Home » Social media
Category Archives: Social media
Why I refuse to join the hate train
In a world drowning in outrage, where every headline screams division and every scroll brings fresh fury, it’s easy to forget something fundamental: there’s still beauty everywhere.
Turn on the news and you’re bombarded with it all—bans, blame, and bitter arguments about who’s ruining what. Immigrants, the wealthy, the homeless, the young, the benefits claimants—everyone’s apparently the problem. It’s a relentless tide of negativity and moaning that can sweep you under if you’re not careful.
But what if we chose differently?
Here are a few things I noticed in the last couple of weeks:
I came across a book that someone left on a park bench with a note: “Free to a good home.” On another late night, a man saw a mother struggling—baby in one arm, shopping bags in the other—and didn’t hesitate to help her to her car. And if you’re thinking “why didn’t she use a trolley?” then you’re part of the problem I’m talking about, because there were no trolleys in that shop.
In another moment, a homeless person was offering water to a runner who’d collapsed in the heat, providing comfort when it mattered most.
Elsewhere, a teacher stayed late for his “troubled” student preparing for exams. When I asked why, he said: “Everyone calls him destructive. I refuse to lose hope. He’s just a slower learner, and I’ll support him as long as it takes.”
In another event, teenagers on bikes formed a protective barrier around an elderly woman crossing the road.
Small acts. Quiet kindness. The stuff that never makes headlines, doesn't trend on social media, and doesn't fuel debates.
The truth is, these things happen everywhere, all the time. While we’re busy arguing about who’s destroying society, society is quietly rebuilding itself through a million small kindnesses. The coffee lady in the Learning Hub who remembers your order. The elderly doorman at Milton Keyens Costco who draws smiley faces on reciepts and hands them to children on their way out, just to see them smile. The neighbour who randomly helps pick up litter in the neighbourhood with her girls every Sunday afternoon. The friend who texts to check in with the simple words “how are you?”
The truth is simple: for every voice spreading hate, there are countless others spreading hope. For every person tearing down, there are builders, healers, and helpers working in the quiet spaces between the noise.
Yes, problems exist. Yes, challenges are real. But so is the grandfather teaching his grandson about dignity and respect. So is the aunty teaching her niece how to bake. So is the library volunteer reading to the shelter dogs. So is the community garden where strangers become neighbours.
Today, I’m choosing to notice the nice. Not because I’m naive, but because I refuse to let the moaning and the loudest voices drown out the most important ones. The ones that remind us we’re more alike than different. The ones that choose connection over division.
Your turn: What nice thing will you notice today? Free your mind, pay attention—you'll see one.
Because in a sea of anger, being gentle isn’t weak or naive—it’s revolutionary.
Share this:
Sabrina Carpenter and Feminist Utopia
I have recently been introduced to Sabrina Carpenter via online media commentary about the image of her new album cover Man’s Best Friend. Whilst some claim the image is playing with satire, the image appears to have been interpreted by others as being hyper-sexual and pandering to the male gaze.
I am not sure why this specific album cover and artist has attracted so much attention given that the hyper-sexual depiction of women is well-represented within the music industry and society more generally. However, because Sabrina’s main audience base is apparently young women under 30 it did leave me thinking about the module CRI1009 and feminist utopia, as it left me with questions that I would want to ask the students like: In a feminist utopia should the hyper-sexualized imagery of women exist?
Some might be quick to point out that this imagery should not exist as it could be seen to contribute towards the misogynistic sexualisation of women and the danger of this, as illustrated with Glasgow Women’s Aid comments about Sabrina’s album cover via Instagram (2025)
‘Sabrina Carpenter’s new album cover isn’t edgy, it’s regressive.
Picturing herself on all fours, with a man pulling her hair and calling it “Man’s Best Friend” isn’t subversion. 😐
It’s a throwback to tired tropes that reduce women to pets, props, and possessions and promote an element of violence and control. 🚩
We’ve fought too hard for this. ✊🏻
We get Sabrina’s brand is packaged up retro glam but we really don’t need to go back to the tired stereotypes of women. ✨
Sabrina is pandering to the male gaze and promoting misogynistic stereotypes, which is ironic given the majority of her fans are young women!
