Illustration of a smartphone turning a child’s private playtime into commercial online content
|

Child Influencers: When Childhood Becomes Someone Else’s Business

ByChildren of the Digital Age

Child influencers raise an uncomfortable question about online safety. What happens when the adult responsible for protecting a child also benefits financially from exposing that child? We teach children to protect their privacy, recognise pressure and say no, yet those lessons become difficult to defend when adults turn childhood into a public performance.

A Harvard Law Today article, published on 16 October 2026, explores this tension through a conversation with legal scholars Leah Plunkett and Hilary Robinson. Their discussion examines the blurred boundary between family life and commercial production, alongside gaps in protection for children appearing online. It provides a timely starting point for a wider debate about digital child labour.

Collectively we need to examine the behaviour behind the camera. A smiling child tells us little about who controls filming, publication or more importantly the money. The important questions concern the child’s freedom, dignity and ability to stop.

When family sharing becomes digital child labour

We need to distinguish occasional family sharing from sustained commercial activity. A photograph sent to grandparents differs from a child repeatedly performing for sponsorships, advertising income or product promotions. Equally, a young person’s creative project deserves consideration on its own terms. The circumstances matter more than the label attached to the account.

UNICEF’s briefing, New Frontiers in Child Labour, identifies monetised content creation as an area requiring scrutiny. It explains that influencer activity may constitute child labour where demands interfere with schooling or exposure harms development. Limited freedom to refuse participation is another important consideration. This is a framework for assessing conditions, rather than declaring every child’s online appearance exploitative.

Therefore, we should ask practical questions. Does filming interrupt homework, friendships, or rest? Must a child repeat a reaction until an adult considers it marketable? If participation serves someone else’s commercial commitments, calling it family fun does not settle the issue.

A child’s agreement needs more than a smile

Parents routinely make decisions for children, including decisions about photographs. However, agreeing to a recording and understanding worldwide publication are different matters. A child may enjoy making a video without understanding its commercial purpose. They may also change their mind after classmates discover it.

Ireland’s Data Protection Commission advises parents to discuss sharing with children and seek consent where they can understand the implications. For younger children, it recommends considering how they might feel about the disclosure when older. Its central reminder is straightforward: parents are sharing the child’s personal data.

The practical test here is whether refusal changes anything. Can the child decline without guilt, bargaining or punishment? Will the adult stop when a child becomes uncomfortable? Where saying no threatens family income, we should question how freely that agreement operates.

When affection becomes a performance target

Consider a hypothetical family whose videos attract attention whenever their child cries, looks frightened or reveals something personal. Adults may begin requesting similar moments because those clips perform well. Over time, comforting the child could compete with capturing the reaction. That conflict deserves attention before it becomes routine.

From a cyberpsychology perspective, I would be concerned about the messages this arrangement teaches. Does a child begin associating approval with audience attention? Do they feel responsible for keeping viewers interested? These are safeguarding questions, not a diagnosis of every child appearing online.

An emerging 2026 research preprint examining engagement in the child influencer economy audited 5,051 videos across 79 channels. Researchers reported associations between higher engagement and signals including emotional bait and privacy violations. However, the work uses automated assessments and does not establish that particular content caused abuse or psychological harm. I regard it as a warning signal requiring further investigation.

Public attention does not guarantee a safe audience

Another concern is the assumption that followers appreciate children in the way their parents intend. Public content can reach audiences with very different motivations. An account’s popularity does not establish the safety of those watching. Nor does a friendly comment establish a trustworthy relationship.

A 2024 research paper examining children’s exposure on TikTok analysed 5,896 videos and 432,178 comments from 115 accounts featuring children. Around 21% of comments concerned appearance. Videos showing more revealing clothing attracted more appearance related comments and likes than fully clothed examples. Those findings describe the selected sample, not every account or viewer, and do not prove that all such comments were predatory.

Nevertheless, I would challenge any business model that treats audience growth as sufficient evidence of success. Adults should assess unwanted attention, identifying details and the child’s experience. The question is whether visibility serves that child’s interests.

AI makes the privacy decision more consequential

Artificial intelligence adds another reason to reconsider public exposure. In July 2026, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner warned that ordinary school photographs can be altered or sexualised without consent. Identifying school details can also make fabricated material appear more convincing. This concern extends beyond professionally produced influencer content.

France’s data protection authority, CNIL, also warns that photographs of clothed children can be manipulated into abusive imagery. It strongly advises against sharing children’s photographs or videos on social networks, particularly through public profiles. Its guidance favours more restricted methods of sharing with trusted people.

This does not make parents responsible for an offender’s actions. Responsibility belongs to those creating and distributing abuse, alongside the duties of relevant services. However, it does change the information adults should consider before publishing. Families can explore these wider concerns through our AI Safety Settings resources.

Protecting earnings cannot replace protecting childhood

Financial safeguards represent an important part of the response. California’s government announced two relevant laws in September 2024. SB 764 introduced protections requiring qualifying family content creators to reserve a share of earnings for featured minors. AB 1880 extended existing Coogan protections to minors employed as online content creators. These are distinct arrangements with their own scope.

However, I would resist treating a protected bank account as proof of a protected childhood. Money cannot restore privacy after an intimate disclosure. Neither can future earnings compensate automatically for missed friendships, persistent embarrassment or pressure to remain publicly available. A fair financial arrangement answers only part of the safeguarding question.

