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…
 
What i dont get, (well I get none of this "imfluencer" bs) is why would you not give a hoot about safeguarding your child, but instead post videos of her, publicly, all over the Internet, which is the first place people with very bad intent and thoughts regarding children tend to look.... this is why it is so WRONG money is then given to them by the platforms, it needs to at the very least be "the subject of any videos receiving money must be over 18"

I sound really old but I hate this influencer generation and how these people are put on a platform for doing very little actual work, yet they probably rake in more than our armed forces/nurses/teachers etc

Someone on my fb is clearly trying to be one, keeps posting motivational posts with her smug face in selfies. Also trying to get her child monetised/talent spotted, recently we were "treated" to a video of said child scaling a pole on a moving shuttle bus, with people trying to go about their own journey around them. Apparently said child did this 9 times. How about telling your precious little angel that a) its dangerous and b) to be respectful of other passengers. But no lets allow it because it makes views

I will say that cream stallion of the parents of the child who are money grabbing for the stable yard, is an absolute saint, and if I was offered one like him its about the only thing that could tempt me back into horses!

Surely buying the land and the need for facilities should have been a consideration when buying it and how much it would cost to get suitable. Where they are currently looks to have a school etc

Oh wait maybe its because they may as well try using gullible mugs to fund it for them 🙄 12k has been raised so far. How about using some of the money she has earnt them by being exploited?

Clearly im doing things wrong maybe I need to start a gfm to fulfill my dreams - should I ask for a Ferrari, a new house, more ragdoll cats

Dont charities have to be regulated? About time gfms were.
 
They have said they are able to afford to build the stables, but funding through the GFM would mean they could afford it more quickly.

I find that particular family really disturbing. I think I've commented before. They offer subscriptions which includes having private conversations with the little girl, and having online gaming sessions with her as well. That's just not ok. I don't know why the parents think allowing adults individual access to their daughter is acceptable.
 
DressageCob said:
I find that particular family really disturbing. I think I've commented before. They offer subscriptions which includes having private conversations with the little girl, and having online gaming sessions with her as well. That's just not ok. I don't know why the parents think allowing adults individual access to their daughter is acceptable.
Click to expand...
This. It really is wholly irresponsible of the parents. If I were them I'd be asking myself serious questions about why people would be paying for access to a young girl. And the intentions of some of their followers. It's a dark and murky world out there and parents should be protecting their children as much as possible. Not selling them to the wolves.
 
DressageCob said:
They have said they are able to afford to build the stables, but funding through the GFM would mean they could afford it more quickly.

I find that particular family really disturbing. I think I've commented before. They offer subscriptions which includes having private conversations with the little girl, and having online gaming sessions with her as well. That's just not ok. I don't know why the parents think allowing adults individual access to their daughter is acceptable.
Click to expand...

If this was an inner city working class / ‘benefits’ type then I’d imagine social services would be all over it. Pink and ponies appears to not illicit the same reaction from SS. Double standards.
 
ihatework said:
If this was an inner city working class / ‘benefits’ type then I’d imagine social services would be all over it. Pink and ponies appears to not illicit the same reaction from SS. Double standards.
Click to expand...
I suspect it has nothing to do with perceived class but everything with the fact that it's kind of unregulated and uncharted territory
 
Matafleur said:
It's a dark and murky world out there and parents should be protecting their children as much as possible. Not selling them to the wolves.
Click to expand...

I must have missed the thing about the gaming...this is so incredibly worrying.
I'm seeing the negative impact of online gaming on so many children in so many schools. Quite apart from the fact that this stuff is designed to be addictive (and is very successful in that respect), online gaming with strangers is very risky territory. Parents will sometimes say they are listening in and monitoring but there are several issues - one is that adults (often masquerading as children) can say shocking things out of the blue and even if the parents end the session, the child has still heard it. But probably worse than that, some of these adults are very skilled in grooming and it can be subtle and innocuous enough to appear relatively harmless at the start.
I've just looked up the YouTube channel and they are taking between £5 and £13 every month from 'members' - the higher subscription rate enables access to the online gaming. 😲


i was pretty disgusted by the GFM; I know that people are saying 'it's up to people what they do with their money' but I hate the normalisation of what is essentially 'begging' for personal gain. Charities and emergencies are different, but here we have a couple of people who clearly want to build up wealth for themselves and are openly marketing their daughter in order to achieve that. And how much are they making from marketing their daughter as a business commodity via YouTube?

The fact that they are painting themselves as the saviours of British Showjumping is beyond belief.
But even if it were true, nothing can justify the exploitation of a child in this way.