Come on Sabrina! You can do better! 💖’
However, thinking about utopia is always complicated as Sabrina’s brand appears to some a ‘sex-positive feminism’ by apparently allowing women to be free to represent themselves and ‘feel sexy’ rather than being controlled by the rules and expectations of other people. For some this idea of sexual freedom aka ‘sex-positive feminism’ branded via an inequitable capitalistic male dominated industry and represented by an incredibly rich white woman would be a bit of a mythical representation. As while this idea of sexy feminism is promoted by the privileged few this occurs in a societal context where many feel that women’s rights are being/at risk of being eroded and women are being subjected to sexual violence on a daily basis.
I am not sure what a workshop discussion with CRI1009 students would conclude about this, but certainly there would need to be a circling back to more never- ending foundational questions about utopia: what else would exist in this feminist utopia? Whose feminist utopic vision should get priority? Would anyone be damaged in a utopic society that does promote this hyper-sexualization? If so, should this utopia prioritise individual expression or have collective responsibility? In a society without hyper-sexualisation of women would there be rule breakers, and if so, what do you do with them?
Share this:
Reflecting on Adolescence
This short series from Netflix has proven to be a national hit, as it rose to be the #1 most streamed programme on the platform in the UK. It has become a popular talking point amongst many viewers, with the programme even reaching into parliament and having praise from the government. After watching it, I can say that it is deserving of its mass popularity, with many aspects welcoming it to my interests.
It is not meant to be an overly dramatised show as we see from other programmes on Netflix. Whilst it fits in the genre of “Drama” it mainly serves itself as a message and portrayal of how toxic masculinity takes form at a young age. One episode was an hour long interrogation that became difficult to watch as it felt as if I was in the room myself, seeing a young boy turn from being vulnerable and scared to intimidating, aggressive and manipulative. As a programme, it does its job of engagement, but its message was displayed even better. Our society has a huge problem with perceptions of masculinity and how young men are growing up in a world that normalises misogyny. The microcosm that Adolescence shows encapsulates this problem well and highlights the problem of the “manosphere” that many young men and even children are turning to as they become radicalised online.
Commentators such as Andrew Tate have become a huge idol to his followers, which are often labelled as “incels”. Sine his rise in popularity in past years, an epidemic of these so called manosphere followers perpetuate misogyny in every corner of their lives, following and believing tales like the “80-20 rule” in which 80% of women are attracted to 20% of men. This kind of mindset is extremely dangerous and, as displayed in Jamie’s behaviour, leads to a feeling of necessity in regard to women liking them. This behaviour isn’t exactly new; it is a form of misogyny that has plagued society for as long as society has been around, however it has been perpetuated further by the “Commentaters”, as I call them.
As a fan of the Silent Hill series, I have always enjoyed stories that dive deep into the psyche and explore wider themes in ways that make the audience uncomfortable, yet willing, to confront. Adolescence does this in the form of a show not so disguised as an overarching message. I feel like it has done its job of making people reflect and critically think about what is wrong with society, and exposing those who do not think about the wider messages and only care about entertainment. I mean, people sit and question whether or not Jamie did the crime and argue that he is not guilty, when the show explicitly shows and tells you what happens through Jamie’s character, demeanour and interactions in the interrogations.
Misogyny and the forces that uphold it are not new concepts and nor will it be an ancient concept any time soon with the way contemporary society functions. Even as society may become more tolerant, there will always be a way for women to be disadvantaged. However, stories like Adolescence may provide a glimmer of hope in dissecting and being a piece of the puzzle that pieces together the wider branches of misogyny and allow for more people to explore its underpinnings.
Share this:
Changing the Narrative around Violence Against Women and Girls
For Criminology at UON’s 25th Birthday, in partnership with the Northampton Fire, Police and Crime Commissioner, the event “Changing the Narrative: Violence Against Women and Girls” convened on the 2nd April. Bringing together a professional panel, individuals with lived experience and practitioners from charity and other sectors, to create a dialogue and champion new ways of thinking. The first in a series, this event focused on language.
