Mom, I do not need algebra, I am going to be an influencer

Britney Spears' story prompts investigation into child influencer protection laws

The current generation is different; different from what our grandparents were or what the current 40-year-olds are. Not only will they reportedly be doing the jobs they love, but many will also have hobbies, often related to technology and the corresponding secular transformation. All this, by the way, is already visible.

Indeed, the time is knocking when children will drown in social networks, imagining that they will soon no longer need to study—all they have to do is comment on Minecraft and demonstrate how toys are unpacked as money falls from the sky, as they believe^[1].

The latter should not be blamed: seeing how Lithuanian influencers work and the sums they throw around, even an elderly woman who knows nothing about innovation may want to become the "face of cosmetics" and the big prima donna of the scene.

The social networking boom has been debated for some time now, as have its harms and benefits, assuming that the technology in question is intended to attract as many minors as possible. However, it has also been repeatedly said that social networks do a disservice to children, especially if they lack basic knowledge. And it should probably start with the fact that "not everything found on the internet is real", as well as the claim that child influencers always make big money. Yes, some of the most popular influencers amass wealth before the age of 18, but there are hardly any legal safeguards to ensure that their earnings stay with them.

An obvious example is the story of Britney Spears and female foster care. For many years, she was trapped in a legal situation where most of the money she earned went to her father, who controlled not only the finances but also things like medication, performance schedules, and so on. 

So it's worth thinking twice. There are considerable dangers where one expects a quick "shot" into the sky.

In parts of the United States, child influencers do not get their money back

Like adults, child influencers sing, dance, cook, act and recite poetry; they work with major brands such as Walmart and Staples and earn money from sponsors' posts on their social media accounts. However, in almost all of the United States, the latter have no legal protection and no guarantee that they will ever see the money they have earned. And these stories may even go back a century.

For example, in 1938, 23-year-old Jackie Coogan, who starred as a toddler in Charlie Chaplin's "Baby", found out that his mother and stepfather had spent the millions of dollars he earned as a star. Eventually, the latter sued and won. In response, California in 1939 in turn passed a bill, commonly known as the Coogan Act, to protect children in similar roles by requiring 15% of their earnings to go into a trust fund.

Karen North, professor of digital social media at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, has also increasingly spoken out about child influencers, arguing that even if child influencers are creating their own content, they can be exploited by adults, especially under 13^[2].

The creators of the world's most popular family vlogs have exploited their children

Popular family vloggers such as Machelle Hobson and Ruby Franke have been found to have abused their children. These incidents led to the passage of a first-of-its-kind law in the United States in Illinois in August, which requires adults who use a minor's name or picture in paid online content to put a portion of their earnings in a trust fund. How much parents should set aside depends on how often the child appears in the content.

For example, if a child is 100% in an influencer's videos, at least half of the earnings must be set aside. Although the law does not require parents to report their child's earnings to the state, it does give children the right to take legal action.

In general, influencing has become an aspiration for many young people. Quite a few of them are, among other things, more interested in YouTube users than astronauts. But while many people see these channels as a fun game, it is a complex conflict of interest when your boss is also your parent. 

Another part of the problem is that the law has to balance the right of the state to protect vulnerable citizens with the right of parents to raise their children as they see fit. The question here is: where does private family life end and where does the right of the state to intervene and protect children begin?

As we know, many families in Lithuania also involve their offspring in creating content. While there are no regulations in place in our country, change is promised in the world^[3].

From this autumn, French schools will not be able to use mobile phones

A growing body of research shows that children who spend too much time in front of screens face several problems. In fact, this is as widespread an issue as the rise of child influencers.

France is testing a ban on mobile phone use by schoolchildren under 15. The "digital pause" trial, involving more than 50,000 pupils, is being conducted ahead of a possible plan to extend it nationwide from 2025. 

French secondary school pupils are now required to switch off their phones. This experiment requires children to hand in their phones when they arrive at school. This is part of President Emmanuel Macron's drive to get children to spend less time in front of screens, which the government fears is holding back their development. According to local authorities, the measure could cost 6 980 French secondary schools nearly €130 million.

Since 2018, the use of mobile phones or any other electronic communication equipment has been banned in kindergartens and primary and secondary schools in France. In higher education institutions attended by French children between 15 and 18, internal rules may prohibit students from using mobile phones in all or part of the premises.

The Swedish Public Health Agency also said this week that children under two should be completely cut off from digital media and television, while older children should be restricted. EE, one of Britain's largest mobile operators, has taken a similar step, warning parents not to give smartphones to children under 11. While some children and young people believe that using technology and social media is incredibly empowering, Australia is also planning to ban children from using social media. 

Even more interestingly, the Texas State Children's Online Safety Act has taken an even more interesting direction by providing parents with tools to update their teenager's account settings and to set time limits on their child's social media use^[4].