Cut the Cameras: Exploring the online exploitation of children in recent years

Photo courtesy of The Office of Gavin Newsom

OPINION

On September 26, 2024, Governor Gavin Newsom of California signed legislation to protect child influencers from financial abuse. Prior to this, the Coogan law, put into effect in 1939 as a result of Jackie Coogan’s experiences with his mother and former manager, was the only thing protecting the assets of child actors in Hollywood. The law has since then been mended and requires that “15% of all minors’ earnings must be set aside in a blocked trust account commonly known as a Coogan Account” (Sag Aftra). These trust accounts are required mainly in states where many projects take place, such as California, New York, Illinois, Louisiana and New Mexico. However, this law only protects those employed as child actors, meaning young content creators and influencers are not included in the mix. For a while, there were a lot of grey areas as to whether or not children should be protected under the law and was social media a stable enough career to even go through the trouble of creating a policy. 

The conversation surrounding the exploitation of children, whether financial or not, has been a long-withstanding topic in the entertainment industry. The rise of social media has only exacerbated these discussions and posed a whole new set of questions and challenges. As we continue to see a rise in family vloggers (as well as allegations against them), it is more and more crucial to see legislation like this being put into place. 

Are ALL family vloggers exploitative? Where do we draw the line?

I believe that if the children are the main focus on the content, it is exploitative. If the content was mainly surrounding the parents’ lives as they go about their day and what they do as a parent then it is not exploitative but the moment the kids are the ones generating the content and bringing in the views, it goes into a grey area.

Can kids give consent to being online?

With social media being so prevalent in society today, there are so many kids we see grow up on camera, literally on their mom’s youtube page. From the moment they are born, every second of their lives has been documented—and you know what they say about the internet, nothing ever disappears. While it is clear that a baby can certainly not consent to be shown on the internet, it gets tricky when we talk about slightly older children, like tweens and teenagers. They are old enough to know about consent and what it means to be on the internet, however, many of them do not have the maturity or the full understanding of the implications and consequences that come with fame and online activity. Demi Lovato, who helped champion the bills mentioned above, recently came out with a new documentary, titled “Child Star”, featuring conversations between former child stars about their experiences with stardom and most notably, how and why they got started in the industry. Many interviewees cited former child stars such as Shirley Temple, as their inspiration to wanting to be a performer. Lovato mentions that often its the child who wants to go into the business, having seen all the glitz and glam that comes with fame but it is clear that a child’s brain is not able to fully grasp what it means to be famous—both developmentally and because of its positively exaggerated portrayals on social media. 

Nowadays, even if the kids themselves want to be famous and are creating their own content without external pressure, it can still be viewed as neglect if the parents are not being proactive about how the child is interacting with their audience and what kind of content is being put out there. 

An important goal of the new legislation is that it will force parents to have these types of conversations with their children about what being famous really means—what consequences it could potentially have for their future.