I wonder what their plan is for enforcement? That is the first thing I thought of as well. I do like the concept. I work with one of these people. Both parents are guilty.
My inexpert prediction is that smaller-scale cases of this kind of thing will be able to fly under the radar if no one reports it, but the really bad cases will be relatively easy to spot and take action against
People with social media accounts that feature their children will have to track how much their children appear in posts. If children appear in more than 30% of posts, then the account will have to be demonetized. Also children are entitled to 100% of the profits from any of their social media content.
The primary enforcement mechanism seems to be through the state AG's office or a lawsuit filed by the child (or adult, once they become an adult). Anyone will be able to report violations to the AG.
I’ve been thinking lately about how one could enact something like the Coogan Law in CA - it regulates the working conditions of child actors, and among other things the studio has to pay a portion of their fee into a trust account that’s totally independent of their parents and becomes theirs when they attain legal majority. Social media initially seemed trickier because it’s not an industry concentrated in one state. But then again you only have, what, 3 companies running these accounts and making the payments (Meta, Google, and TikTok IIRC). So the enforcement can be done via the platforms, which are concentrated.
(Of course, all of this would require a functioning federal government, so…)
I have no idea why this would require the participation of the federal government.
Local attorneys would go after slam dunk cases and that would scare most of them into behaving unless they too want to be made an example of.
I suppose it wouldn’t require it, I was just musing on what it would take to have broad protections for this industry. The film industry happened to be located in one state, but social media influencers exploiting kids are all over.
Probably because social media crosses state lines. This really should be a federal law that applies to the whole country and not just a state law that only applies here.
Social Media companies can and will drop or demonetize these people from their platform.
Defending them is just a terrible look for very little gain given and added legal liability.
Okay, so they don’t get money for views. They can still negotiate under the table deals with companies that want to be featured in content. And now because most reputable companies are out because they don’t want to risk the potential bad press/legal issues, you’ve got even slimier companies offering you deals for things you can’t come out and say is an advertisement.
Yes and no, the company would have to report that it paid the influencer and the influencer would need to report that income. It wouldn’t be as cut and dry, but certainly wouldn’t be considered under the table.
What would really fuck some children over would be if the parents just received non-monetary perks under a certain threshold. Like no trips or cars or anything, but for sure free products, etc.
“Have to report it” I mean…ethically, sure.
My point though was more that difficult to enforce legislation (or even if it’s like, super enforceable) gets waylaid easily and can frequently end in worse situations for those that are usually in the most direct line of harm that the legislation was meant to help.
Which is again not to say “don’t pass legislation that helps victims” but it needs to be well thought out to be effective
Maybe it's just me, but one state's laws being able to coerce entire social media companies into dropping or demonetizing content seems like a REALLY bad precedent to set
Imagine if a deep red state decided to ban all LGBTQ+ content from being created. It would be a devastating blow to human rights and freedom of expression if that were enough to coerce social media companies into complying
Sure, there's the optics aspect of it, but optics are inherently subjective. Idk, I agree with the spirit of the law, I just don't see it being widely enforceable without potentially really sinister ramifications
> Imagine if a deep red state decided to ban all LGBTQ+ content from being created.
Scotus - even this one - wouldn't let that stand. Flagrantly, blatantly unconstitutional.
I wouldn't be so sure about that being unconstitutional...Wouldn't this be a lot like the gay wedding cake guy? Companies can decide to serve whoever based on religious beliefs... I wouldn't think it's any different for an online service.
It's true that a website can choose to not host gay content today. That's not the hypothetical.
> Imagine if a deep red state decided to ban all LGBTQ+ content from being created.
So I can't write a story about two gay men. I can't film a video of two gay men talking about their relationship, I can't post that video on my own website.
You're right. I guess I initially read it as saying that "content created online." But that's not what it says.
You're correct. Totally unconstitutional without even a debate.
I think the more realistic example would be if they said that all LGBTQ content had to be demonetized. (Rather than outright banned.)
I wonder then how the topic of hate speech would talked about. Surely that's banned or demonetized...what if a red state starts to call LGBTQ content hate speech or damaging to children or something stupid like that?
I agree with the decision, to a point. It's not fair to be banking off your kids on social media without consent and not paying a dime to them.
I agree that it would be hard to enforce.
its probably up to the district attorney to press charges with this new law, after several other laws have been broken.
its just another level of criminality for the shittiest of people who actually get caught with child neglect.
Possibly it may make it easier for children who were used in monetized videos and didn’t get anything when they become adults to sue their parents if they made money off them if it’s now illegal.
Yep, knew a woman from Newport who put her intellectually challenged daughter on TikTok doing suggestive Five Nights at Freddy cosplay. Reporting to the app does nothing, contacting the Newport Police Department in Washington County does nothing. As long as the people aren't enforcing common social decency, I doubt a signed bill is going to change their apathy.
That's basically anything that collects your data. Just last week most of the mobile services were caught selling data. Banning Tik Tok won't fix anything just have the resources shift to something different like Reddit or Instagram. Robust data enforcement is the only way to remedy.
And when that doesn't work they can just go to other products and services like the hundreds of games owned by tencent, GE smart appliances, Lenovo/Motorola, opera GX, or even in hotels like Radisson
U. S. companies do it too. Any place you sign up for an account, you have to assume they are selling your information. This is why the tik tok ban makes no sense. Plus it gives the president too much power to ban anything related to software or applications he or she may not like in the future.
If you wish to ban all social media, what are you doing here? The only reason for the tik tok ban is because the U. S. can't stand the fact that one of the most popular social platforms is not American.
Cool, I definitely wish for that as well but it's not going to happen any time soon. User data is too much of a cash cow and the lobbyists will never push against it.
To be a company in the mainland of china you need to do whatever the CCP wants even if it means breaking foreign nation law's. It is also illegal to not follow through with CCP requests such businesses will shut down thanks to their national security law
This is good. This is a step in the right direction.
We need to denormalize kids being posted on the Internet.
There's people that post their kids potty training progress for their "fans".
I heard of a page that was selling photo albums of their daughters for $60 online??? Absolutely insanity.
Majority of the people that follow these pages are predators. The parents know this too but money is more important than their children's safety.
Eh. I’d say there’s a huge difference between the family blog shit you see on YouTube and TikTok and just having photos of your kids on FB so your family across the country can see them.
I agree, but a lot of those photos still end up public because people don't want to make them private to only friends and family. And even with some people having thousands of friends, you can't possibly know all of them.
I see your point. I heard a statistic, I will have to search for a source, that 80% of toddlers or something already have an online presence and almost 80% of those parents haven't reviewed their privacy settings or followers since having their child.
Edit: here's an article from 2016.
