Child "Influencers" (Exploitation)

mariew said:
I decided not to get rage baited about the gfm fundraisers, and simply don't pay anything towards them. Fools and their money are easily parted, and if someone fancies giving money to some random punter on the internet then it's their choice. Luckily nothing to do with me! 😜
Click to expand...

I think that is true for adult GFMs. But this whole thread is about the exploitation of children. Clearly parents cannot be trusted with to self-police, the risks and harms are obvious, and so some regulation of monetized content involving children needs to be brought in to protect those children.
 
mariew said:
I decided not to get rage baited about the gfm fundraisers, and simply don't pay anything towards them. Fools and their money are easily parted, and if someone fancies giving money to some random punter on the internet then it's their choice. Luckily nothing to do with me! 😜
Click to expand...
I think for that GFM in particular it's not just about the GFM but that they only have that platform/audience/reach because they have exploited, and continue to exploit, their child. Otherwise they really would be some random punter on the internet.

Edit - cross posted with AE.

Ambers Echo said:
I agree we need to stop talking about specific children/accounts and address the wider principles.

UK child labour laws apply to TV, theatre and modelling. But they don't apply to Social Media. There is also a regulatory gap in the Online Safety Act as it does not cover user generated socuial media content. So chidlren fall through gaps in both sets of legislation.

That means:
  • no licensing
  • no limits on hours
  • no guarantee of earnings
  • no requirement for child consent.
  • privacy violations
  • exploitation
  • pressure to perform
  • impacts on education and family life.
  • abusive comments
  • Safeguarding risks where influencers can be accessed by the public

And probably loads more

There are already various people speaking out about it. So I'd look at what they are already saying/doing to raise the issue:
  • Chi Onwurah MP
  • Victoria Collins MP
  • DCMS Committee
Plus there is Dr Francis Rees - University of Essex and probably the most active person in this space as he leads the Child Influencer Project

Countries actively regulating the issue include France and some states in the USA.
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharing this - it's good to know that people in the UK are working on it.

I do my best to choose brands who do not engage with 'child influencer' content, not that me on my own makes much difference I'm sure. I stuck with Champion for my new riding hat as I think they came out specifically saying they would not be working with 'child influencers' in their advertising, and sent them a message to tell them so.

Naylors seem to be a fan of using 'child influencer' accounts in their advertising, including JwI and MG mentioned above. Also one of those 'family influencer' accounts but I can't remember the name.

MG was apparently working on the Smart Grooming Products stand at the NES (which sounded from bits I have read like it was a bit of an influencer circus anyway).
 
Legislation should be brought in that follows along the ilk of child modelling and acting. I don't know much but I think parents have to prove that most of the money goes into a child's bank account that they cannot use? How on earth you would police this though I have no idea, as parents are not companies with child working and protection policies
 
I can't find the other thread, so will write about the GFM here...

They've recently bought land, waiting to exchange. But it's just land. And they can't afford to do anything with it.

1. Why not buy less land, so there was enough money left to put in the infrastructure?
2. If it's just land, is it classed as agricultural land?
3. Have they applied for planning permission for change of use and the infrastructure they want before purchase? Most vendors wouldn't allow for this on bare land...
4. If the answers to 2 and 3 are yes and no respectively (which is the most likely scenario from how it's written), what happens to the donated money if planning is refused?
 
Although option 4, without rules and regulations why not exploit the public and make them pay for stables etc... it's shown to work time and time again. As long as left unregulated there is I guess no law against it.

Not that I disagree with you, it's kind of tongue in cheek. I presume they'll need planning unless it came with planning
 
PurpleSpots said:
I can't find the other thread, so will write about the GFM here...

They've recently bought land, waiting to exchange. But it's just land. And they can't afford to do anything with it.

1. Why not buy less land, so there was enough money left to put in the infrastructure?
2. If it's just land, is it classed as agricultural land?
3. Have they applied for planning permission for change of use and the infrastructure they want before purchase? Most vendors wouldn't allow for this on bare land...
4. If the answers to 2 and 3 are yes and no respectively (which is the most likely scenario from how it's written), what happens to the donated money if planning is refused?
Click to expand...

I’ve seen several comments asking these questions on their instagram page. They then seem to mysteriously disappear…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top