We should therefore assess payment alongside conditions. How much filming takes place, what information appears and who can stop production all matter. A child deserves protection during participation, rather than discovering their rights only when they become old enough to challenge adults.

Children have rights within their own families

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child offers a useful foundation. Article 12 concerns children’s views, while Article 16 protects privacy. Article 31 recognises rest and play, and Article 32 addresses economic exploitation and harmful work. Together, these principles help us examine what commercial exposure demands from children.

France has also taken legislative action on children’s image rights. The European Commission’s Better Internet for Kids service describes France’s 2024 law as strengthening protection against harmful exposure and allowing court intervention where image rights face risk. That example demonstrates a policy direction, rather than an automatic rule for Irish families.

My position is that parental authority carries responsibility towards the child’s developing independence. It should not provide unlimited permission to commercialise private experiences. Children need room to grow beyond the identity adults create for an audience.

Supporting parents without exposing their children

Parents sometimes share difficult experiences to find understanding, particularly around disability, illness or additional support needs. Those conversations can have value, and adults deserve places to seek help. However, I believe we should distinguish describing our own challenges from publishing a child’s most vulnerable moments. The need for support does not remove the need for boundaries.

For example, an adult can discuss struggling with school services without identifying a child’s diagnosis, showing distress, or recording intimate care. They can seek advice privately and consider what details a professional actually needs. Before posting publicly, I would ask whose story is being told and who might carry the consequences. A child’s future perspective deserves space within that decision.

The same principle applies when children become older and want to change direction. Adults should help them reconsider past content without demanding gratitude for the opportunities it created. Removing an original post may not recover every copy, but that is no reason to ignore a request. Respect means responding to changing wishes, even when an account has already built an audience around earlier disclosures.

Platforms and brands belong in this conversation

Focusing entirely on individual parents leaves other commercial actors outside the frame. Brands commission promotions, agencies negotiate arrangements and platforms distribute content. I believe each should demonstrate how its practices protect participating children. A family’s willingness to cooperate should never substitute for safeguarding checks.

This concern has a substantial policy history. In May 2022, a UK parliamentary committee called for stronger protections for child influencers. Its recommendations included safeguards for earnings, working conditions and erasure. These were recommendations, and should not be mistaken for a statement of current Irish or British law.

In my view, responsible commissioning should involve documented limits, independent welfare oversight and a credible route for children to raise concerns. Platforms should also explain how children can challenge monetised material featuring them. Responsibility should follow the commercial relationship, rather than stopping at the parent’s account.

Ireland needs a broader safeguarding discussion

Ireland should approach child influencers through privacy, development, education and working conditions together. Treating the issue solely as a social media settings problem misses the adult decisions involved. A private account may reduce exposure, but it cannot resolve pressure during filming. Similarly, a sponsorship disclosure tells viewers little about a child’s welfare.

Research associated with the University of Essex’s Child Influencer Project provides a useful perspective. Its safeguarding work draws on research across the UK and Ireland and identifies risks spanning finance, education, health and safety, family, identity and dignity. That breadth matters because the same activity can affect several parts of a child’s life.

I would like an Irish discussion involving children themselves, alongside safeguarding, employment and privacy specialists. Any response should distinguish manageable creative participation from coercive or harmful arrangements. It must also recognise that adults can have competing interests even when they love their children.

What parents can change today

Start by reviewing existing posts alongside your child, where appropriate. Ask what they dislike, what reveals too much and what they would prefer removed. Listen without defending the effort that went into making the content. A request for privacy should lead to practical action.

The Data Protection Commission recommends limiting audiences and checking photographs for identifying information, including location clues and school identifiers. It also encourages parents to consider the sensitivity of disclosures about health and education. These are useful steps for ordinary sharing as well as larger public accounts.

For commercial activity, I recommend a separate welfare review before accepting another commitment. Keep private distress, discipline and intimate care away from production. Establish clear limits around school, rest and friendships, and obtain appropriate independent advice about earnings and obligations. Above all, make stopping a real option.

Children deserve a life beyond the camera

Online creativity can offer enjoyment, skills and opportunities. However, adults should be able to explain how a particular arrangement benefits the participating child. That explanation needs more substance than follower numbers, positive comments or a promise of future income. It should begin with the child’s daily experience.

At Children of the Digital Age, I believe our advice must apply to adults as consistently as it applies to children. If we teach respect for consent, our own publishing habits should demonstrate it. If we teach privacy, we must protect information that belongs to someone else.

Before recording another moment, ask whether the child would choose to share it without adult expectations or commercial pressure. Then consider whether the same purpose could be achieved without identifying them. Children deserve affection, opportunity and recognition without having to make their private lives available to strangers.

Further reading

Explore our Resources for Parents for practical guidance on privacy, account security and family conversations.

Our AI Safety Settings section also examines privacy, harmful content and emerging concerns involving artificial intelligence.

To review audiences, contact controls and account privacy, visit our Social Media Safety Settings guides.

References

All references below are also linked at the relevant point in the article.

About Children of the Digital Age

Children of the Digital Age provides online safety education and training for schools, parents and organisations. Our guides support practical conversations about online behaviour and the choices people make. However, education and app settings do not replace safeguarding or professional support.

Send a message

Contact Children of the Digital Age to enquire about online safety education, parent sessions or training for your school or organisation.

    Similar Posts

    Leave a Reply

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.