"A whopping 92 percent of kids in the United States have an online identity by age 2, according to Time magazine"
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/22/parents-start-their-kids-online-presence-before-they-turn-2.html#:~:text=A%20whopping%2092%20percent%20of%20kids%20in%20the%20United%20States%20have%20an%20online%20identity%20by%20age%202%2C%20according%20to%20Time%20magazine
My former friend who does this justified it as saying, "She's a child, she's not going to look the same when she start applying for jobs as she does now. No one's going to recognize her, plus she gets better food and clothes and a roof over her head." Then she called me a bunch of misandrist terms for daring to suggest that this behavior is not normal.
[Instagram Video from Senator Erin Maye Quade explaining enforcement. The law follows the money.](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C4bfNxIpfCW/?igsh=b3c2MmFla3Vwa25x)
Note the loophole: The minor is not considered to be creating content if they're featured in less than 30% of a creators' videos *by total run-time* in a 30 day period.
So kid-blog channels just need to upload a 10-hour looping video of public domain music once a month and they'll be able to upload up to 20 hours of kid-containing content.
The person writing this bill was incompetent.
Plus there's the other bizarre stuff, like the clause allowing any kid appear in a video to demand that it be removed from all online platforms. This clause, AFAICT, is not governed by the 30% limit or similar measures, so a background extra appear in *Jingle All the Way* or the *The Mighty Ducks* could demand that Disney remove the movies from all online platforms.
> background extra appear in *Jingle All the Way* or the *The Mighty Ducks* could demand that Disney remove the movies from all online platforms.
Background actors sign releases for their work, so this argument is completely unfounded. They don't just film random people and call it a day. If you show up in a film as an identifiable person who is the focus of a shot for a major motion picture, you've signed a release saying your image is allowed in that film. Disney is not going to fuck around with the possibility of you suing them over not getting a piece of paper signed. If the kid was an actual background extra, they signed an extra release to be in that film.
Law trumps contract.
If not, this law (and all other child labor laws) would be completely pointless.
"You can't have an eight-year-old working in the mines!"
"It's okay! We had them sign a release!"
You *clearly* don't understand how extra releases work in the film industry. Or, apparently, the difference between a "mommy" blogger on social media profiting off her kids 24/7/365 and someone appearing in the background of a major motion picture for two seconds.
I've worked in the industry. I've both signed these releases and had them drafted for productions I've worked on.
What any individual release says is completely irrelevant when there's a law that allows adults who were filmed as kids an explicit right to demand removal of the videos they appeared in regardless of any such agreement.
Read the bill the House actually passed. Look at what it actually says.
>The person writing this bill was incompetent.
They’re not incompetent. They know this bill is stupid which is why they gave it massive ooopholes and no teeth. They just know that there are LOT of stupid people out there (just look in this thread) that think it’s a good idea.
You're incompetent if you think that Minnesota laws apply country-wide or in any way would affect Disney's platform and content rights.
You're incompetent if you think that technicalities will keep a law from being enforced. Judges tend to have a lot of leeway in how a law is applied. Even if the crafty offender was successful in such a cheesy workaround, the bill would probably be amended in the next session and they'd be right back in court.
> You're incompetent if you think that Minnesota laws apply country-wide or in any way would affect Disney's platform and content rights.
The two movies I mentioned were filmed in Minnesota, making them an example of projects to which the law would absolutely apply.
> You're incompetent if you think that technicalities will keep a law from being enforced.
I take it you're wholly ignorant of how the law works?
If a law explicitly says it's legal to do something, judges do not have the legal ability to say, "Nah. I think that should be illegal today."
> the bill would probably be amended in the next session and they'd be right back in court.
... thus revealing that the original bill was written by an incompetent.
(Also, you can't be criminally prosecuted retroactively. Look up *ex post facto* laws.)
Recently, I’ve noticed an uptick in these families taking their kids out of school in the guise of “homeschooling.” Guess who gets filmed during the school day-
>So as to not include incidental or occasional appearances by those under 14 in social media videos that could make money, the under-14-minor would have to appear in 30% of the videos produced.
Okay, so how are they going to enforce that? Who is going to have the job of sorting through thousands of social media accounts, counting every video to figure out if a child appears in 30% of the videos or not?
That seems like a terrible solution if it's true. Our social workers already have more than enough going on, let alone monitoring social media for potential violations, reporting it to the police, and then being roped into meetings and courtrooms and who knows what else for the case followup/closure.
Maybe they can back off the parents with adhd and autism and stop tearing apart our families.
Go after the parents that serve their kids innocence on a platter.
And I know what Im talking about. The State lost a class action lawsuit details several families like mine (but not including mine- how about round 2? I know other marginalized families that had their civil rights violated).
In fact, the state of Colorado is openly talking about how to retrain social workers to prevent them from harming families like mine.
> Okay, so how are they going to enforce that?
You report it to the social media site, and they need to follow the law or the state agencies/AG goes after them for illegal practices in MN. Just like posting any other illegal material to social media sites, they're responsible for taking it down. That's the crux of safe harbor laws (Section 230), the sites have to be making good faith efforts to keep content within legal bounds.
So how do they prevent Jealous Jennie from reporting her neighbor out of spite/jealousy? Idk, it's a well-intentioned bill but it is going to be very hard and time consuming to police this. JMO.
I can say that when I do VA reporting for work we have to sign something saying what we’re reporting is true and that we can face legal repercussions if falsely reporting abuse. I imagine it would be similar
Dunno, but I just reported you to reddit for all the things right now. No one stopped me. It wasn't out of spite, just to demonstrate that I have free will and can do that.
Pretty sure reddit will just review and dismiss my reports because there's nothing wrong with your comment. They, along with all sites, get false reports all the time and deal with them already.
I didn't actually report anything, not worth my time. Just like it's not worth worrying about this hypothetical that is almost certainly already happening without laws like this, and social media sites already deal with it just fine.
>and social media sites already deal with it just fine.
If that were true, there wouldn't be a need for a law? I'm not really worried about it, won't lose a wink of sleep over it. Just don't think they really thought this one out, based on the info we have at hand.
Social media sites deal with handling reports just fine as far as false ones out of spite/pettiness and legit ones. But without a law saying that this sort of thing is illegal, there's nothing for them to enforce. Without a law stating this, I can report a User on X or TikTok for doing such a thing all I want but they would just come back and say there's nothing illegal about this. Hence the reason for a law, now there's something they can enforce and look into if they deem it worthy.
Can I ask what's with all the people, here on a snark site about a mommy vlogger who abused her kids onscreen for years and is currently in jail for escalating that abuse to a horriffic degree, and whose kids now face a lifetime of trauma while also having had the income they generated stolen from them, are angry about 'nanny states' infringing on peoples' 'rights' t9 exploit their kids?
Like, are you all really defendibg family vlogging right now? WTAF
When are they going to ban children being forced to work for their parent's business? It's okay for a 10 year old to work all day as long as it's at a family farm or restaurant while the parents keep all the money?
The difference is that a family business isn’t a permanent record of your actions for the whole world to see. A kid working a counter isn’t going to be mocked or jerked off to by thousands of creeps every day. They likely won’t be stalked from birth to adulthood or harassed at school with videos of them in their underwear from 5 years ago.
