“Kidfluencers” -- a new word referring to child social media influencers who make money on sponsorship deals and manipulate their followers just like any other social media influencer, but whose accounts are mostly run by their parents/guardians (Maheshwari 2019). They chronicle their lives, have huge followings, and make money through sponsored videos and Instagram posts. The kidfluencers have followings of mostly other children, logging in on their parents’ accounts to watch YouTube videos and interact with the stars themselves and other followers. But what effects do these videos have on their child followers? Why do companies shell out thousands of dollars to sponsor kidfluencer videos, in which these child stars interact with their products? Because their audience, children, are easily manipulated into believing in the truth presented in the videos (that these kidfluencers really do enjoy the products they’re using in the videos) due to the panoptical effects of social media.
The Panopticon was a prison designed in the 1700s by Jeremy Bentham with the idea that, because prisoners are watched at all times, they are therefore forced to behave themselves at all times, presenting always a “best version” of themselves (Panopticon, 2016). Social media today is the modern form of the panopticon, as everyone can see everyone else and we are therefore encouraged to present our best selves on social media. It can be easy to fall into the trap of thinking “wow, that person’s life is so perfect,” but most adults are aware to some degree that there is a level of stretching that positive representation on social media. Children, however, have not yet developed this understanding. It is very easy for a child to interpret everything they see on social media as the truth (Maheshwari 2019). This is why kidfluencers are so popular -- both to their viewers and to advertisers. It is incredibly difficult to parse apart reality from just “doing it for the ‘gram” with these kidfluencers, and even harder for children. Businesses capitalize on this by sponsoring videos in which these children interact positively with their products -- manipulating their child audience into believing in the product they are endorsing. It doesn’t seem right to take advantage of children for a monetary gain, but hey, that’s capitalism. How far will it go? What will be the lasting impacts on both these kidfluencers and their child audiences? When will we decide that it is wrong to take advantage of our most vulnerable?
Works Cited:
Maheshwari, Sapna. “Online and Making Thousands, at Age 4: Meet the Kidfluencers.” The New York Times, 1 Mar. 2019. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/business/media/social-media-influencers-kids.html.
“Panopticon.” Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/technology/panopticon. Accessed 18 Nov. 2019.
Comments
Additionally, how can personal familial autonomy be maintained while enforcing legitimate protections against internet exploitations? Especially considering present child labor laws and the fact that American child labor laws don't prevent the extraction of labor from children for "family businesses" - is it legitimate for these parents to reap the fruits of their children's fame on the basis of a new-age family 'business' of youtube production? If so, is the basis of family business laws fundamentally flawed and needing to be changes to change as an overall entity anyways? I suppose more to the point, is this a shift that can realistically be achieved?
These are very difficult questions to answer because we, as a society, trust parents to look out for the best interests of their children. However, when it comes to the parents of kidfluencers, we cannot help but wonder what they care about more: their children’s well-being or money? We think of children as belonging to their parents, so would it be wrong to require parents to ask for the consent of their child before putting them online. The question also arises of what consent looks like when it comes to children. Some of these kidfluencers can barely talk, can we expect them to know what consent is let alone give or withhold it? We would have to redefine consent; we would most likely have to broaden the definition. What happens when these children grow? Who does the money go to, the parents or the child? Is performing on YouTube having a negative psychological effect on kidfluencers? I guess we have to wait till they grow up to really know the answer to that question.