Using children to front online campaigns and youtube subscriptions

[Pino_Spetzberg]

Originally Posted by Bad Pink Tink

Remember how back in the 70's and 80's blackface and gollywok dolls were popular but now in 2019 they are racist and deeply offensive? Imagine if you applied for a job in 2019 and the potential employer Googled you and saw childhood photos of you in a school play with blackface?

See more...

Especially if you are their teacher and hope to stay as Canadian PM.
Like Justin Trudeau.

[Mel49]

Originally Posted by vowels

Unfortunately that 20 minute snippet takes a lot longer to film so infringes on their day.

What I cannot fathom is why put your child through the upset of bullies and trolls, indecent messaging?
Why put your child so freely on screen when it is obvious some are watching for disgusting reasons?

One would have thought money was not worth any of this.

See more...

I totally agree but they are obviously of the minsdet that the positives outweigh the negatives which in some cases it may do so. I'm sure for the thousands of families throughout the world that use it to spread their messages whether it be religion, homeschooling,veganism, positivity, to advertise toys or just life in general it must be worth it to them and not necessarliy on a financial level. Hopefully the changes that You Tube are in the process of making will help lessen the exploitation and put more safeguards in place.

[jas72]

Originally Posted by Mel49

They are showing a 20 minute snippet of their day and people watch like they used to watch a tv show. The Inghams and SacconeJoly for example obviously use some of the funds to send their kids to private schools and both have said they've made investments for their future to help with University etc and I suppose in a way part is used as a wage for parents for the "work" they carry out.

See more...

You should watch the SacconeJoly family with Stacey Dooley apparently it was the wife's channel before it became the family channel.

When you watch the wife you can see that she clearly thinks it's gone too far. Apparently her channel did very well, the husband seems very controlling and has monetised the channel quite successfully judging by their house.

However I think she would have been just as successful by herself as she really is down to earth watchable. I think if they take the kids out of the picture they could still make some cash.

[JAF]

Originally Posted by novocastrian

same kids probably get driven everywhere...

See more...

Had to laugh when I read Greta and co made a big show of sailing to a climate change conference which sounded very ‘climate aware’. Then I found out that someone else was flying out to take the boat back which seemed to defeat the object.

[Laura_<3]

Originally Posted by jas72

You should watch the SacconeJoly family with Stacey Dooley apparently it was the wife's channel before it became the family channel.

When you watch the wife you can see that she clearly thinks it's gone too far. Apparently her channel did very well, the husband seems very controlling and has monetised the channel quite successfully judging by their house.

However I think she would have been just as successful by herself as she really is down to earth watchable. I think if they take the kids out of the picture they could still make some cash.

See more...

I thought the husband, Jonathan was very rude to Stacey at the end of the show. He asked for her opinion and she gave it.

I used to watch their channel on and off until they filmed their miscarriage (actually at the hospital). That was just too far.

[400ixl]

As with all of these things, there are positive and negative examples.

There are examples where the children have an absolute passion about something and their parents aide them in achieving their goals, hopefully putting the guardrails in place and monitoring.

There are examples where the parent actually has little idea of what is even going on.

You then have the parents who will be pushing the child in the direction they want for gains which are not necessarily in the childs best interest.

Please don't tar them all with the same brush. What you may feel as out of a child's capability, could well be perfectly within in reality. Children are using computers before they can write these days. They understand what you tune is as early as they understand the concept of a television in some cases.

As for the younger generations digital footprint. The whole social geographic has changed for those born in an internet enabled world. They are far more willing to share within their social circle. They look at the world in the way of what do I get for sharing this information, do the positives outweigh the negatives in their eyes. That is a completely different approach to the generation before.

As for the golly wog example given, yes there are risks that what they post today will be seen differently in 30 years. But equally the weight of the information changes as well. If an employer saw a picture of a candidate for 30 years ago holding a golly wog would they see them as a racist is that is not not unacceptable. Of course not, context is used in that something that is no longer socially acceptable was then and this was a child at that point. If however there was a trend seen of racist comments or anything else that extended into adulthood, then of course alarm bells would ring. Life is all about context and adapting to change.

Lets all be vigilant for the bad examples, but embrace those who are doing positive things for both themselves and others.

If people enjoy making how to videos for minecraft and posting them online for others to consume, generating income thought advertising on that platform then good on them. Now if they are trying to exploit other minors to pay for subscriptions then they are potentially over stepping the line. But equally if the parents are not educating their own children on the dangers of the internet and what they feel is morally correct then they are also part of the problem. You can't shift that responsibility IMO.

[Tumpshies]

There are two halfs to this. If the money the channel makes goes into a savings account for the child then its a good benifit to it as long as the kid wants to do it. If parents are profiting from it then no. as a parent when my daughter tells me she wants to be a you tuber then im wholly against it