SHARENTING: CONSEQUENCES AND SOLUTIONS Sharenting, its Consequences, and Possible Solutions Fajr N. Hameed George Mason University 1 SHARENTING: CONSEQUENCES AND SOLUTIONS 2 Introduction Although most online platforms, social and otherwise, prohibit children under the age of thirteen from using their sites, the vast majority of today’s children have an established online identity before the age of two (Steinberg, 2017). This isn’t by their own doing, of course. Rather, it is due to an increasingly common behavior among caregivers known as “sharenting,” which typically refers to parents sharing information about their children to an online audience (Kopecky et al., 2020). Depending on the age of the child, the content shared can include pictures or videos of their everyday activities (i.e., eating, sleeping, bathing, school, sports, etc.), stories about their life experiences (both positive and negative), and many other aspects of their personal and family lives. Generally, this practice is well-intentioned, and is used as a means to connect with family members, converse with and seek support or advice from other parents, share moments of pride or struggle, etc. (Kopecky et al., 2020; Steinberg, 2017). A study conducted by C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital and the University of Michigan found that 72% of parents believe social media is useful for making them feel like they are not alone, 70% believe it is useful for learning what to avoid, and 67% believe it is useful for getting advice from experienced parents (C. S. Mott Children’s Hospital, 2015). Even though it can provide benefits to the parents who engage in it, sharenting can often have dangerous or otherwise harmful consequences for the children featured. The information parents choose to reveal online can impact their children far into the future, as it will be available on the internet and associated with them indefinitely. As the children mature, this can cause feelings of humiliation, embarrassment, or resentment toward their parents because of the information they have published (Gligorijević, 2019). Additionally, content featuring children can easily be stolen, manipulated, and used for disturbing and malicious purposes, making them vulnerable to threats such as identity theft and sexual exploitation (Blum-Ross & Livingstone, 2017; Iskül & Joamets, 2021). SHARENTING: CONSEQUENCES AND SOLUTIONS 3 Although it is usually an innocently ignorant behavior, in cases where parents acquire social media fame and brand partnerships, sharenting can evolve into an ill-intentioned practice whereby the privacy of children is exploited for likes, views, and profit (Kopecky et al., 2020). This results, essentially, in the monetization of the invasion of children’s lives, as they become a source of income for their parents. In the past two decades, as the influence social media has on our everyday lives has rapidly increased, the practice of sharenting and threats to children’s safety online have only been exacerbated, and the laws and regulations addressing the issue have not been updated in a manner that effectively addresses this significant change in severity. Literature Review In the following section, I will be discussing existing scholarly literature pertaining to the practice of sharenting and its consequences, the effectiveness of relevant laws and legal principles in protecting children’s informational privacy, and the viability of potential legal and social solutions. The articles reviewed utilize either a data collection method to explore the reasoning behind and characteristics of parents’ sharenting behaviors or a legal analysis method to analyze jurisprudence relating to the topic. The Practice of Sharenting and its Consequences Even prior to the rise of the Internet, it was not uncommon for parents to exchange stories about or images of their children with family and friends (Gligorijević, 2019). However, the nature of social media causes a plethora of unique negative effects to accompany the online exchange of such information, many of which parents are unaware of. In her contextual introduction to the practice of sharenting, Steinberg claims that “parents often share without being fully informed of the consequences of their online disclosures” (Steinberg, 2017). The study conducted by Kopecky supports this assertion, as it found that 72.5% of parent respondents believed that sharenting did not pose any risk to their child (Kopecky et al., 2020). SHARENTING: CONSEQUENCES AND SOLUTIONS 4 One of the most commonly overlooked differences between sharing information offline and online is the scale of the audience. Referring to parent bloggers who publicly document their children’s experiences, Blum-Ross and Livingstone emphasize the difference in access to the content by noting that “the potential audience is much wider than that of the yellowing hard-copy photo albums of the bloggers’ own childhoods” (Blum-Ross & Livingstone, 2017). Parents who are aware of this may choose to restrict the audience only to their chosen social media