Pose for Mommy! [Kim 2019]


“If I’d ask you about that picture, would you be ok if I posted it?”

“Ummm, yes.”
“Oh really? So it’s actually about the asking not about the picture itself”
In the New York Times video on Sharenting, seven-year-old Lucy confronts her mother about her social media habits. She, along with the two other underage children showcased in the video, express their discomfort with their mothers’ sharing photos of them online without their consent. Some mothers, like sixteen-year-old Zoya’s, are defensive; “What is everybody so worried about?” she asks after Zoya confronts her about a picture she posted on social media of Zoya with sauce of her face. While, to Zoya’s mom’s credit, an embarrassing picture a parent posts of their child on social media may not mean the end of the world, the conversations that the New York Times highlights in this video fit into a larger discussion about children’s rights. Children are human beings who possess rights under the law; however, to a certain extent, they also treated as the property of their parents. It was not until 1989 when the United Nations adopted the Convention of the Rights of the Child when the rights of children were formally recognized. While it does not touch on topics of privacy, consent, or identity, with the prevalence of social media and the rapid development of technology, it might be time reconsider what rights a child is entitled to.
The right to privacy becomes much more complicated when applied to children. While it easy to argue that children have a right to privacy, for the first few years of their lives, children do not know what privacy is let alone the ability to protect it. In these cases, the responsibility is put on the parents to “protect” their children’s privacy. But, as this New York Times video shines a light on, many parents do not. Parents should get their children’s consent, but what happens when the children are not old enough to consent? While most parents may have good intentions, posting pictures of children online without their consent could be skewed as a form of exploitation. Article 36 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child protects against exploitation, stating “States Parties shall protect the child against all other forms of exploitation prejudicial to any aspects of the child's welfare”. With social media, the definition of exploitation has broadened since 1989. Over the past few years, 'family vloggers' have become increasingly popular on YouTube. YouTubers like AceFamily and ItsJudyTime post daily videos of their children online for millions of people to watch. While a mom posting a picture of her daughter on Facebook may not necessarily qualify as exploitation, a 'YouTube mom' posting a picture of her daughter holding up a sponsored product to earn money definitely does. We can say that children have the right to privacy, however, there is not much that can be done when children are under the guardianship of their parents. With pictures of children on social media, there is a fine line between protecting children’s rights and telling people how to parent. Although this topic of a child’s right to privacy is fairly new, it reminded me of the issue of paparazzi posting pictures of celebrity children online. In 2013, many high-profile celebrities, like Halle Berry and Jenifer Garner, testified in front California legislators, pleading for the protection of their children’s right to live in privacy. After years of petitioning, California finally passed a law preventing paparazzi from selling photos of celebrity children to tabloids and other news sites. While paparazzi may no longer be able to make money off of pictures of children, the children’s parents still can.
In Dave Eggers’ The Circle, Ty Gospodinov states, in “The Rights of Humans in the Digital Age” that humans “must all have the right to anonymity”. Does this statement apply to only apply adults or does it include children? While, instinctively, we may think "yes, of course”, realistically, how can we protect a child’s right to anonymity from their own parents?

Works Cited:
Eggers, Dave. The Circle. New York: Vintage Books, 2013. Print.
McGreevy, Patrick, and Melanie Mason. “New Law Restricts Paparazzi Access to Children of Celebrities.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 25 Sept. 2013, www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-xpm-2013-sep-25-la-me-ln-paparazzi-targeted-in-new-law-that-deals-with-kids-of-celebrities-20130925-story.html.
New York Times. “If You Didn’t ’Sharent’, Did You Even Parent?” New York Times, 7 August 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/07/opinion/parents-social-media.html.
The United Nations. “Convention on the Rights of the Child.” Treaty Series 1577 (1989): 3. Print.

Comments

Maggie said…
This post reminded me of Lin-Manuel Miranda and his wife Vanessa Nadal; they actually provide a more optimistic example to this topic. They recognize that with their high-status profiles, it's inevitable that they appear on online forums frequently. However, they actively work to protect their children from the same spotlights. Like all parents, they want to share stories, pictures, and videos of their two young boys because they're proud of them, but they've chosen to never show the faces of their children. Pictures and videos always exhibit either the back of the child's head or don't show the child at all (you can only hear their voice). Even though the child's face isn't shown, Miranda and Nadal are still able to post stories about what their child did/accomplished or show the world the funny thing they're doing without revealing how they look. I really admire their commitment to their children's privacy, and I think that they've found a very interesting (perhaps better) compromise to "sharenting."
Carrie Phillips said…
Given Jennifer Garner's involvement in the legislation that led to the law preventing paparazzi from selling photos of celebrity's children, I decided to visit her Instagram to see how her social media presence aligns with this activism. It did not take long at all to find a promotional post for "fresh baby food" featuring her and an infant (presumably her infant). She does not believe that paparazzi should profit off of photos of children, but it seems that she feels comfortable doing so. I'm sure her underlying belief is the one noted by Elaine - namely that parents protect children and know what's best for them. But when money enters the picture, it is no longer only about the child's interests. While I hope that more parents adopt social media methods that reflect those of Lin-Manuel Miranda and his wife, I am certain that generations growing up with screens, and sharing their lives on screens - particularly gen Z - will only continue sharing; their jobs, their partners, their children, and beyond. Such pervasive sharenting may only be curtailed by protections set in place through radical legislation that acknowledges the role of parents in exploiting children.
What are the capitalist dimensions of the sharenting discussion? Is it only problematic, or more problematic, to engage in sharenting if there is a monetary benefit for the parents as a result of their postings? Or, is all sharenting equal in its exploitative nature? I think that the capitalist dimensions certainly makes me more uncomfortable than the actions of someone who doesn't actively profit off of their children's labor, but is this a problematic view instilled by the idea that labor is only labor when it is materially compensated?
Eileen said…
Answering Toni's question on when parents using and posting images of their children is problematic, I don't think that it is only an issue when parents receive some sort of monetary or material compensation. In the sharenting video by New York Times, the parents there weren't posting pictures and videos of their children for money. I think it is safe to assume that they were sharing to just share, or at most brag about their great life as a parent. Nevertheless, all of the children in the video still did not want their photos uploaded, usually because they found them embarrassing. I think this leads to the question of what to do if peers or other minors in general post embarrassing photos of other minors in a context that wouldn't be considered bullying. For example, I don't give my consent to my friend to upload a terrible photo of me on my birthday, but I wouldn't do anything about it. I think these types of situations make this problem so nuanced, and therefore so difficult to create set policies and guidelines on how to act.