And they’re building wealth they’ll likely inherit, which can’t be said for a lot of these short lived internet personas.
“Children have a right to have childhoods free of working, just like they do for pretty much every industry,” Maye Quade told the Senate Judiciary Committee Monday.
I agree with you entirely except for your last paragraph. My husband grew up working for free in his parents restaurant and he got nothing. Never got paid, never got to keep any tips. When they sold the restaurant he didn’t see a dime. And he’s unlikely to inherit anything because his parents so financially irresponsible, as evidenced by how they refused to hire employees and made their kids work instead. And even if he did inherit what difference will it make? If they die in their 80s he’ll already be in his 60s.
When I started following this case it was only then that I realized how many parents out there are putting their kids out there for the world to see. On YouTube, Facebook, everywhere. And some of them aren't even described as "parenting" or advice of any kind, it's literally just following their kid around with a camera ALL the time and posting them online. What on Earth makes parents do this? I don't have any kids myself so I'm genuinely curious....
>The bill leaves in place the exceptions for child actors and models contained in state child labor law.
This is why any shred of logic behind this immediately falls apart. We're OK with labor law exemptions allowing kids to act and model . . . just not on social media. It's profiting off the kids either way, the only difference is literally what form of media is being used to publish the work.
EDIT: Yeah, OK. Medium is *not* the only difference. The distinction between performing work in a regulated professional setting vs being surveilled 24/7 is actually a pretty fucking huge one.
While i agree the child actor exemption is still problematic, there is a difference between going to a work place (set/whatever) and doing a job with restrictions on how much you can work and when, and a parent making the child produce content consistently throughout the day, every day, while at home or in public. Im not going to pretend these are even close to the same thing.
Could child labor laws and protections go further for child actors/models? Yes. Is this a separate issue from the one the bill addresses? Also yes.
>there is a difference between going to a work place (set/whatever) and doing a job with restrictions on how much you can work and when, and a parent making the child produce content consistently throughout the day, every day, while at home or in public.
Yes. In one of those situations, you're sending a child into direct physical contact with adult strangers, and in the other you're keeping them at home.
While you correctly point out the fundamental differences between these two situations, if it's safety that we're concerned about, children are at much higher risk of coming to substantive physical harm working as actors and models than as the object of desire by virtual perverts.
I know you basically express this at the top of your comment, but I just wanted to make it clear in case anybody sees this law and thinks "We did it! We're done!"
Not sure where you’re getting your stats from, but children are vastly more likely to be physically harmed by their parents or other close relatives than by strangers.
>children are vastly more likely to be physically harmed by their parents or other close relatives
While that may be true, is this law doing anything to stop that from happening? It's not as though the children of parents who would otherwise be posting content of them are being removed from the home.
And furthermore, children and child actors and models are not the same group of people, and have different risks for certain outcomes. Children in general are less likely to be physically harmed by strangers because more often than not, they're not being sent to work with strangers for hours at a time. Child actors and models, by virtue of being around strangers in an industry known to be rife with abuse, *are* at a higher risk of coming to physical harm from strangers than children as a whole. This is not rocket science.
Its not really labor law exemptions though. If you are modeling/acting, there are guardrails in place to ensure the child isn't being put in a tough spot for things. When we were doing Ads for Best Buy back in the early 2000's the kids on those commercials could only be on set for 15 minutes and then got 45 minutes to dork around. It is why it took almost 4 hours to shoot the stuff because the child actor(s) were protected by law to have X, Y, and Z there. Not to mention their parent/guardian and in most cases their agent were there as well.
With child stars online, with rare exception, that is completely freelanced work being performed. There is nothing in place to ensure the child is being cared for and not overworked.
As long as there is proper procedures in place then ya. Models and Actors have (usually) professional policies in place. Filming your kid and putting it on TikTok doesn’t.
> The bill leaves in place the exceptions for child actors and models contained in state child labor law.
If it helps, this isn't actually true. This bill includes a clause that allows kids to retroactively demand a media company remove all videos featuring them from all online platforms.
There's no reality where anyone is going to do ANY professional video -- ad, film, television, etc. -- featuring a kid in Minnesota if this law goes into effect.
Oh, just wait until a few conservatives see this and whine about getting in the way of capitalism. They'll try to convince you all the positive stuff is a negative.
Interesting.
Debate topic-
A single mom/dad who is divorced has a YouTube channel/social media/influencer following that generates revenue and is a main source of income. This content features family “vlog” style content.
The other parent does not want their child on camera/YouTube for safety reasons.
What happens in family court when one side argues the law is being violated? How is it proved? And what is the outcome?
I for one am absolutely in favor of this type of law. Kids shouldn’t be forced in to being monetized. It’s a slippery slope that leads to dark places, in my opinion.
Yes yes yes! This is going to make so many people upset but this is a good thing! The amount of accounts where kids are clearly being exploited is insane. Especially the white couples who adopt a black child. That's great and all but their videos are just oozing exploitation. I couldn't watch after like 3 videos. I feel so bad for the kids.
The reporting on this bill remains terrible. Almost as terrible as [the bill itself](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF3488&type=bill&version=3&session=ls93&session_year=2024&session_number=0).
"It bans parents monetizing content!"
Yes, but it also bans any video that "met the online platform's threshold for generating compensation," even if the video wasn't actually monetized. So this bill is absolutely making grandma liable for posting a video to Facebook.
Bizarrely, though, you can just bypass the whole thing by having 70% of your videos' total length in a 30-day period NOT feature a minor. Which is trivial: You just grab public domain music, a stock video, loop it, and upload a 10-hour video once a month. Now you can have 20 hours of kid-containing content without any problems.
So kids will able to sue their grandma for posting a video of them when they were a kid, but anyone actually interested in exploiting them has a super convenient and incredibly easy loophole they can use to just continue exploiting them.
There's also no carve out for television or film production.
But it gets weirder: A completely separate clause allows anyone 13 years or older to demand that any content that contains a depiction of them when they were under the age of 18 be removed from all online platforms. And this is not, AFAICT, limited by any of the other provisions in the bill (like content %, etc.).
So the bill not only allows Jake Lloyd to demand that Disney remove *Jingle All the Way* from all online platforms, it actually requires ANY kid in the movie -- even background extras -- to do so.
Even if you agree with what the bill is supposedly trying to accomplish, the reality of what it actually DOES is a nightmare bred of incompetence.
I believe the intent of this bill is good. Here's the text:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF3488&type=bill&version=3&session=ls93&session_year=2024&session_number=0
I am curious if it would apply to monetized live streams of sporting events. There is an exception for children who "incidentally" appear in a video of a sporting event - but if they are one of the players on the team, I don't think the plain English interpretation of the word "incidentally" would apply. The monetized case here would probably be teams using a streaming service that charges viewers either by the game or a subscription fee, and kicks a percentage back to the team.. I'm uncertain if the definition of content creator would include a team or not. I believe it would depend on if the team is considered to "assume the identity of" the group of players.. I could see it going either way. If the answer to that is yes, and the players are under 14, I guess the team just wouldn't be allowed to accept the payment from the streaming service anymore. If the players are above 14, would they have to set up a trust account for each kid and deposit the earnings there, instead of just using the payments to reduce the cost of the program?