One of my ex-pupils became a child actor in a well-known soap opera and stayed with the role into adulthood. At the time he went into professional acting his family received specialised advice on how to make sure that his life outside acting retained as much normality as possible; this was felt to be incredibly important as many children simply can't cope with the trappings of fame and many have ended up with severe mental health problems. In the case of this particular actor, it seemed to work OK, no doubt because his family knew what they had to do to shield him from the negative effects of fame. And yet here were have a couple who are doing the exact opposite. Shameful.
 
DressageCob said:
They have said they are able to afford to build the stables, but funding through the GFM would mean they could afford it more quickly.

I find that particular family really disturbing. I think I've commented before. They offer subscriptions which includes having private conversations with the little girl, and having online gaming sessions with her as well. That's just not ok. I don't know why the parents think allowing adults individual access to their daughter is acceptable.
Click to expand...
Particularly disturbing in the advent of AI. Who knows who their child is actually interacting with…
 
Nancykitt said:
I must have missed the thing about the gaming...this is so incredibly worrying.
I'm seeing the negative impact of online gaming on so many children in so many schools. Quite apart from the fact that this stuff is designed to be addictive (and is very successful in that respect), online gaming with strangers is very risky territory. Parents will sometimes say they are listening in and monitoring but there are several issues - one is that adults (often masquerading as children) can say shocking things out of the blue and even if the parents end the session, the child has still heard it. But probably worse than that, some of these adults are very skilled in grooming and it can be subtle and innocuous enough to appear relatively harmless at the start.


I've just looked up the YouTube channel and they are taking between £5 and £13 every month from 'members' - the higher subscription rate enables access to the online gaming. 😲


i was pretty disgusted by the GFM; I know that people are saying 'it's up to people what they do with their money' but I hate the normalisation of what is essentially 'begging' for personal gain. Charities and emergencies are different, but here we have a couple of people who clearly want to build up wealth for themselves and are openly marketing their daughter in order to achieve that. And how much are they making from marketing their daughter as a business commodity via YouTube?

The fact that they are painting themselves as the saviours of British Showjumping is beyond belief.
But even if it were true, nothing can justify the exploitation of a child in this way.

One of my ex-pupils became a child actor in a well-known soap opera and stayed with the role into adulthood. At the time he went into professional acting his family received specialised advice on how to make sure that his life outside acting retained as much normality as possible; this was felt to be incredibly important as many children simply can't cope with the trappings of fame and many have ended up with severe mental health problems. In the case of this particular actor, it seemed to work OK, no doubt because his family knew what they had to do to shield him from the negative effects of fame. And yet here were have a couple who are doing the exact opposite. Shameful.
Click to expand...

Its shocking how young children are being allowed to play games that are clearly not suitable for their ages, then the schools are being left to pick up the pieces with the resultant behaviour/language learnt from these games - Fortnite anyone?

The post above about allowing online conversations and gaming privately with the little girl in question is disgusting, I bet these people arent vetted for suitability, and are the parents in the room with her?

Schools have so many safeguarding protocols they need to adhere to then you have these people doing whatever the hell they like. Given the social media platforms are the ones used, should the safeguarding standards schools are expected to adhere to be forced onto them?

Also at schools, children are taught what to be aware of in terms of safeguarding. I dont follow the account in question, but does she attend school or is she homeschooled? If the latter, she's not going to have any awareness during these "private conversations" of any potential red flags leaving her extremely vulnerable
 
The fact they stated the chllds following was comparable to a premiership football club had me rolling my eyes! Honestly. Parents have the hide of a rhinoceros and some! They've always been the epitome of pushy parents. Some of the footage is terrible to watch. Poor child is destined for severe problems the way they are treating her. Truly appalling and I fail to understand why anyone on earth would give money to someone to build a yard! What morals and values is that teaching her?
 
paddy555 said:
just in case people would like to give. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: it's dreadful to see a child being deprived. :eek:


www.justgiving.com

Help raise £30000 to Build Ivy’s stable yard – JustGiving Crowdfunding

Iʼm raising money to Build Ivy’s stable yard. Support this JustGiving Crowdfunding Page.
www.justgiving.com
Click to expand...
I can’t believe over £12,000 has been donated! I posted about it on the things that annoy you thread when I saw it on facebook a few weeks ago because I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. Even more shocked now I’ve seen that they’ve raised so much.
 
I'd forgotten about the pay to game set up 🤢🤢. Who even pays to game with a child it's just so weird. My son is a similar age & not a hope in hell of hi being allowed online gaming.

When is she allowed to be a normal kid? If she plays games etc maybe she just wants to play alone or if she's allowed online play with her pals? It's actually all very sad.
 
wills_91 said:
I'd forgotten about the pay to game set up 🤢🤢. Who even pays to game with a child it's just so weird. My son is a similar age & not a hope in hell of hi being allowed online gaming.

When is she allowed to be a normal kid? If she plays games etc maybe she just wants to play alone or if she's allowed online play with her pals? It's actually all very sad.
Click to expand...
When does she get time with 9 ponies to ride!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top