All of the discussions, notes and presentations were incredibly insightful, and I hope this thematic collation does it all justice.
“A convenient but not useful term.”
Firstly an overwhelming reflection on the term itself; ‘Violence Against Women and Girls’ – does it do justice to all of the behaviour under it’s umbrella? We considered this as reductionist, dehumanising, and often only prompts thinking and action to physical acts of violence, but perhaps neglects many other harms such as emotional abuse, coercion and financial abuse which may not be seen as, or felt as ‘severe enough’ to report. It may also predominantly suggest intimate partner or domestic abuse which may too exclude other harms towards women and girls such as (grand)parent/child abuse or that which happens outside of the home. All of which are too often undetected or minimised, potentially due to this use of language. Another poignant reflection is that we may not currently be able to consider ‘women and girls’ as one group, given that girls under 16 may not be able to seek help for domestic abuse, in the same way that women may be able to. We also must consider the impact of this term on those whose gender identity is not what they were assigned at birth, or those that identify outside of the gender binary. Where do they fit into this?
To change the narrative, we must first identify what we are talking about. Explicitly. Changing the narrative starts here.
“I do not think I have survived.”
We considered the importance of lived experience in our narratives and reflected on the way we use it, and what that means for individuals, and our response.
Firstly, the terms ‘victim’ and ‘survivor’ – which we may use without thought, use as fact, particularly as descriptors within our professions, but actually these are incredibly personal labels that only individuals with such experience can give to themselves. This may be reflective of where they are in their journey surrounding their experiences and have a huge impact on their experience of being supported. It was courageously expressed that we also must recognise that individuals may not identify with either of those terms, and that much more of that person still exists outside of that experience or label. We also took a moment to remember that some victims, will never be survivors.
Lived experience is making its way into our narratives more and more, but there is still much room for improvement. We champion that if we are to create a more supportive, inclusive, practical and effective narrative, we must reflect the language of individuals with lived experience and we must use it to create a narrative free from tick boxes, from the lens of organisational goals and societal pressure.
Lived experience must be valued for what it is, not in spite of what it is.
“In some cases, we allow content – which would otherwise go against our standards – if its newsworthy.”
A further theme was a reflection on language which appears to be causing an erosion of moral boundaries. For example, the term ‘misogyny’ – was considered to be used flippantly, as an excuse, and as a scapegoat for behaviour which is not just ‘misogynistic’ but unacceptable, abhorrent, inexcusable behaviour – meaning the extent of the harms caused by this behaviour are swept away under a ‘normalised’ state of prejudice.
This is one of many terms that along with things like ‘trauma bond’ and ‘narcissist’ which have become popular on social media without any rigour as to the correct use of the term – further normalises harmful behaviour, and prevents women and girls from seeking support for these very not normal experiences. In the same vein it was expressed that sexual violence is often seen as part of ‘the university experience.’
This use of language and its presence on social media endangers and miseducates, particularly young people, especially with new posting policies around the freedom of expression. Firstly, in that many restrictions can be bypassed by the use of different text, characters and emoji so that posts are not flagged for certain words or language. Additionally, guidelines from Meta were shared and highlighted as problematic as certain content which would, and should, normally be restricted – can be shared – as long as is deemed ‘newsworthy.’
Within the media as a whole, we pressed the importance of using language which accurately describes the actions and experience that has happened, showing the impact on the individual and showing the extent of the societal problem we face… not just what makes the best headline.
“We took action overnight for the pandemic.”
Language within our response to these crimes was reflected upon, in particular around the term ‘non-emergency’ which rape, as a crime, has become catalogued as. We considered the profound impact of this language for those experiencing/have experienced this crime and the effect it has on the resources made available to respond to it.