contacts; in Kopecky’s study, 78.89% of respondents said that they share images of their children with those they have added as “friends,” while only 6.18% of respondents said that they share images publicly. However, such restriction still does not guarantee privacy, as photos can “escape” from the intended audience limits (for example, if they are saved and posted elsewhere), without the permission or knowledge of the original poster (Kopecky et al., 2020; Steinberg, 2017). As a result, millions of photos from parent social media accounts have been found on child exploitation sites (Iskül & Joamets, 2021). Another overlooked difference between sharing information offline and online is the level of permanence online content can end up having. As Steinberg states, the ability of search engines and social platforms to index and cache uploaded information makes it possible for content to be accessed for an infinite amount of time (Steinberg, 2017). In addition, if an image/video is taken from the original source and reposted elsewhere, it typically can not be deleted by the original poster as they no longer have the same authority over the content. Thus, it is very difficult to erase information once it has been shared online; there is no undoing what has been done. As Gligorijević explains, this results in the existence of “digital dossiers,” for children, which could have long-term negative effects on their access to education, employment, healthcare, and financial services in adulthood (Gligorijević, 2019). Relevant Legislation and its Effectiveness The belief that current laws and regulations do not adequately address the issue of sharenting seems to be generally agreed upon by most literature addressing the topic. Most articles note the lack of research and effective solutions and call for the issue to be given greater priority in scholarly discourse, SHARENTING: CONSEQUENCES AND SOLUTIONS 5 the legal realm, or both (Blum-Ross & Livingstone, 2017; Gligorijević, 2019; Iskül & Joamets, 2021; Kopecky et al., 2020; Steinberg, 2017). Steinberg, specifically, states, “Currently, no policy offers [children] a way to address the conflict created when their parents decide to disclose personal information about them… The time is now to take a hard look at sharenting” (Steinberg, 2017). Of the reviewed articles that utilize a legal approach, Steinberg’s analyzes US laws and court cases, Gligorijević’s analyzes English laws, European Court of Human Rights regulations, and European court cases, and Iskül and Joamets’ analyzes national (Estonian) and international laws and court cases (Gligorijević, 2019; Iskül & Joamets, 2021; Steinberg, 2017). Although they analyze different evidence, all three discover that, in theory, laws tend to encourage the equal protection of children’s privacy rights, but, in practice, often give other rights more value, thus failing to protect children’s privacy. As Iskül and Joamets state, “the right to privacy … will always be in opposition to other rights (such as freedom of expression and/or parental rights)” (Iskül & Joamets, 2021). This claim is echoed by Steinberg’s main point, which is that there is a conflict inherent between a parent’s right to share their experiences and a child’s right to privacy and autonomy. “Even when a court recognizes a child’s reasonable expectation of privacy, [it] often places higher value on the interests of the parent, family, and the state in exercising control over the minor child,” she elaborates (Steinberg, 2017). Steinberg finds that many privacy laws take a “paternalistic viewpoint,” giving all control of children’s information to parents. Thus, they fail to account for the possibility that parents’ disclosure could pose a threat to children just as well as a third-party actor’s could. As Iskül and Joamets explain, “it is easier to agree that a violation against child privacy occurs when a stranger embodies it and much more complicated to claim that a mother who is sharing a potty-training photo of her child … creates similar harm and infringement of privacy” (Iskül & Joamets, 2021). In addition, Steinberg argues that since current laws (such as HIPAA and FERPA) pertain mostly to information about healthcare, education, etc., they do not account for the kinds of personal information commonly shared by parents on social media (Steinberg, 2017). Similarly, Gligorijević found that, although there has been “a general SHARENTING: CONSEQUENCES AND SOLUTIONS 6 acknowledgement in the case law of the importance of privacy and the values that it protects,” as well as an outlined obligation to consider children’s best interests, courts often state that the decisive factor in whether or not a child had a defendable right to privacy was the parents’ will. This sets the precedent that children’s privacy rights depend on parental control (Gligorijević, 2019). Viability of Potential Legal and Social Solutions A legal solution to the privacy rights conflict mentioned above that is implemented in the EU is the “right to be forgotten.” This right essentially allows