> Some men sent pictures of male genitalia and links to porn sites.

> Sometimes the mom spent two to four hours a day blocking users or deleting inappropriate comments.

> At the same time, more sponsorships and deals were trickling in.

I can see the allure of a little extra cash and free stuff and attention, but this is just bad parenting.

The first paragraph is enough to raise my skepticism bells immediately. The mom—a marketing person—videoed her pre-teen daughter "dancing" and "modelling", put it on a public Instagram page, and oversaw the growth in viewership... but it was for "bonding with friends and family" she says. Right.

> While Meta bans children under the age of 13 from independently opening social-media accounts, the company allows what it calls adult-run minor accounts, managed by parents.

This is the problem. This woman just "sold" her daughter for money.

> Sometimes the mom spent two to four hours a day blocking users

And in the process learned that running a business involves more than just something akin to printing cash.

But that’s a lot of time for her to pursue a side gig that does not require putting your child at completely unnecessary risk.

I think every parent should be aware that if they give their kids a phone the result is often that they become sexually involved with strangers at a young age. Occasionally, this results in actual meet ups, mostly just sexting.

I'm not sure if there is a "solution" to this problem, or its just the case that sexual morality as it has been conceived is already gone, and articles like these are just the death knells of a fallen order. The solution to changing sexual mores is always to socially isolate kids so they don't get "exposed." But you'd figure that, eventually, the kids will think we're all being a bit ridiculous.

https://archive.is/Myagt

Start prosecuting and jailing some execs at Meta and let's see how fast they can fix "the algorithm."

Open up any young female "influencer" video on YouTube. Look at the graph of which parts of the video are most played (hover over the playback bar and it pops up). Notice how the spikes in viewership line up with any nudity/bikini/suggestive angles.

Literally 90% or more of the viewers are just there to look at half-naked bodies. Exactly what the article is talking about.

I don't think anyone could pretend that "I just run a fashion channel" or "I just post videos from my kids gymnastics sessions" doesn't know who's really putting views on their videos. It should be blatantly clear to anyone, especially the creator who has more in-depth tools to monitor their audience. These people 100% know what they're doing and they're willing to keep going.

At the very bottom:

> The mom and daughter have been debating how to proceed. They offer some subscription content on another platform, but the majority of their followers were on Instagram.

This was the most eyebrow-raising out of an entire article of eyebrow-raising, questionable decisions made by that parent. WHICH other platform?

Don't put your kids on the Internet!

You're not an "influencer" if you're female and the audience is 92% men. You're just a porn star.

> At one point, she offered Instagram subscriptions to users willing to pay a monthly fee for extra photos and videos.

How more obvious can it be?

This article is clearly the result of trying to justify selling your daughter as a porn star. They'll take the money, but oh how they wish it didn't have to be like this (it doesn't, but I guess the alternatives involve actually working to do something useful).

LOL if you think this is a new thing - check out the "child beauty pageant" scene that's featured parents pimping out their kids for DECADES.

I wonder which side of this transaction is hurt more.

https://archive.is/Myagt

See also:

Marketplace of Girl Influencers Managed by Moms, Stalked by Men (nytimes.com) https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/22/us/instagram-child-influe...

3 months ago | 23 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39476721

What the actual fuck

Wow. So surprised.

[dead]

But have we weighed the social impact of teens not publishing themselves online to pervs? /s

This, like every other problem with pervasive brainrot technology, and hell good old fashioned ways to shut a brain off, will be talked about for years. Nothing will be done. Things in 10 years will feel normal and be unimaginable now. Thus is humanity for the 30 years I've been here so far.

Don't. Put. Your. Kids. On. The. Internet. I'd say "don't put unwitting strangers on the internet" too, but it's less targeted unless you're stalking a stranger, and I suspect too many HNers are Instagram users for that to be popular.

Also this is your too-often reminder that child beauty pageants are still popular in many places. Anyone taking attendance at those? Seriously, the status quo and what people are accustomed to biases people's norms in extreme ways and we just never seem to put that in context.

My point being, we have fucking pageants for children to get dolled up and pranced about for adults to watch, and here we are, off to the next horror-porn-horror travesty we all know is likely going to continue slowly getting more and more wack, as the norms shift.

I hate how 99% of the planet has no ability to consider long-term reprocussions of decisions, or worse, are incentivized to self-deluded about them. "Let's appeal to things that work in marketing and put our teenage daughter on the internet". Sounds like a god damn comedy sketch.

[dead]