Family Vlogs Unmasked: The Dark Reality Behind the Screens

by

These days, documentaries such as Hulu’s “Devil in the Family: The Fall of Ruby Franke” and Netflix’s “Bad Influence: The Dark Side of Kidfluencing” should be causing quite a stir, if not among society at large, then certainly on social media platforms. Both productions expose the misuse of minors within the extremely popular realm of family vlogging. Beneath the cheerful facade of children, pre-teens, and teenagers lies an under-regulated landscape that can bend, or even break, child labor laws; provide a platform for online predators; and potentially inflict lasting harm on the mental health of young, developing minds.

As a gamer, I’ve noticed that it’s often Instagram and YouTube where parents seem to overstep boundaries, two influencers highlighted in the documentary “Bad Influence” shared their concerns about questionable off-camera actions involving Piper Rockelle’s popular YouTube channel, particularly her manager Tiffany Smith. While YouTube is the focus of most documentaries (and rightfully so, given its massive 20-year history and 20 billion videos viewed annually, making it the largest TV viewership share among any media company, even Disney), Instagram might be the more concerning platform, according to both experts. That’s because on Instagram, followers can pay for exclusive content within an account, albeit with some limitations.

Chris McCarty, creator of Quit Clicking Kids, expressed his concern about having children’s content exclusively available only for payment – the potential consequences of such an arrangement are quite significant.

In a different chat, Sarah Adams, the creator of Kids Are Not Content and known as mom.uncharted online, expressed her concerns about Instagram, stating it’s especially problematic due to the high number of potential predators using the platform.

Meta, the organization behind Instagram, is committed to ensuring children’s safety and has been continuously enhancing the protective measures that are already in use.

Starting in April 2024, an update in Instagram’s policy prohibits adult-operated accounts that mainly share content featuring children from offering subscriptions, receiving gifts, or earning badges (which are all forms of currency on Instagram), according to a representative from THR. Accounts created by users aged 13 and above have never had the option for monetization. Monetization has not been available for accounts managed by minors either. Children under the age of 13 can have a presence on Instagram, but their accounts must always be supervised by a parent or manager who is responsible for managing the content, privacy settings, and interactions with other users.

Instagram employs technology to safeguard teen accounts against potentially questionable interactions with adults, as well as accounts primarily showcasing minors. According to the company, during the period October-December 2024, they removed approximately two million pieces of content related to child exploitation. Over 99% of this content was detected ahead of any reports being made.

In September 2024, the platform implemented “Teen Accounts”, enhancing privacy and messaging limitations as stated by their spokesperson. This means that any user below the age of 18 is enrolled automatically in these accounts. However, users who are 16 or 17 years old have the option to opt out, while those under 16 require parental consent to do so.

Just like Instagram, a 13-year-old can create their own YouTube channel. For those under 13, their channel is “supervised” and connected to an adult’s (parent’s) account. Unlike Instagram, there are no subscriptions or paywalls on YouTube channels.

YouTube representatives, like Boot Bullwinkle, emphasize that creators should enjoy expressing themselves while being imaginative. However, they are expected to adhere to our Community Guidelines, Creator Responsibility policies, and legal requirements. If we notice any harmful behavior from a creator on or off the platform that negatively impacts the broader YouTube community, we respond promptly with appropriate action.

Immediate measures were taken in 2022 that led to an indefinite halt of monetization on Piper Rockelle’s channel due to off-platform misconduct. In August 2023, the same month Franke was apprehended and later admitted guilt for child abuse charges, YouTube permanently shut down two channels associated with her.

YouTube established a series of quality guidelines specifically designed to support content creators focusing on kids and families. These guidelines were collaboratively created with experts in child development, drawing upon comprehensive studies. (Bullwinkle)

As an advocate for child safety online, I find both McCarty’s and Adams’ websites to be like two sides of the same coin in their relentless battle against child exploitation on social media platforms. Although they tackle the issue from different angles, their shared goal – a world where children are safe from such abhorrent practices – resonates deeply with me, as I believe it should with everyone.