individuals to file for the removal of information about them that is incorrect, unfavorable, or no longer serves its intended purpose, effectively altering their “digital footprint” (Iskül & Joamets, 2021; Steinberg, 2017). As of right now, attempting to apply the right to be forgotten in the US would not be a viable solution, since US law would view shared information as speech and protect it under the First Amendment. However, if the information was viewed as data instead, as it is in the EU, this solution could be offered to American citizens as well. An alternative adaptation to a change in classification of the information would be for the courts to “recognize a child’s right to privacy in the sharenting context” (Steinberg, 2017). This remedy is certainly beyond what is currently offered in the US, but it still has some drawbacks. For example, it can not provide protection to affected children until they have reached an age where they have enough knowledge to and are able to request the erasure of their information. In addition, it would not provide much relief in situations where the content shared has already been reposted a significant number of times across many platforms. The legal analysis conducted leads Steinberg to the conclusion that “it is unlikely that a comprehensive global solution will reside in the legal realm,” due to the limitations and complexities associated with pursuing a legal solution. Instead, a public health model of reform is proposed to be an effective solution, as it would be more practical and less limited than a legal one. Steinberg’s recommendations for best practices include that parents should (1) familiarize themselves with website privacy policies, (2) set up notifications for when their child’s name appears in a Google search result, (3) SHARENTING: CONSEQUENCES AND SOLUTIONS 7 consider sharing anonymously, (4) use caution before sharing location, (5) give their child “veto power” over online disclosures, (6) consider not sharing pictures of any state of undress, and (7) consider the effect sharing can have on their child’s current and future sense of self and well-being (Steinberg, 2017). Kopecky and others suggest similar practical recommendations: (1) consider whether shared materials could be misused today or in the future, (2) consider whether shared materials could impact the child negatively in the future, and (3) don’t share excessively personal or exposing photos. Lastly, Gligorijević argues that the courts prioritize parental consent to a harmful extent, and should instead place more focus on the importance of a child’s right to a private life and how the contested action may intrude upon this basic human right: “The courts should treat the child as a victim (or potential victim) of a breach of informational privacy, in his or her own right.” In addition, she suggests that a potential solution to the law’s ineffectiveness in protecting children’s informational privacy is clarification of the courts’ ideal approach to child privacy cases and the principles that should be applied to them (Gligorijević, 2019). This could prove to be a viable solution because it would give children’s privacy more value than free speech. Proposed Methods Current research on the topic of sharenting includes many studies that explore the practice of sharenting (by collecting information about the prevalence of sharenting, the kinds of content shared, the platforms used to share it, the audience it is shared with, etc.) or analyze the legal implications of and protections against the practice (by examining relevant laws, regulations, and court cases). However, there are not many original studies that collect data on the long-term consequences of sharenting for the children involved, or on the real-life effectiveness of proposed legal/social solutions. I intend to fill the first gap through a longitudinal study recording the effects of sharenting on children whose parents engage in it, and the second gap by implementing a best-practices based solution for a sample of parents and collecting data on their sharenting behaviors before and after to measure effectiveness. SHARENTING: CONSEQUENCES AND SOLUTIONS 8 Firstly, the longitudinal study will involve obtaining at least 25 volunteers between the ages of 4 and 13 willing to participate, and then selecting the participants using a random sample. This random sample will be conducted by assigning each volunteer a unique number from 1-25, and then using a random number generator (RNG) to draw 10 unique numbers, for a total of 10 children from different families being observed. Regarding the minor status of the intended sample, it is important to note that both child and parent must be informed of any risks associated with the study, and parental consent must be obtained for each volunteer prior to the sampling process. Additional precautions will also need to be taken regarding the privacy of the child volunteers’ sensitive information. In order to gauge how the participants feel about the information being shared by their parents, interviews will