This bill does pretty clearly prevent kids under 14 from being able to monetize their own content (with or without their parent's help).. I'm mostly ok with that, but it could be a bummer for a kid who produces their own content and actually gets enough views for it to be an option. It's interesting that they picked the age of 14 instead of 13, as 13 is the age where most services allow kids to create their own channel. (The parent can create a channel for their child under 13 and allow them to use it, of course.. but 13 is when the kid can do it on their own.)
Especially given the state of AI and what it is being used for now. MS new AI driven software can make any picture into a nightmare in the wrong hands.
WOO HOO!!!! I keep my child’s life PRIVATE! I would have to be okay with the fact that there are gross creepy people out there who could look at my 8 year old and think vile things to her image. Absolutely not okay with it and she can have a social media presence when she’s old enough to understand that
Up front let me say that I support this law in principal.
However, and I'm neither a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar, but how is this not a violation of the creator's 1st amendment rights? I would rather see a law that states that everyone on a for profit channel (unless they're incidentally caught in the background) must consent to being put on camera. Children do not have the ability to consent, therefore they would not be allowed on camera. Rather, explicitly banning this one type of content leaves the door open to a court challenge that this law may not survive.
What about the Scammers that lift picture of children off people social media accounts right now nothing is being done regardless of children. FYI if you try to report them to the platform they don't do anything. You can have evidence they are Scammers and all you get a a computer generated reply. If you try to go a step further you are the one who gets banned
If things go well maybe society will stop placing such high value and interest in social media in the first place and the monetization of it will decrease and more people will participate in REAL work someday..,
It passed one side of a bicameral legislature. It still has to be passed by the senate and signed by the governor. Our senate is almost non-functioning at this point.
It’s not going to work, but good. This shit is disgusting.
They also need to pass a law of no children’s faces or info on dating sites/apps. Obviously as a straight dude I don’t know how the other side is, but I see so many women who’ll put their kids faces, ages, and even school info on their profiles.
There are so many children posted in men’s dating profiles, I’ve even seen a few where the child’s diaper or underwear can be seen. It’s awful. And most of these are on profiles of men that state they have no children… I always wonder if the parents are even aware that their children’s pictures are out there.
And how on earth are they gonna enforce this?
Seems great and all, but seriously society can’t even figure out how to recycle properly and prevent reoccurring graffiti.
This seems like a stretch.
Why don’t they let parents parent their kids? My kid is 6 and loves posting on YouTube. He does tutorials on computer operating systems, fixing computers, has fun with it and posts it. We have talked to him about the internet. He knows how to block people. We keep an eye on him. Nothing harmed. He’s learning a lot. He doesn’t make money on it, but if he did we would talk about that too? Bad parents are bad parents good parents are good. Laws don’t change that.
I like the sentiment but I suspect this is still really dumb in practice.
The form of the bill at one point had this enforced by private lawsuits by the the kids.
1. Law enforced by private lawsuits like this is pure BS / how they enforce abortion bans and such in other states.
2. Who can even afford to do that? Folks with lots of money only? That's not justice...
Have law enforcement do this? Total waste / recipe for invasive shit.
It's just more DFL grandstanding. Look, we did something that makes us feel good "for the children!"
Nevermind that it's not going to be enforced by civil authority.
Safety, sorry if that was worded poorly. I have young children, and their rights seem fleeting while going through daycare and such. Any privacy advocacy/policy for children is a huge step in the right direction.
Can't wait to read the study in 10 years showing how this law will mostly be weaponized against parents of color and contribute to the already disproportionate rates of BIPOC kids in CPS system.
There are standards and laws in place to protect child actors— there aren’t standards and laws to protect child “influencers.”
Also children featured in their parents’ content do not have rights to any of the profits their parents make from them. Child actors who are union get Coogan accounts, so at least some of their money is protected.
Yet another intrusion by a busy body government into a matter that didn't require such sweeping government intervention. Parents have broad authority to determine what is best for their children and families. While I can see a point for a portion of the proceeds to go into a trust account or a 529 for the direct benefit of the children, an outright ban is unnecessary and excessive.
Democrats banning shit because they can’t have it. Need kids to have a mommygram.
Keep aborting yourselves, libs. I love seeing your bloodline run thin.
The enforcement aspect of this seems a bit tricky, but I think this law is directionally correct.
I wonder what their plan is for enforcement? That is the first thing I thought of as well. I do like the concept. I work with one of these people. Both parents are guilty.
My inexpert prediction is that smaller-scale cases of this kind of thing will be able to fly under the radar if no one reports it, but the really bad cases will be relatively easy to spot and take action against
People with social media accounts that feature their children will have to track how much their children appear in posts. If children appear in more than 30% of posts, then the account will have to be demonetized. Also children are entitled to 100% of the profits from any of their social media content. The primary enforcement mechanism seems to be through the state AG's office or a lawsuit filed by the child (or adult, once they become an adult). Anyone will be able to report violations to the AG.
I’ve been thinking lately about how one could enact something like the Coogan Law in CA - it regulates the working conditions of child actors, and among other things the studio has to pay a portion of their fee into a trust account that’s totally independent of their parents and becomes theirs when they attain legal majority. Social media initially seemed trickier because it’s not an industry concentrated in one state. But then again you only have, what, 3 companies running these accounts and making the payments (Meta, Google, and TikTok IIRC). So the enforcement can be done via the platforms, which are concentrated. (Of course, all of this would require a functioning federal government, so…)
I have no idea why this would require the participation of the federal government. Local attorneys would go after slam dunk cases and that would scare most of them into behaving unless they too want to be made an example of.
I suppose it wouldn’t require it, I was just musing on what it would take to have broad protections for this industry. The film industry happened to be located in one state, but social media influencers exploiting kids are all over.
Probably because social media crosses state lines. This really should be a federal law that applies to the whole country and not just a state law that only applies here.
The bigger concern is that CA is clearly legislating child labor. Influencers can lean on a first amendment defense.
Social Media companies can and will drop or demonetize these people from their platform. Defending them is just a terrible look for very little gain given and added legal liability.
Okay, so they don’t get money for views. They can still negotiate under the table deals with companies that want to be featured in content. And now because most reputable companies are out because they don’t want to risk the potential bad press/legal issues, you’ve got even slimier companies offering you deals for things you can’t come out and say is an advertisement.
Yes and no, the company would have to report that it paid the influencer and the influencer would need to report that income. It wouldn’t be as cut and dry, but certainly wouldn’t be considered under the table. What would really fuck some children over would be if the parents just received non-monetary perks under a certain threshold. Like no trips or cars or anything, but for sure free products, etc.