Simultaneously, in other arenas, violence toward women and girls is considered to be a crisis… an emergency. This not only does not align with the views of law enforcement but suggests that this is a new, emerging crisis, when in fact it is long standing societal problem, and has faced significant barriers in getting a sufficient response. As reflected by one attendee – “we took action overnight for the pandemic.”
“I’ve worked with women who didn’t report rape because they were aroused – they thought they must have wanted it.”
Education was another widely considered theme, with most talk tables initially considering the need for early education and coming to the conclusion that everyone needs more education; young and old – everything in between; male, female and everything in between and outside of the gender binary. No-one is exempt.
We need all people to have the education and language to pass on to their children, friends, colleagues, to make educated choices. If we as adults don’t have the education to pass on to children, how will they get it? The phrase ‘sex education’ was reflected upon, within the context of schools, and was suggested to require change due to how it triggers an uproar from parents, often believing their children will only be taught about intercourse and that they’re too young to know. It was expressed that age appropriate education, giving children the language to identify harms, know their own body, speak up and speak out is only beneficial and this must happen to help break the cycle of generational violence. We cannot protect young people if we teach them ignorance.
Education for all was pressed particularly around education of our bodies, and our bodily experiences. In particular of female bodies, which have for so long been seen as an extension of male bodies. No-one knows enough about female bodies. This perpetuates issues around consent, uneducated choices and creates misplaced and unnecessary guilt, shame and confusion for females when subjected to these harms.
“Just because you are not part of the problem, does not mean you are part of the solution.“
Finally, though we have no intention or illusion of resolution with just one talk, or even a series of them – we moved to consider some ways forward. A very clear message was that this requires action – and this action should not fall on women and girls to protect themselves, but for perpetrators for be stopped. We need allies, of all backgrounds, but in particular, we need male allies. We need male allies who have the education, and the words necessary to identify and call out the behaviour of their peers, their friends, their colleagues, of strangers on the bus. We asked – would being challenged by a ‘peer’ have more impact? Simply not being a perpetrator, is not enough.
Share this:
Will Santa Visit?
For me Christmas always acts as a stark reminder of inequity, both past and present. I tend to remember television and music, stories of inequity between the haves and the have nots at Christmas time being told by the privileged few. Such as the Muppets Christmas Carol’s (1992) depiction of Tiny Tim, as being poor and disabled but ever so grateful for what he had. Quite recently I was doing some food shopping when I heard the Band Aid (1984) song, Do they know it’s Christmas playing on the tannoy. Despite the criticism relating to white privileged saviorism apparently still this song is popular enough to have a revival in 2024.
Christmas things cost money. So the differences between Christmas experiences of the haves and the have nots are drastic. Whilst many children are very aware that it is Christmas they might also be very aware of the financial constraints that their parents and/or guardians may be in. On the flip side there are other children who will have presents galore and are able to enjoy the festivities that Christmas bring.
This is also a time where goods are advertised and sold that are not needed and not recommended by healthcare professionals. Such as the sale of children’s toys that are dangerous for young children. For example, I was considering purchasing Water Beads as a fun crafting gift option for some children this year, until I was made aware that a children’s hospital and local playgroup are warning parents of the dangers of these as if swallowed can drastically expand in the body which could cause serious health complications.
It seems that social media also adds to the idea that parents and/or guardians should be providing more to enhance the Christmas experience. With posts about creating North Pole breakfasts, Christmas Eve boxes, matching Christmas family Christmas pajamas and expensive Santa visits. All of which come at a financial cost.
As well as this some toys that seem to be trending this year might be seen to misappropriate working class culture. For example, if your parents can afford to take you to Selfridges you can get a ‘fish and chip’ experience when buying Jelly Cat soft toys in the forms of items traditionally purchased from a fish and chip shop (see image above). This experience plus a bundle of these fish chips and peas soft toys cost £130 according to the Jelly Cat website. The profits gained for the Jelly Cat owners are currently being quoted in the news as being £58 million. Whilst at the same time some customers of these real life fish and shops will find it difficult to afford to buy a bag of chips. And some real life fish and chip businesses seem to be at risk of closure, in part due to high cost of living climate which impacts on cost of produce and bills.
