The Sharenting Dilemma: Balancing Family Pressure with Children's Digital Privacy
The practice of 'sharenting' – parents sharing photographs of their children on social media platforms – has sparked intense debate among experts and families across the United Kingdom. While some argue that parents should not face vilification for this increasingly common behaviour, others contend that the potential harms to children's privacy and wellbeing are too significant to ignore.
Understanding Parental Pressures Behind Sharenting
Dr Claire Bessant, an associate professor at Northumbria Law School in Newcastle upon Tyne, emphasises that many parents feel substantial pressure from family and friends to share images of their children online. Academic research reveals that parents often struggle to balance their concerns about protecting their children's digital privacy with their desire to make their family proud and respond to relatives' demands for photographic updates.
Furthermore, an increasing number of parents are turning sharenting into a source of income through influencer marketing. Before criticising these parents, Dr Bessant suggests we must consider the broader context. Research indicates that multiple pressures drive this behaviour, including societal expectations for children to succeed, demands for parents to be physically present, and workplace environments that fail to adequately support those juggling professional and domestic responsibilities.
The Commercial Interests Behind Children's Images
The commercial dimension of sharenting cannot be overlooked. Social media platforms and the brands that collaborate with influencer parents have a vested interest in ensuring regular content posting that appeals to wide audiences. Photographs featuring children prove particularly effective at capturing attention and selling products, making them valuable assets in the digital marketplace.
Additionally, the personal information that sharenting parents reveal on social media – along with data from platform visitors – represents valuable intelligence for these companies. This creates a complex ecosystem where parental behaviour intersects with commercial interests, often without full awareness of the long-term implications.
Alternative Approaches to Family Photo Sharing
Rather than criticising parents, Dr Bessant advocates for better education about the potential consequences of sharenting and promotion of alternative platforms designed for private family sharing. Applications like Kin and Familink offer secure environments where parents can share photographs with relatives without exposing children's images to broader public audiences.
This approach shifts the focus from blame to practical solutions, acknowledging that many parents engage in sharenting without malicious intent but rather from a place of social pressure and limited awareness of alternatives.
The Case for Protecting Children's Digital Rights
In contrast, Rachel Linthe from Little Downham, Cambridgeshire, presents a compelling argument for recognising sharenting as potentially harmful behaviour that violates children's rights. She references established legal frameworks including Article 16 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, both of which protect privacy rights.
Linthe questions why society continues to tolerate parents documenting their children's lives on social media when the harms of such exposure are well-documented. She draws attention to the apparent contradiction where parents express concern about teenagers' self-esteem being eroded by social media while simultaneously modelling the very behaviour that introduces children to these platforms.
With governments exploring potential bans on young people accessing social media, Linthe suggests a natural companion measure would be restricting how children are presented on these platforms by their parents and caregivers. She argues that psychological abuse is already recognised in safeguarding legislation, and exposing children's lives for public consumption should be similarly acknowledged as potentially harmful.
Moving Beyond Blame Toward Constructive Solutions
The debate ultimately centres on whether society should focus on blaming parents or developing supportive frameworks that acknowledge the complex pressures families face while protecting children's digital rights. Both perspectives agree that sharenting carries significant implications for children's privacy and wellbeing, but they diverge on the appropriate societal response.
As digital technology continues to transform family life and social interactions, this conversation highlights the urgent need for balanced approaches that respect parental autonomy while safeguarding children's interests in an increasingly connected world. The challenge lies in creating environments where families can share meaningful moments without compromising the privacy and security of their youngest members.
