Trishna Inampudi ’28, Arts & Entertainment Staff Writer

Thumbnail from the channel “Not Enough Nelsons” titled
“We got into a CAR accident…”

In the vast sea of social media, we come across many different types of content. In a quick ten minute scroll through your TikTok For You Page, you can stumble upon both a heated political debate and a relatable comedy sketch. One genre particularly has surged in popularity: family content. In this niche, parents film themselves, and more importantly their children, while they encounter different milestones, activities, challenges, and even daily life. This type of content has been praised for its authenticity and educational qualities, providing kids with entertainment and parents with guidance, while still creating a family-friendly environment. 

However, while this content might initially seem completely harmless, there have been serious points of contention surrounding the ethics of these family channels. For one, many internet commentators argue that these children deserve to live their childhoods without a camera stuck in their face. Every aspect of these children’s lives is being revealed to an audience, even their most vulnerable or embarrassing moments. Imagine if, every time you got a timeout, bad grade, or went through a breakup, you had to give a debrief to more than a 100,000 people, including your closest friends and family. Furthermore, these children don’t get paid for their work, as there are no laws protecting their financial rights. Although these children may appear happy, they are often too young to consent to having their lives documented and may have trouble voicing their concerns. They don’t know any better and are just going along with what their parents tell them, while the parents are growing richer by the second.

Another controversial topic is the lengths parents will go through just for extra views or another brand deal. Once a child starts outgrowing its adorable baby phase, the parents may have another kid, and another, and another. Channels like the “Dougherty Dozen”, “Not Enough Nelsons”, and “The Norris Nuts” constantly adopt or birth kids so they can keep their business going even if their older children choose to leave. Having more children also allows parents to continue hooking in viewers with pregnancy related content. It comes to the point where they can neither emotionally nor financially care for all their children. With each additional child, parents’ salary and time gets divided more and more until each child is not living as comfortably as they could be. Not only are influencer families exploiting their children but they blur the line between children and workers. These children are essentially working 24/7, with their physical and emotional needs being disregarded. Families will force their children to bear terrible “pranks” to increase engagement. For example, in a video titled “WE GOT PAYBACK ON EVERLEIGH!!! (OUR FIRST TIME PRANKING HER)” by “The Labrant Family”, a five year-old Everleigh unknowingly gets purple paint poured on her while in the shower. She is visibly upset by the matter and starts screaming for her mother. Some channels take their exploitative measures too far, to the point where it’s a physical safety concern. A channel named “8 Passengers” was run by mother Ruby Franke, who was known for her strict parenting style and repeatedly abused her kids and posted about it online. She would take away her children’s “privileges” to eat dinner and sleep in their bed if they misbehaved. One of the children, after being tied up without food and water, ran to a neighbors house and begged for help, where then the police were called. Eventually, an investigation was held and the parents were arrested while the children were placed in the foster system.   

All in all, we should reflect on the family content we consume. While an Instagram Reel about a child’s first day of school might seem unimportant, there is always something going on behind the scenes. In the NA community, we should focus on our community commitments to helping those in need and being aware of the underlying dangers this content contains. Hileena Gelaye ‘28 says that “to a certain extent, if the children are comfortable and the parents need the income, it can be set up in a way that’s beneficial.” Myra Shivastrava ‘28, however, claims, “the parents should just get a job, and stop placing their financial needs on these unaware children.” Nicole Pevzner ‘28 takes a more nuanced perspective and states that, “when [the children] are babies, they don’t really understand the consequences … whereas at 14 or in their later teens, they understand the effects of their actions.” It’s important that we be the voice for these children when they can’t advocate for themselves. It could be speaking out and spreading awareness or even reporting an exploitative video you come across. We must fight for children’s right to consent to how their lives are showcased online as these children become more vulnerable to exploitation. Because if we aren’t willing to stand up for them, who will?