Given the above issues it is not surprising that some children are worried that Santa won’t visit them this year.
Share this:
Realtopia?
I have recently been reading and re-reading about all things utopic, dystopic and “real[life]topic” for new module preparations; Imagining Crime. Dystopic societies are absolutely terrifying and whilst utopic ideas can envision perfect-like societies these utopic worlds can also become terrifying. These ‘imagined nowhere’ places can also reflect our lived realities, take Nazism for an example.
In CRI1009 Imagining Crime, students have already began to provide some insightful criticism of the modern social world. Questions which have been considered relate to the increasing use of the World Wide Web and new technologies. Whilst these may be promoted as being utopic, i.e., incredibly advanced and innovative, these utopic technological ideas also make me dystopic[ly] worry about the impact on human relations.
In the documentary America’s New Female Right there are examples of families who are also shown to be using technology to further a far right utopic agenda. An example includes a parent that is offended because their child’s two favourite teachers were (described as being) ‘homosexuals’, the parents response to this appeared to be taking the child out of school to home school the child instead, but also to give their child an iPad/tablet screen to use as a replacement for the teachers. Another example consisted of a teen using social media to spread far right propaganda and organise a transphobic rally. In the UK quite recently the far right riots were organised and encouraged via online platforms.
I would not advise watching the documentary, aside from being terrifying, the report and their team did very little to challenge these ideas. I did get the sense that the documentary was made to satisfy voyeuristic tendencies, and as well as this, it seems to add to the mythical idea that far right ideology and actions only exists within self identified far right extremist groups when this is not the case.
Mills (1959) suggests that people feel troubled if the society in which they live in has wide scale social problems. So might the unquestioning and increased use of technologies add to troubles due to the spreading of hate and division? And might this have an impact on our ability to speak to and challenge each other? Or to learn about lives different to our own? This reminds me of Benjamin Zephaniah’s children’s book titled People Need People (2022), maybe technologies and use of the internet are both connecting yet removing us from people in some way.
References
Mills, C. W. (2000) The Sociological Imagination. Fortieth anniversary edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zephaniah, B. (2022) People Need People. (London: Orchard Books)
Share this:
Headlines and Happiness: Balancing News Consumption and Wellbeing
As part of my reflective diary assessment for my third-year module ‘Critiquing Criminalistics’, I reflected on the importance of being up to date with world events to be able to apply criminological knowledge to them. I also reflected on the fact that I have avoided much of the news and media to manage my despair at the current state of the world. However, in order to further my academic knowledge and its application, I decided I just needed a safe way to keep on top of these things, so I compiled some tips and reminders for myself, and I’d like to share them with you.
Choose wisely: Choose reputable news sources, academic reports or reviews from trusted organisations, some will be better balanced, and much less sensationalised than others.
Practice media literacy: Be critical of the information you find; don’t believe everything you see and hear. Verify news stories from multiple sources before accepting them and remember what the media is designed to do. Plus, social media is full of misinformation and sensationalism and largely speaking, not a good resource!
Need to know basis: Consider which topics are most important for you to stay informed about, and limit exposure to news that is not relevant to your wellbeing or interests. It’s very easy to fall down the rabbit hole!
Limit your consumption: Put some boundaries in place that work for you, whether that’s setting an allotted time frame to catch up like to only listen to the radio on your drive into campus, taking a break from social media, or making sure those notifications are turned off so you’re not ambushed by breaking news.
Managing Traumatic Topics: If you are avoiding any particular topic, it might be helpful to have a trusted person read/watch for you first. Additionally, for any recommended films or series, try finding them on ‘Does the Dog Die?’ https://www.doesthedogdie.com/ to check for triggering content.
Find the happy stuff too: There is so much good happening in the world as well as all the bad, make sure you feed your brain some of that too, whether that’s in the news, or on social media.