20-year-old student McCarty, majoring in Political Science and Chinese at the University of Washington (Seattle), was shocked by the lack of responsibility shown in the space, following news about Myka and James Stauffer, a midwestern family who vlogged about adopting a two-year-old special needs child from China for their large YouTube audience. After nearly three years, they essentially returned the child, claiming an inability to cater to all his requirements. This quick online criticism is highlighted in the HBO documentary series An Update on Our Family.

At age seventeen, McCarty started reaching out to lawmakers in Washington state via cold calls and emails, advocating for a self-devised policy aimed at curbing the problem of exploitative “sharenting”. This teenager’s optimism and enthusiasm (alongside a touch of innocent inexperience) paid off. LOL, who would have thought?

“I wasn’t expecting anyone to take me up on that,” McCarty said, “but they did!”

Initially proposed in Washington state as HB 2032, McCarty’s bill found its first strong backing in Illinois (SB 1782), garnering unanimous, bipartisan support from legislators there. This trend continued in other states, including California (SB764), a key player in this issue. McCarty actively lobbied in California around the same time as the release of Demi Lovato’s cautionary documentary Child Star, where he was prominently featured.

McCarty expressed that he can’t explain how things turned out as they did, but they did. He shared a wonderful picture of [Lovato] being present during the bill-signing with Governor Gavin Newsom. It was a delightful moment to see that photo and think, ‘I played a part in bringing those two people together in that room.’

McCarty’s proposed legislation is divided into two main aspects:

1) It mandates a minimum of 15% of the earnings from a minor’s involvement in social media videos to be saved for their future use, similar to the Coogan Law for Hollywood actors.

2) It empowers the child performer to ask for the removal of content that features them as a minor once they reach adulthood. McCarty emphasizes that minors were unable to provide consent during their childhood, and while many local lawmakers concur with this point, there are exceptions. Notably, even if YouTube already has such a policy in place.

Bullwinkle stated that YouTube is backing initiatives aimed at paying children featured in YouTube videos and making it easier for them, as well as for content removed when they were minors,” translates to: “YouTube is helping out with programs that pay kids appearing on YouTube and simplifying the process of removing content made during their minor years, according to Bullwinkle.

Let’s keep things calm and clear: McCarty’s bill targets social media accounts where a minor appears in around one third of the recent videos (the past 30 days) and these videos have earned at least 10 cents per view. Even though your kids might be adorable in their Christmas morning videos, they probably don’t bring in enough views to make you money.

McCarty’s proposal offers a solid foundation, yet it doesn’t entirely safeguard children from parental misuse in digital spaces. What it does provide are mechanisms for enforcing regulations on quantifiable aspects of oversharing (companies like Meta and YouTube-parent Alphabet, being publicly traded, will comply). Moreover, there is no argument over the age of maturity; 18 years old is generally considered adulthood in most nations.

Regrettably, similar to a movie or television set, the safeguards for vlogging can’t reasonably extend any further. It should be noted that protections in film and TV industries are not flawless either; documentaries like “Quiet on Set” have demonstrated this, highlighting that there is still significant room for improvement within the Hollywood studio system itself.

McCarty suggests that the bill should stipulate fixed teaching hours for educators, but both McCarty and Adams struggle to figure out how this could be implemented since the filming in question frequently occurs within a family setting, by family members, and usually takes place within their own homes.

Adams expressed his viewpoint that closely scrutinizing the work hours of children by entering their homes might prove challenging. He also mentioned that some family vloggers assert that what the kids are doing is not work, but merely documenting their daily lives on video.

In the context at hand, such an argument would hold no water for the topics under consideration: large, commercialized family vlogs.

Adams points out that children acting for the camera are aware they need to perform and say something appealing. It’s unknown how this might impact their self-perception as they grow. However, when it comes to regulating issues like child labor or school hours, he believes it would be incredibly challenging on a state or federal level.

Instead, Adams, aged 39, seems to be focusing on changing the culture surrounding oversharing rather than advocating for stricter laws regarding it. Her method appears to be practical, which might be a result of maturity (whether this is beneficial or not is open to interpretation).

She expressed that if she could assist parents in viewing their children’s sharing and online consumption habits from a unique perspective, that would be the service she is able to provide.

Read More

2025-05-01 16:25