated, highly pinnable thumbnails.
Myka’s channel rose in popularity when she and her husband James decided to adopt a special needs child from China (they had three biological kids already), and recently fell from grace as they confessed to their audience, between crocodile tears, that they had given him up. “Rehomed”, as they put it. Numerous articles and videos have been made about the topic, and, at this point, there is not much to add to the generalized feelings of disgust, heartbreak, and anger that the public has been expressing for the little boy.
Disagree with the concept of family vlogging as we may, for the privacy and security issues that it raises, most people would have never gone so far as to think someone might actually conceive or adopt a child to make their channel grow. While it’s impossible to know what went on in the Stauffers’ minds, hearts, and home, people seem to consider that it is evident that this is what they have done.
Ruby and Kevin Franke, on the other hand, have recently been criticized for several instances of punishing some of their six children in ways that are considered disproportionate and abusive. The most cited examples include taking the teenage son’s bed away for seven months and refusing to bring the five-year-old daughter her lunch when she forgot to pack it for school in the morning. Let’s not forget, the names and faces of these children are all over the internet.
The Franke children have repeatedly stated that they feel uncomfortable being on camera -they even filmed “the talk” with one of them - and that the channel run by the mother prevents them from making friends.
Both these scandals have brought attention to the issues of broadcasting family life. If we were to remove the Stauffer baby’s abandonment and the apparently cruel way in which the Frankes discipline their children, we would, unfortunately, still be left with security concerns, privacy issues, and child labor.
As for the security issues, the concern is very obvious. How much personal information do you think it would take for a predator to convince a small child that they know them and their parents? We were all warned about it as kids: “if someone tells you they know mommy and they’ll take you to find her, don’t believe them!” Are we supposed to expect that vlogger kids don’t wander off? Are we trusting their better judgment when anyone in the world could come up to them and say “Hey, so-and-so! Don’t you remember me?” and start spouting personal information until they were, in fact, convinced they knew the person.
Moreover, there is a sad, uncomfortable factor at play that people seem to have collectively tried to forget. As Millenials, growing up and starting to use the internet, we had a sword above our heads, placed there by our parents, that constantly warned us about what “ill-intended folks might be doing with our pictures”. Did these parents forget the very imminent threat of pedophilia sites like it was a thing of the early 2000s?
Child labor laws for underage performers
When it comes to “kidfluencers” who make money reviewing toys or generally being cute on camera, some argue that the same laws that protect child actors should apply:
The Coogan Law, which requires 15 percent of a child’s earnings to be deposited in a blocked trust account, is one of Hollywood’s key mechanisms for protecting minors from such exploitation. Enacted in 1939 after Jackie Coogan sued his parents for burning through the money he made as a child actor, 80 years later it still protects young entertainers. Yet advocates for child workers’ rights argue that the law hasn’t kept pace with the digital age, and as a result, kidfluencers are falling through the cracks. In fact, no law outlines protections for minors earning income in social media. It’s a cause for concern since, without protections, they stand to lose millions to their own parents. The Hollywood Reporter
Money, however, is not the only issue. While there are strict laws in place to ensure that child performers live a balanced life with an age-appropriate schedule, it is not clear how the protections might apply when the work is taking place in the privacy of the family’s home. As YouTube is a user-generated content platform, it’s virtually impossible to regulate the production of the content and the working conditions of those involved. This is all very well when it’s adults filming themselves, but it becomes trickier when it comes to child YouTube stars.
Child performers must obtain work permits, and there are strict regulations limiting their working hours, requiring “rest and recreation” time when they are on set, and mandating that work not interfere with their education. Producers on film sets are responsible for safeguarding the “health, welfare, safety and moral well being of the children” The Guardian
These rules don’t apply to social media.
Is YouTube responsible?
David Pierce, a co-chair of the entertainment law section of the Beverly Hills Bar Association, has told The Guardian that YouTube has a responsibility to “institute policies requiring that children featured in monetized videos are entitled to a share of the revenues from the account owner.” There is no doubt that that would help, but would it solve all the problems?
In the same article, law professor Veena Dubal has stated that “You could argue that YouTube is the joint employer of the child. YouTube controls what the child can and cannot do. They control the dissemination of the money. They would very likely be considered joint employers under California wage laws and child labor laws.”
If that is true, it shouldn’t be hard for YouTube to institute a policy that would require Coogan accounts for every child that is featured in monetized videos, and instantly demonetize the ones that fail to provide one.
But what about the work hours, rest, recreation, and education requirements? How could YouTube, as a joint employer, regulate such things? Would it be up to the state to verify that those regulations are being followed? And who would be liable if they weren’t?
Privacy and consent
Even if there were legal protections put in place to ensure that the child is getting paid, being in a vlog is very different from acting.
While a child actor or even a child that stars in a toy review channel is playing a role, children that appear in family vlog channels are not performing or playing a character, they are living their daily life, with their very real thoughts and emotions.
Even if they “consent” to being on camera… can they really consent? Is so, at what age? Certainly not while literally exiting the womb. If you are familiar with YouTube in general, you may have noticed a rise in “birth vlogs”, for example. Why anyone would want to watch such an intimate moment is beyond me, but, as always, where there is demand, there is no shortage of supply.
There is also no shortage of potentially humiliating moments being shared, such as temper tantrums and reactions to pranks, where small children are made to cry by their parents for the purpose of views.
On this topic, Savanah LaBrant, from the popular ColeandSav channel, has told The Hollywood Reporter:
“We know it’s something that we could have not put out on YouTube, but we film our whole lives,” Savannah LaBrant said. “That’s what we signed up for.”
There is no way of knowing the long term effects that this new industry will have on these children until the first wave of them grows up, but common sense sure dictates that six-year-old children do not sign up to have their crying fits shared on the internet. Pree teens also do not sign up to be filmed in uncomfortable moments, like when their mother wants them to try a bathing suit on and they don’t think it will fit, as we have seen on Ruby Franke’s channel, along with many other privacy-violating instances.
There may not be specific laws that regulate the presence of children on social media yet, but the right to privacy is protected by article 16 of the Convention of the Rights of the Child, that states the following:
1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.
2. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
YouTube doesn’t permit children under the age of thirteen to have their own channel but offers no protection to the child’s privacy on their parent’s channel. It seems to be the case that if the parents think something is okay to share, then it’s fine not only to share it but to monetize it.
But is it? As it is stated on the UNICEF website,
“Children are neither the possessions of parents nor of the state, nor are they mere people-in-the-making; they have equal status as members of the human family.”
It may be difficult to restrict the invasion of children’s privacy, as many grey areas will be fairly pointed out. But what if the incentive to do it was removed? Would these parents keep the camera on their kids’ faces all day, every day, if they couldn’t make money off of it? Is prohibiting monetization of videos featuring children under a certain age limit a possible solution? Would the extension of the Coogan law to child social media stars be sufficient to protect them? What will the long term consequences be for these children’s self-esteem and well being?
I don’t claim to have answers, but the questions are worth posing.