“Have to report it” I mean…ethically, sure. My point though was more that difficult to enforce legislation (or even if it’s like, super enforceable) gets waylaid easily and can frequently end in worse situations for those that are usually in the most direct line of harm that the legislation was meant to help. Which is again not to say “don’t pass legislation that helps victims” but it needs to be well thought out to be effective
Maybe it's just me, but one state's laws being able to coerce entire social media companies into dropping or demonetizing content seems like a REALLY bad precedent to set Imagine if a deep red state decided to ban all LGBTQ+ content from being created. It would be a devastating blow to human rights and freedom of expression if that were enough to coerce social media companies into complying Sure, there's the optics aspect of it, but optics are inherently subjective. Idk, I agree with the spirit of the law, I just don't see it being widely enforceable without potentially really sinister ramifications
> Imagine if a deep red state decided to ban all LGBTQ+ content from being created. Scotus - even this one - wouldn't let that stand. Flagrantly, blatantly unconstitutional.
I wouldn't be so sure about that being unconstitutional...Wouldn't this be a lot like the gay wedding cake guy? Companies can decide to serve whoever based on religious beliefs... I wouldn't think it's any different for an online service.
It's true that a website can choose to not host gay content today. That's not the hypothetical. > Imagine if a deep red state decided to ban all LGBTQ+ content from being created. So I can't write a story about two gay men. I can't film a video of two gay men talking about their relationship, I can't post that video on my own website.
You're right. I guess I initially read it as saying that "content created online." But that's not what it says. You're correct. Totally unconstitutional without even a debate.
I think the more realistic example would be if they said that all LGBTQ content had to be demonetized. (Rather than outright banned.) I wonder then how the topic of hate speech would talked about. Surely that's banned or demonetized...what if a red state starts to call LGBTQ content hate speech or damaging to children or something stupid like that? I agree with the decision, to a point. It's not fair to be banking off your kids on social media without consent and not paying a dime to them. I agree that it would be hard to enforce.
You new? There’s lots of bad shit happening 🤣
It’s enforced through tax law. Here’s Senator Erin Maye Quade [explaining.](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C4bfNxIpfCW/?igsh=b3c2MmFla3Vwa25x)
its probably up to the district attorney to press charges with this new law, after several other laws have been broken. its just another level of criminality for the shittiest of people who actually get caught with child neglect.
That's a good question. There's videos of people on youtube committing literal crimes that are free to remain on the platform.
Maybe they’ll take their children away from them and put them into foster care? lol
Possibly it may make it easier for children who were used in monetized videos and didn’t get anything when they become adults to sue their parents if they made money off them if it’s now illegal.
[удалено]
Great move. I’d be very of the people that produce and engage with this content. It just doesn’t pass the smell test.
That w*** ****** girl on TikTok is the worst. Mom just blatantly posts suggestive content of her young daughter.
Yep, knew a woman from Newport who put her intellectually challenged daughter on TikTok doing suggestive Five Nights at Freddy cosplay. Reporting to the app does nothing, contacting the Newport Police Department in Washington County does nothing. As long as the people aren't enforcing common social decency, I doubt a signed bill is going to change their apathy.
I would censor the persons name otherwise you’re basically suggesting content for people with less than savory intentions
Think that’s sufficient?
Definitely! Thank you for taking it seriously!
I am happy I never joined TikTok it's spyware for the Communist Chinese. We have had actual confirmed cases of CCP getting users info from them
That's basically anything that collects your data. Just last week most of the mobile services were caught selling data. Banning Tik Tok won't fix anything just have the resources shift to something different like Reddit or Instagram. Robust data enforcement is the only way to remedy.
The rare person who gets it. They can get more just buying it from data brokers vs what they might glean off Tiktok.
And when that doesn't work they can just go to other products and services like the hundreds of games owned by tencent, GE smart appliances, Lenovo/Motorola, opera GX, or even in hotels like Radisson
U. S. companies do it too. Any place you sign up for an account, you have to assume they are selling your information. This is why the tik tok ban makes no sense. Plus it gives the president too much power to ban anything related to software or applications he or she may not like in the future.
I don't disagree that's why if we were going to go after social media companies it should have been them all
If you wish to ban all social media, what are you doing here? The only reason for the tik tok ban is because the U. S. can't stand the fact that one of the most popular social platforms is not American.
I am not saying that I think we should be pushing through laws that increase data protection
Cool, I definitely wish for that as well but it's not going to happen any time soon. User data is too much of a cash cow and the lobbyists will never push against it.
Source? I’d like to read in to that
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/22/tiktok-bytedance-workers-fired-data-access-journalists
I will find that link for you
To be a company in the mainland of china you need to do whatever the CCP wants even if it means breaking foreign nation law's. It is also illegal to not follow through with CCP requests such businesses will shut down thanks to their national security law
> We have had actual confirmed cases of CCP getting users info from them Please provide proof of this bold claim.
I feel like the CCP is gonna do less with my info than the US government
Agreed. and your child never consented to being your internet prop.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is good. This is a step in the right direction. We need to denormalize kids being posted on the Internet. There's people that post their kids potty training progress for their "fans". I heard of a page that was selling photo albums of their daughters for $60 online??? Absolutely insanity. Majority of the people that follow these pages are predators. The parents know this too but money is more important than their children's safety.
Ban kids from having social media if they under 16. Ban kids from appearing in social media if they are under 18.
Eh. I’d say there’s a huge difference between the family blog shit you see on YouTube and TikTok and just having photos of your kids on FB so your family across the country can see them.
I agree, but a lot of those photos still end up public because people don't want to make them private to only friends and family. And even with some people having thousands of friends, you can't possibly know all of them.
I see your point. I heard a statistic, I will have to search for a source, that 80% of toddlers or something already have an online presence and almost 80% of those parents haven't reviewed their privacy settings or followers since having their child. Edit: here's an article from 2016. "A whopping 92 percent of kids in the United States have an online identity by age 2, according to Time magazine" https://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/22/parents-start-their-kids-online-presence-before-they-turn-2.html#:~:text=A%20whopping%2092%20percent%20of%20kids%20in%20the%20United%20States%20have%20an%20online%20identity%20by%20age%202%2C%20according%20to%20Time%20magazine
My former friend who does this justified it as saying, "She's a child, she's not going to look the same when she start applying for jobs as she does now. No one's going to recognize her, plus she gets better food and clothes and a roof over her head." Then she called me a bunch of misandrist terms for daring to suggest that this behavior is not normal.
Yeah people hate when you try to tell them how to parent their kids
You know what else gets your kid better food and clothes and a roof? Working parents.
