Sharenting: You might not "like" the effects
For those who came of age before the internet, the right to be forgotten was an unrecognized privilege. But now that the possibility of an analog childhood has all but been erased, the question of how to reconcile a parent’s right to share content about their children online with a child’s right to develop their own digital identity has raised the eyebrows of advocates for child privacy.
Parents should avoid posting photos and videos of their children until they reach the “digital age of consent,” which is currently at age 13. However, I support the proposal that the age should be raised to 16 years old, per the PROTECT (Kids) Act that has been introduced to Congress. While parents have a right to freedom of speech and posts of their children are presumably well-intentioned, this point-of-view does not consider the long-term, psychological and societal effects of “sharenting.”
What happens to a child when they live under the expectation that their lives are tracked and documented constantly? Knowing that one is being surveilled can influence a person to alter or “filter” their behavior. Often when people discuss privacy, it is in reference to adults, but a child’s privacy is arguably more important because they have less agency, independence, and brain maturity to make appropriate decisions. From a theoretical standpoint, surveillance limits democracy because when one is being watched, it changes their behavior. When behavior is consciously “filtered,” adults and children may live in fear of the repercussions of “nonconforming behavior.” (Blanchette & Johnson, 2002, 36) This can be particularly costly to adolescents. Nearly 1 in 5 adolescents suffer from a diagnosable mental illness. Rates of suicide among children ages 10 to 24 increased 56% from 2007 to 2017, which coincided with the rise of social media and suggests a link between the two.
Even if parents gain their children’s consent to share a video or photo of them, they have not yet reached the brain maturity to understand the long-term risks associated with this action. They’re unable to comprehend the breadth of how consistent sharenting impacts their public, online identity. The science shows that brain maturity extends up to the age of 25, with executive functions being the last to fully develop. Executive functions affect skills such as impulse control and the ability to filter distractions. A prefrontal cortex that is underdeveloped and coupled with the immediate feedback and gratification of social media engagement metrics (e.g. “likes,” views, and comments) may complicate healthy child development of close peer relationships, autonomy, and identity. Aside from the more obvious privacy vulnerabilities that sharenting imposes on children, measuring popularity (or lack thereof) via social media can also be psychologically damaging.
Sharenting can also weaken the bonds of trust between parents and their children. Take for example the viral videos of parents recording grade reveals. In some videos the children appear embarrassed and recordings do not offer context into the entire situation. These videos could potentially be seen by their peers, driving more negative feelings for the child, and potentially shaking the trust the child has for their parents.
Supporters of the First Amendment note that parents have a constitutional right to post about their children on social media. Although parental freedom of expression has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court has also stated that these parental rights are not absolute, “particularly in the context of speech that could be harmful to children.” An awareness of the tension between parental freedom of speech and data protection for children exists. There may never be a constitutional law that could completely restrict parents from posting freely about their children. However, in recognizing a duty to mitigate long-term risks of sharenting, the U.S. should adopt similar guidelines outlined by the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The “right to be forgotten” is a safeguard that allows people ages 13 or older to request removal of personal information online. This addresses the lack of agency children have in sharenting, and a retroactive solution to empower minors to have more control over their digital footprint, particularly as the passage of time makes certain data obsolete or inaccurate. This is why it is important to support the PROTECT (Kids) Act. Although this act does not specifically give minors “the right to be forgotten,” their parents have the ability to do so. It also introduces additional data protections across devices, platforms, and personal data.
References
Blanchette, J.-F., & Johnson, D. G. (2011). Data Retention and the Panoptic Society: The Social Benefits of Forgetfulness*. The Information Society, 18(1), 36-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240252818216
Comments
Post a Comment