It’s not out of the ordinary for parents to capture moments of their children growing up, however how ethical is it when families are profiting from these memories and, by extension, the lives of their children? With brand deals and ad revenue up for grabs it doesn’t come as a surprise that it feels as if there’s a new family vlog channel gaining popularity every week. Moments from cooking together to doctor’s visits are recorded by parents and posted on YouTube with monetisation on, meaning creators can profit from ads running before, during and after the video. This rise in family vlog channels worryingly mirrors the experiences and exploitation faced by child stars of TV and film.

There has been a recent case of an American family vlog channel removing itself from YouTube and other platforms due to the prosecution of the mother, Ruby Franke who plead guilty to four counts of abuse towards two of her children. Previously, Franke was the owner of the successful channel, “8 passengers” where she vlogged the daily lives of herself and her family. During these vlogs she would give parental wisdom and an insight as to how she handled bad behaviour in the household. The warning signs were there; she would boast about not providing lunch to her daughter who had forgotten to take it to school earlier that day, and one of the eldest children lost the “privilege” to his bed and was forced to sleep on a bean bag for seven months after pranking his brother. All these moments were captured and shared to her channel, which had millions of subscribers at the time, framed as advice on how to discipline your children or jokingly dismissed when audiences critiqued Franke. Many former “child stars of YouTube” have come out to say how difficult it has been growing up in the eyes of the public, both socially and emotionally. It should be noted that I’m not claiming that every family vlog channel is guilty of the same crimes Franke has committed and this case is an extreme example of the type of abuse that children can face when they are not treated as autonomous individuals.

The case of 8 passengers does, however, bring into question overall how ethical it is to record and publicly post key childhood moments for the parents’ monetary benefit. Many vlog channels brand themselves as wholesome and allow outsiders a look into what life is like within their family unit. This varies between different channels, of course, but if you search “family vlog” in YouTube you’ll soon find results with children in thumbnails with clickbait titles describing their latest family ““drama” – often at the child’s expense. “We had to rush him to the Doctors.</3”, “Day in hospital”, “My daughter is missing”, are just some of the titles you’re given. At the core of these vlogs is exploitation of children, turning them into their parent’s own content farm. Take the example from before, "My daughter is missing” was not just from one video. The title was used by multiple different family vlog channels with the exact same thumbnail, even down to the t-shirt colour which has obviously been edited in to mimic the original video. It is clear that after the success of the original video, others followed suit in an attempt to gain the same popularity. They are baiting their audiences into thinking that something awful has happened to their children only for the video to be about a prank or challenge, exploiting their children for views without them comprehending what is going on.

Children do not have the cognitive capacity to informatively consent to their lives being shared with, in some instances, millions of strangers. Their privacy is disrespected, and they ultimately end up being treated as commodities or a source of income for their parents. Furthermore, by earning money through their involvement, albeit unwilling or unknowing involvement in many cases, the children are essentially working without pay. There are claims from family channels that most of the earnings go into improving the family’s quality of life, or a college fund. However, parents should be providing for their children in the first place without exploiting them, also many of the family influencers come from a place of wealth before they become popular. Most parental influencers would not be popular if it weren’t for their children, it is an unfortunate pattern that the channels who choose to show the faces and full names of the children involved end up making more than the influencers who make the ethical decision to keep their children anonymous. It is a financial decision to use children as props without their knowledge and consent, which at its core is a disregard to their status as autonomous or even potential future autonomous persons and ethically, morally wrong.

Overall, extreme cases such as Franke show the influence and popularity that can be obtained by those undeserving through the exploitation of what they deem as their “property”. Most family channels, to our knowledge, don’t abuse their children to the extent as seen in the case of 8 passengers. However, the lack of regulation of channels and child safety on the internet is leading to exploitation and abuse of minors. Without intervention there will be more cases similar to 8 passengers as “YouTube child stars” may eventually fall into the category and patterns of traditional child stars that faced similar abuse from parents for the same financial motivations. This brings into question if it is ever ethical to post content featuring your children for money and popularity? Personally, if there is an intent to profit from content featuring your children as actors or in most cases props, that is unethical. Your children are not your property, nor do they have the full capacity to consent to being posted online. The prospect of earning money through content featuring children only encourages family channels that have the potential of creating abusive and toxic environments for children as they grow up, negatively affecting their quality of life now and in the future.

Related Blogs

• 

  Disinformation is threatening democracy and governments are only half listening

• 

  Let’s drop the obsession with net migration figures.

• 

  The Ethics of Violence as a Means of anticolonialism

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed by our bloggers and those providing comments are personal, and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of Lancaster University. Responsibility for the accuracy of any of the information contained within blog posts belongs to the blogger.