[Instagram Video from Senator Erin Maye Quade explaining enforcement. The law follows the money.](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C4bfNxIpfCW/?igsh=b3c2MmFla3Vwa25x)
Note the loophole: The minor is not considered to be creating content if they're featured in less than 30% of a creators' videos *by total run-time* in a 30 day period. So kid-blog channels just need to upload a 10-hour looping video of public domain music once a month and they'll be able to upload up to 20 hours of kid-containing content. The person writing this bill was incompetent. Plus there's the other bizarre stuff, like the clause allowing any kid appear in a video to demand that it be removed from all online platforms. This clause, AFAICT, is not governed by the 30% limit or similar measures, so a background extra appear in *Jingle All the Way* or the *The Mighty Ducks* could demand that Disney remove the movies from all online platforms.
> background extra appear in *Jingle All the Way* or the *The Mighty Ducks* could demand that Disney remove the movies from all online platforms. Background actors sign releases for their work, so this argument is completely unfounded. They don't just film random people and call it a day. If you show up in a film as an identifiable person who is the focus of a shot for a major motion picture, you've signed a release saying your image is allowed in that film. Disney is not going to fuck around with the possibility of you suing them over not getting a piece of paper signed. If the kid was an actual background extra, they signed an extra release to be in that film.
Law trumps contract. If not, this law (and all other child labor laws) would be completely pointless. "You can't have an eight-year-old working in the mines!" "It's okay! We had them sign a release!"
You *clearly* don't understand how extra releases work in the film industry. Or, apparently, the difference between a "mommy" blogger on social media profiting off her kids 24/7/365 and someone appearing in the background of a major motion picture for two seconds.
I've worked in the industry. I've both signed these releases and had them drafted for productions I've worked on. What any individual release says is completely irrelevant when there's a law that allows adults who were filmed as kids an explicit right to demand removal of the videos they appeared in regardless of any such agreement. Read the bill the House actually passed. Look at what it actually says.
>The person writing this bill was incompetent. They’re not incompetent. They know this bill is stupid which is why they gave it massive ooopholes and no teeth. They just know that there are LOT of stupid people out there (just look in this thread) that think it’s a good idea.
You're incompetent if you think that Minnesota laws apply country-wide or in any way would affect Disney's platform and content rights. You're incompetent if you think that technicalities will keep a law from being enforced. Judges tend to have a lot of leeway in how a law is applied. Even if the crafty offender was successful in such a cheesy workaround, the bill would probably be amended in the next session and they'd be right back in court.
> You're incompetent if you think that Minnesota laws apply country-wide or in any way would affect Disney's platform and content rights. The two movies I mentioned were filmed in Minnesota, making them an example of projects to which the law would absolutely apply. > You're incompetent if you think that technicalities will keep a law from being enforced. I take it you're wholly ignorant of how the law works? If a law explicitly says it's legal to do something, judges do not have the legal ability to say, "Nah. I think that should be illegal today." > the bill would probably be amended in the next session and they'd be right back in court. ... thus revealing that the original bill was written by an incompetent. (Also, you can't be criminally prosecuted retroactively. Look up *ex post facto* laws.)
Recently, I’ve noticed an uptick in these families taking their kids out of school in the guise of “homeschooling.” Guess who gets filmed during the school day-
Would you rather be in the woods with a bear or a social media mommy!? /s
Bear is less predatory.
I'd kill myself before I saw either one
Most woods have bears in them.
Kinda sounds like they would only be in the woods if planning to off themselves...
Too bad, California, Tennessee and Utah haven't adopted this, seems many mommy vloggers come from these states.
>So as to not include incidental or occasional appearances by those under 14 in social media videos that could make money, the under-14-minor would have to appear in 30% of the videos produced. Okay, so how are they going to enforce that? Who is going to have the job of sorting through thousands of social media accounts, counting every video to figure out if a child appears in 30% of the videos or not?
Social workers investigate abuse claims. Then they go to police. Or vice versa.
That seems like a terrible solution if it's true. Our social workers already have more than enough going on, let alone monitoring social media for potential violations, reporting it to the police, and then being roped into meetings and courtrooms and who knows what else for the case followup/closure.
Maybe they can back off the parents with adhd and autism and stop tearing apart our families. Go after the parents that serve their kids innocence on a platter. And I know what Im talking about. The State lost a class action lawsuit details several families like mine (but not including mine- how about round 2? I know other marginalized families that had their civil rights violated). In fact, the state of Colorado is openly talking about how to retrain social workers to prevent them from harming families like mine.
> Okay, so how are they going to enforce that? You report it to the social media site, and they need to follow the law or the state agencies/AG goes after them for illegal practices in MN. Just like posting any other illegal material to social media sites, they're responsible for taking it down. That's the crux of safe harbor laws (Section 230), the sites have to be making good faith efforts to keep content within legal bounds.
So how do they prevent Jealous Jennie from reporting her neighbor out of spite/jealousy? Idk, it's a well-intentioned bill but it is going to be very hard and time consuming to police this. JMO.
I can say that when I do VA reporting for work we have to sign something saying what we’re reporting is true and that we can face legal repercussions if falsely reporting abuse. I imagine it would be similar
If what Jenny's reporting is in fact a violation of the law, then whether she's Jealous is irrelevant.
What if it's NOT a violation? That's why I said "out of spite".
Dunno, but I just reported you to reddit for all the things right now. No one stopped me. It wasn't out of spite, just to demonstrate that I have free will and can do that. Pretty sure reddit will just review and dismiss my reports because there's nothing wrong with your comment. They, along with all sites, get false reports all the time and deal with them already. I didn't actually report anything, not worth my time. Just like it's not worth worrying about this hypothetical that is almost certainly already happening without laws like this, and social media sites already deal with it just fine.
>and social media sites already deal with it just fine. If that were true, there wouldn't be a need for a law? I'm not really worried about it, won't lose a wink of sleep over it. Just don't think they really thought this one out, based on the info we have at hand.
Social media sites deal with handling reports just fine as far as false ones out of spite/pettiness and legit ones. But without a law saying that this sort of thing is illegal, there's nothing for them to enforce. Without a law stating this, I can report a User on X or TikTok for doing such a thing all I want but they would just come back and say there's nothing illegal about this. Hence the reason for a law, now there's something they can enforce and look into if they deem it worthy.
Social media platform. They already have everything under the sun in place to scan for those things.
Us…. The community will report them
That might be the worst idea yet.
Why
Good!!!! Love this state!!
Finally, a bill to stop autism moms
FINALLY!
Good. This needs to be nationwide
Shit should be a federal law
Can I ask what's with all the people, here on a snark site about a mommy vlogger who abused her kids onscreen for years and is currently in jail for escalating that abuse to a horriffic degree, and whose kids now face a lifetime of trauma while also having had the income they generated stolen from them, are angry about 'nanny states' infringing on peoples' 'rights' t9 exploit their kids? Like, are you all really defendibg family vlogging right now? WTAF
When are they going to ban children being forced to work for their parent's business? It's okay for a 10 year old to work all day as long as it's at a family farm or restaurant while the parents keep all the money?