be conducted and the responses will be recorded. Prior to the interviews, interviewers will record what types of information are being shared on the social media accounts of the participants’ parents. During the interviews, participants will be presented with the different types, and then asked whether they like, dislike, or are neutral towards the sharing of each type, as well as whether or not they consented to it. Lastly, they will be asked if they have experienced any consequences in their personal lives as a result of each type of sharing (ex. bullying or harassment by peers who viewed the content). These interviews will be conducted periodically (once every 6 months) for 5 years in order to observe if/how their feelings towards their parents sharenting and/or the effects of it change as they grow older. In addition, researchers involved in the study will monitor and periodically record internet activity relating to the children (ex. how many times their name comes up in search results, how many times their images are found reposted elsewhere, if they are targeted by online predators or criminals, etc.). The first type of data (interviewee responses) will be analyzed by dissecting transcripts of the responses and labeling common themes and sentiments for each interview, then determining whether they differ over time. The second type of data (internet activity) will be recorded numerically, and analyzed by comparing the number of recordings of each type of internet activity to that of a control group (a child whose parents do not participate in sharenting). SHARENTING: CONSEQUENCES AND SOLUTIONS 9 The second gap in existing research (regarding the effectiveness of current potential solutions) will be addressed through an experiment. The random sample of parents will be obtained using the same RNG method described earlier. The sharenting behaviors of each parent (how often they share, what they share, how they share, with whom they share, etc.) will be observed and recorded. Existing research that discusses possible methods of mitigating the issue will be used to outline a comprehensive best-practices based solution (ex. a public-health based model of reform education as suggested by Steinberg).* The sample of parent participants will be randomly divided into two groups. The best-practices based solution will be implemented for one of the groups, while the other (control) group will receive no treatment. The sharenting behaviors of each parent in both groups will once again be observed and recorded. The data will be analyzed to determine if there is a significant change in sharenting behaviors for those who were subjected to the best-practices based solution, and thus the effectiveness of it will be gauged. Implications The proposed study will help begin to address two very significant gaps in current scholarly conversation regarding the topic of sharenting. The results of the longitudinal study will contribute new and original data about the real-life effects of sharenting on children, which would be useful for other scholars to firmly emphasize the importance of the issue and the extent of its impact. The results of the experiment will contribute much-needed insight on the actual effectiveness of the solutions that are currently being considered in scholarly discourse. In the future, this will provide scholars with new information to work with when working to develop the best possible solution to the issue. In addition, there are many different stakeholders who could be affected by this research. If effective solutions are implemented, parents will be educated on how to avoid negative oversharing consequences, lawmakers will be incentivized to update related laws, social media companies will be restricted, and, most importantly, children will have a better chance of getting the privacy protection they deserve. * In order to confirm the quality of the outline, a relevant scholar or pediatric health professional could be contacted. SHARENTING: CONSEQUENCES AND SOLUTIONS 10 Bibliography Blum-Ross, A., & Livingstone, S. (2017). “Sharenting,” parent blogging, and the boundaries of the digital self. Popular Communication, 15(2), 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2016.1223300 Gligorijević, J. (2019). Children’s privacy: The role of parental control and consent. Human Rights Law Review, 19(2), 201–229. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngz004 Iskül, A.-M., & Joamets, K. (2021). Child right to privacy and social media – personal information oversharing parents. Baltic Journal of Law & Politics, 14(2), 101–122. https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2021-0012 Kopecky, K., Szotkowski, R., Aznar-Diaz, I., & Romero-Rodriguez, J.-M. (2020). The phenomenon of sharenting and its risks in the online environment. Experiences from Czech Republic and Spain. Children and Youth Services Review, 110, 104812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104812 Steinberg, S. B. (2017). Sharenting: Children’s privacy in the age of social media. Emory Law Journal, 66, 47.
