Where’s that woodchipper? I’m thinking about sending a copy of “The New Face of Child Labor?” in The Harvard Gazette to child actor advocate Paul Petersen, but I’m afraid the essay will send him to a woodchipper too.
Leah Plunkett, the Meyer Research Lecturer on Law and a faculty associate at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center, is the author of the book “Sharenthood” (What a cute title! Yecchh!) warning of the risks of parents sharing their children’s lives online. She’s also the reporter for the Uniform Law Commission’s Child Digital Entertainers Act drafting committee. Hillary Robinson, an associate professor of law and sociology at Northeastern University School of Law, is the principal investigator on a National Science Foundation research project on the digital platform economy. Both have suddenly had a “Eureka!” moment and want to let the world know that putting one’s kids’ images and activities online for all to see forever might not be responsible parenting.
Ya think? Ethics Alarms has been beating that particular metaphorical drum repeatedly over more than a decade…Let’s see: here, here ( a guest post by Paul Petersen) , here, here, here, here, and here. Here’s the Harvard Gazette (in part) reporting on this sudden discovery as if the perpetual motion machine had finally been invented, beginning like this:
“A mother posts her toddler’s first steps on Instagram. Children gather around the kitchen counter to help their father make sourdough bread in a YouTube video. On TikTok, a young gymnast performs a backflip atop a balance beam. These intimate snapshots of family life may look spontaneous and wholesome, but they are also often the raw material of a $30 billion (or more) influencer industry — one in which children’s lives are packaged, promoted, and monetized, often by their own parents. When does sharing family life online become child labor — and what protections do children have when it does?”
My answers of long-standing: 1) Immediately, and 2) Ethics literacy, if the parents have any, and most don’t.
But those aren’t the two experts’ answers. They muse “whether a child being paid to play with a toy on camera should be regulated like manual labor in a factory,” pose “the alarming parallels between influencer culture and the adult entertainment industry,” and ponder “the real-world harms that can result when images and video of children are posted online — either by themselves or by adults.” Then—and here’s the path progressives follow as surely as night follows day, the two professors wonder “what what policymakers can do today to better protect kids.” They ask, “Does the platform economy upend one of contract law’s most basic assumptions? Traditionally, mutual assent precedes production. Online, however, people may create the product, generate its value, and expose themselves to its risks long before any contract — or meaningful consent — exists.”
Ugh. I answered those questions 16 years ago when PBS was peddling the child exploitation and abuse “reality show” “Kate and Jon plus 8.” That show’s EA dossier is here. The current social media abuse of children is the same social contagion, just on a different platform and a far more widespread infection. I was substantially guided in my posts by the genuine expert on the subject of show biz child labor exploitation Paul Petersen, my friend who was a famous child star himself.
I was just revisiting the Catholic church’s concept of “the age of reason,” which, when I was a kid, was age seven. It was the age at which a child would be old enough to sin. I wonder whether adults have long thought kids were morally competent as young as age seven.
Where did Shirley Temple stand on this issue?
Shirley was one of the proverbial exceptions that proved the rule. She was freakishly smart, and her parents were responsible and protective. They had a once-in-a millennium talent, she loved what she did, and it was the Depression, meaning that she could ensure a better childhood for herself and her family while so many were struggling. When she aged out of her moptop career and was trying to forge a new career as a teen, an MGM exec exposed his junk to her in an interview. Shirley’s mother blacklisted MGM from then on. Her autobiography is fascinating.
Unpaid child labor isn’t even the most unethical element. The invasion, the destruction of privacy has lifelong consequences. Digital culture is destroying the concept that there are moments and memories in your life that are precious or intimate that shouldn’t be shared with the world – only with those closest to you.
And there’s barely a mention by these so-called experts that criminals are using children’s images to target or to profit from them.
No study is needed – just common sense to tell you that putting your children’s lives online for all the world to see is risky business on multiple levels.
Question: you are a movie director, and want a movie that includes child characters. Examples: Home Alone, The Sixth Sense, Annie, and the type of movie that Shirley Temple played in. Is there an ethical way to do that, without AI and child characters played by actors over 18 years old?
No. (Paul disagrees. “Gotta have those kids, Jack.” was his answer when I proposed an industry ban.)
That is a very absolute statement, and has a consequence that certain types of films and TV programs cannot be made anymore. This includes many movies and TV programs (Walt Disney!!) that appeal to children, and require child characters to be believable. Little House on the Prairie, and other TV programs on which we all were raised.