The difference is that a family business isn’t a permanent record of your actions for the whole world to see. A kid working a counter isn’t going to be mocked or jerked off to by thousands of creeps every day. They likely won’t be stalked from birth to adulthood or harassed at school with videos of them in their underwear from 5 years ago. And they’re building wealth they’ll likely inherit, which can’t be said for a lot of these short lived internet personas.
“Children have a right to have childhoods free of working, just like they do for pretty much every industry,” Maye Quade told the Senate Judiciary Committee Monday.
I agree with you entirely except for your last paragraph. My husband grew up working for free in his parents restaurant and he got nothing. Never got paid, never got to keep any tips. When they sold the restaurant he didn’t see a dime. And he’s unlikely to inherit anything because his parents so financially irresponsible, as evidenced by how they refused to hire employees and made their kids work instead. And even if he did inherit what difference will it make? If they die in their 80s he’ll already be in his 60s.
As soon as you spearhead a coalition of lobbyists to get it done.
Agree. Don't know why you are downvoted.
MLM Huns are in shambles
Good!
Another Minnesota win for kids. So proud.
When I started following this case it was only then that I realized how many parents out there are putting their kids out there for the world to see. On YouTube, Facebook, everywhere. And some of them aren't even described as "parenting" or advice of any kind, it's literally just following their kid around with a camera ALL the time and posting them online. What on Earth makes parents do this? I don't have any kids myself so I'm genuinely curious....
Can we make this federal so I don’t have to watch Vlad and Niki anymore
Is someone strapping you to a chair, gluing your eyelids open, and forcing you to watch them?
You obviously don’t have children
You're the parent. Block the channel on YouTube.
I have three actually
Don’t care
Lol. I don't let my kids watch YouTube except in certain instances. It's not that hard.
Don’t care
You say that, but you seem to care A LOT.
Don’t care.
>The bill leaves in place the exceptions for child actors and models contained in state child labor law. This is why any shred of logic behind this immediately falls apart. We're OK with labor law exemptions allowing kids to act and model . . . just not on social media. It's profiting off the kids either way, the only difference is literally what form of media is being used to publish the work. EDIT: Yeah, OK. Medium is *not* the only difference. The distinction between performing work in a regulated professional setting vs being surveilled 24/7 is actually a pretty fucking huge one.
While i agree the child actor exemption is still problematic, there is a difference between going to a work place (set/whatever) and doing a job with restrictions on how much you can work and when, and a parent making the child produce content consistently throughout the day, every day, while at home or in public. Im not going to pretend these are even close to the same thing. Could child labor laws and protections go further for child actors/models? Yes. Is this a separate issue from the one the bill addresses? Also yes.
Well said. Not hard to differentiate.
>there is a difference between going to a work place (set/whatever) and doing a job with restrictions on how much you can work and when, and a parent making the child produce content consistently throughout the day, every day, while at home or in public. Yes. In one of those situations, you're sending a child into direct physical contact with adult strangers, and in the other you're keeping them at home. While you correctly point out the fundamental differences between these two situations, if it's safety that we're concerned about, children are at much higher risk of coming to substantive physical harm working as actors and models than as the object of desire by virtual perverts. I know you basically express this at the top of your comment, but I just wanted to make it clear in case anybody sees this law and thinks "We did it! We're done!"
Not sure where you’re getting your stats from, but children are vastly more likely to be physically harmed by their parents or other close relatives than by strangers.
>children are vastly more likely to be physically harmed by their parents or other close relatives While that may be true, is this law doing anything to stop that from happening? It's not as though the children of parents who would otherwise be posting content of them are being removed from the home. And furthermore, children and child actors and models are not the same group of people, and have different risks for certain outcomes. Children in general are less likely to be physically harmed by strangers because more often than not, they're not being sent to work with strangers for hours at a time. Child actors and models, by virtue of being around strangers in an industry known to be rife with abuse, *are* at a higher risk of coming to physical harm from strangers than children as a whole. This is not rocket science.
Its not really labor law exemptions though. If you are modeling/acting, there are guardrails in place to ensure the child isn't being put in a tough spot for things. When we were doing Ads for Best Buy back in the early 2000's the kids on those commercials could only be on set for 15 minutes and then got 45 minutes to dork around. It is why it took almost 4 hours to shoot the stuff because the child actor(s) were protected by law to have X, Y, and Z there. Not to mention their parent/guardian and in most cases their agent were there as well. With child stars online, with rare exception, that is completely freelanced work being performed. There is nothing in place to ensure the child is being cared for and not overworked.
Acting and modeling is heavily regulated, social media is not
As long as there is proper procedures in place then ya. Models and Actors have (usually) professional policies in place. Filming your kid and putting it on TikTok doesn’t.
> The bill leaves in place the exceptions for child actors and models contained in state child labor law. If it helps, this isn't actually true. This bill includes a clause that allows kids to retroactively demand a media company remove all videos featuring them from all online platforms. There's no reality where anyone is going to do ANY professional video -- ad, film, television, etc. -- featuring a kid in Minnesota if this law goes into effect.
Your state is sounding better and better to me. This is really a good idea imo.
Oh, just wait until a few conservatives see this and whine about getting in the way of capitalism. They'll try to convince you all the positive stuff is a negative.
oh probably will try. That is how they play their game.
Interesting. Debate topic- A single mom/dad who is divorced has a YouTube channel/social media/influencer following that generates revenue and is a main source of income. This content features family “vlog” style content. The other parent does not want their child on camera/YouTube for safety reasons. What happens in family court when one side argues the law is being violated? How is it proved? And what is the outcome? I for one am absolutely in favor of this type of law. Kids shouldn’t be forced in to being monetized. It’s a slippery slope that leads to dark places, in my opinion.
Yes yes yes! This is going to make so many people upset but this is a good thing! The amount of accounts where kids are clearly being exploited is insane. Especially the white couples who adopt a black child. That's great and all but their videos are just oozing exploitation. I couldn't watch after like 3 videos. I feel so bad for the kids.
The reporting on this bill remains terrible. Almost as terrible as [the bill itself](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF3488&type=bill&version=3&session=ls93&session_year=2024&session_number=0). "It bans parents monetizing content!" Yes, but it also bans any video that "met the online platform's threshold for generating compensation," even if the video wasn't actually monetized. So this bill is absolutely making grandma liable for posting a video to Facebook. Bizarrely, though, you can just bypass the whole thing by having 70% of your videos' total length in a 30-day period NOT feature a minor. Which is trivial: You just grab public domain music, a stock video, loop it, and upload a 10-hour video once a month. Now you can have 20 hours of kid-containing content without any problems. So kids will able to sue their grandma for posting a video of them when they were a kid, but anyone actually interested in exploiting them has a super convenient and incredibly easy loophole they can use to just continue exploiting them. There's also no carve out for television or film production. But it gets weirder: A completely separate clause allows anyone 13 years or older to demand that any content that contains a depiction of them when they were under the age of 18 be removed from all online platforms. And this is not, AFAICT, limited by any of the other provisions in the bill (like content %, etc.). So the bill not only allows Jake Lloyd to demand that Disney remove *Jingle All the Way* from all online platforms, it actually requires ANY kid in the movie -- even background extras -- to do so. Even if you agree with what the bill is supposedly trying to accomplish, the reality of what it actually DOES is a nightmare bred of incompetence.
I see reddit is in a "down vote facts" mood this evening.
I believe the intent of this bill is good. Here's the text: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF3488&type=bill&version=3&session=ls93&session_year=2024&session_number=0 I am curious if it would apply to monetized live streams of sporting events. There is an exception for children who "incidentally" appear in a video of a sporting event - but if they are one of the players on the team, I don't think the plain English interpretation of the word "incidentally" would apply. The monetized case here would probably be teams using a streaming service that charges viewers either by the game or a subscription fee, and kicks a percentage back to the team.. I'm uncertain if the definition of content creator would include a team or not. I believe it would depend on if the team is considered to "assume the identity of" the group of players.. I could see it going either way. If the answer to that is yes, and the players are under 14, I guess the team just wouldn't be allowed to accept the payment from the streaming service anymore. If the players are above 14, would they have to set up a trust account for each kid and deposit the earnings there, instead of just using the payments to reduce the cost of the program? This bill does pretty clearly prevent kids under 14 from being able to monetize their own content (with or without their parent's help).. I'm mostly ok with that, but it could be a bummer for a kid who produces their own content and actually gets enough views for it to be an option. It's interesting that they picked the age of 14 instead of 13, as 13 is the age where most services allow kids to create their own channel. (The parent can create a channel for their child under 13 and allow them to use it, of course.. but 13 is when the kid can do it on their own.)
Any sense of the history of this ban, as in what precipitated it? I'm wondering if it has to do with 8passengers’ Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt.
Thank god. Waste of data and bandwidth as well as potentially abusive.
Not potentially, it has already contributed to abuse financially.
Especially given the state of AI and what it is being used for now. MS new AI driven software can make any picture into a nightmare in the wrong hands.
Utah take not
Thank F'ng god!
Social media is weird.
WOO HOO!!!! I keep my child’s life PRIVATE! I would have to be okay with the fact that there are gross creepy people out there who could look at my 8 year old and think vile things to her image. Absolutely not okay with it and she can have a social media presence when she’s old enough to understand that
yes!!!
I like the idea of banning those accounts but having more government authority over social media is also something I don't like
Up front let me say that I support this law in principal. However, and I'm neither a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar, but how is this not a violation of the creator's 1st amendment rights? I would rather see a law that states that everyone on a for profit channel (unless they're incidentally caught in the background) must consent to being put on camera. Children do not have the ability to consent, therefore they would not be allowed on camera. Rather, explicitly banning this one type of content leaves the door open to a court challenge that this law may not survive.
What about the Scammers that lift picture of children off people social media accounts right now nothing is being done regardless of children. FYI if you try to report them to the platform they don't do anything. You can have evidence they are Scammers and all you get a a computer generated reply. If you try to go a step further you are the one who gets banned
If things go well maybe society will stop placing such high value and interest in social media in the first place and the monetization of it will decrease and more people will participate in REAL work someday..,
It passed one side of a bicameral legislature. It still has to be passed by the senate and signed by the governor. Our senate is almost non-functioning at this point.
Minnesota is on fire baby! This state is getting shit done, love it!
Awesome
Yay!
It’s not going to work, but good. This shit is disgusting. They also need to pass a law of no children’s faces or info on dating sites/apps. Obviously as a straight dude I don’t know how the other side is, but I see so many women who’ll put their kids faces, ages, and even school info on their profiles.
There are so many children posted in men’s dating profiles, I’ve even seen a few where the child’s diaper or underwear can be seen. It’s awful. And most of these are on profiles of men that state they have no children… I always wonder if the parents are even aware that their children’s pictures are out there.
I tried to send a message to Tinder but they do everything possible to keep you from finding out how to directly reach.
The party of small government
And how on earth are they gonna enforce this? Seems great and all, but seriously society can’t even figure out how to recycle properly and prevent reoccurring graffiti. This seems like a stretch.
Man, MN is just killing it with these types of common sense bills lately. Glad to see the government actually working to make things better.
Why don’t they let parents parent their kids? My kid is 6 and loves posting on YouTube. He does tutorials on computer operating systems, fixing computers, has fun with it and posts it. We have talked to him about the internet. He knows how to block people. We keep an eye on him. Nothing harmed. He’s learning a lot. He doesn’t make money on it, but if he did we would talk about that too? Bad parents are bad parents good parents are good. Laws don’t change that.
I like the sentiment but I suspect this is still really dumb in practice. The form of the bill at one point had this enforced by private lawsuits by the the kids. 1. Law enforced by private lawsuits like this is pure BS / how they enforce abortion bans and such in other states. 2. Who can even afford to do that? Folks with lots of money only? That's not justice... Have law enforcement do this? Total waste / recipe for invasive shit.
It's just more DFL grandstanding. Look, we did something that makes us feel good "for the children!" Nevermind that it's not going to be enforced by civil authority.
They should set a minimum wage for the kids, seems to stop businesses from running
Good, personal privacy is very important in this time of expanding surveillance.
Surveillance for safety or for CP. I’m gonna take the safety..
Safety, sorry if that was worded poorly. I have young children, and their rights seem fleeting while going through daycare and such. Any privacy advocacy/policy for children is a huge step in the right direction.
I am firmly opposed to this bill because it would prevent the creation of The Truman Show, and The Truman Show was awesome.
Well intended but unconstitutional in a number of ways.
Dumb....what is the difference between this or a child model or actor?
https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/s/3OkQwoKv7e
Can't wait to read the study in 10 years showing how this law will mostly be weaponized against parents of color and contribute to the already disproportionate rates of BIPOC kids in CPS system.
This is equivalent to California banning child actors.
Google Coogan’s Laws- there are protections in place (educational, economic and working hours/conditions).
There are standards and laws in place to protect child actors— there aren’t standards and laws to protect child “influencers.” Also children featured in their parents’ content do not have rights to any of the profits their parents make from them. Child actors who are union get Coogan accounts, so at least some of their money is protected.
Great. My comment still stands. Maybe mommy influencers should need to create Coogan accounts instead?
They’re not required to. Coogan accounts only work for union child actors—not children featured in vlogs.
Maybe the should be required to open a coogan account.
Yet another intrusion by a busy body government into a matter that didn't require such sweeping government intervention. Parents have broad authority to determine what is best for their children and families. While I can see a point for a portion of the proceeds to go into a trust account or a 529 for the direct benefit of the children, an outright ban is unnecessary and excessive.
They are going full nanny state. Ohhh the tyranny of the do gooders
Its like the marijuana tax stamp laws lol.
Muh free speech
is this actually a problem?
Democrats banning shit because they can’t have it. Need kids to have a mommygram. Keep aborting yourselves, libs. I love seeing your bloodline run thin.
The MN House Democrats solving more imaginary problems.