Here are some other sources:
Look after yourself: Further to those things, take a break every once in a while, prioritise whatever it is that makes you see your world positively and seek support if you need it, that might be support from a professional, or talk to a trusted person, colleague, or staff member to air out those thoughts – go and ‘talk to a criminologist!’ If you’re particularly prone or you are a chronic catastrophiser (guilty!) – a perspective from someone else can be a useful tool.
Lastly, there is a quote I heard years ago, and while over time, there are some thoughts and applications of it that are less than favourable, I occasionally find it comforting; Fred Rogers passed along a message from his mother who said ‘Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.’
If you are able to manage the discomfort, sometimes it is good to find what makes you feel, and listen to it, let it fire you up! Perhaps you’ll become the helper.
Share this:
Are my interests childish or are you missing the bigger picture?
In semester 2, the level 4 BA Criminology students have been navigating different forms of socialisation for children, and thinking critically about where standards, assumptions and pressures on our children come from. Its been an interesting few weeks full of discussions building on personal experiences, documentaries and the wider academic literature. Now, whilst I could write a detailed reflection on the classroom discussions, what instead I want to, shockingly, moan about in the blog this week are the labels applied to young adults and adults implying being ‘childish’ is something to be ashamed of.
Many who know me will be aware I am a huge Disney fan, particularly Disney and Disney Pixar animations, which includes watching, gaming, clothing and accessories which all match my love for these films. I am also a big, big, big fan of dinosaurs, although if I’m being honest, its more so the Jurassic Park/World franchise. Again, books, films, toys, stuffed dinosaurs (shout out to my Beta stuffed toy – pictured above) from the Natural History Museum) and also a tattoo. These things bring me joy and also peace. Many a times when I’m overwhelmed, the go to is a Disney animation or Jurassic Park (much to my partner’s pain) for familiarity, comfort and relaxation. Yet despite the comfort and joy it brings me, often I am met with commentary about my ‘childish’ interests and questions around ‘when will I grow up’.
Now for clarity, most of these comments (but not all) are from friends and loved-ones who are saying so (I presume) in jest. There is no malice behind the comments, but still it has given me food for thought. Lots of people of all ages share the same joys as myself (social media fan pages are many), but is there any harm in pressing people to justify and commenting on their pastimes? Possibly. I am in a fortunate position to be able to afford various Disney-themed items of clothing (huge shout out to Primark and their Stitch section), Jurassic Park official merchandise, POP! Figures, clothes, posters etc whereas when I was younger, this was not something we could afford. Being in a privileged position and having a disposable income means I get to explore interests from my childhood, and have them develop into passions. Something which wasn’t available to me as a child, or even as a young adult at University. Being older and engaging with interests from childhood also uncovers new ways of appreciating the messages, artwork, and stories.
The presumption that my interests are ‘childish’ is not clearly explained by those who comment. What is meant by ‘childish’ and why is it presumed to be negative is not clear. But there appears to be some stigma around it. There is a push, as we are slowly uncovering in classroom discussions, for everyone to ‘grow-up’, but is this what is best for the individual? Or does this serve some greater purpose for society? I’m not sure what the point of the above ramblings are for, other than it might be best to keep opinions to yourself if you do not share the same interest. In a word that is full of harm and disadvantage, especially for children, let people enjoy their interests and passions, commentary free, if they aren’t harming you!
Share this:
Media Madness
Unless you have been living under a rock or on a remote island with no media access, you would have been made aware of the controversy of Russell Brand and his alleged ‘historic’ problematic behaviour. If we think about Russell Brand in the early 2000s he displayed provocative and eccentric behaviour, which contributed to his rise to fame as a comedian, actor, and television presenter. During this period, he gained popularity for his unique style, which combined sharp wit, a proclivity for wordplay, and a rebellious, countercultural persona.
Brand’s stand-up comedy routines was very much intertwined with his personality, which was littered with controversy, something that was welcomed by the general public and bosses at big media corporations. Hence his never-ending media opportunities, book deals and sell out shows.
In recent years Brand has reinvented (or evolved) himself and his public image which has seen a move towards introspectivity, spirituality and sobriety. Brand has collected millions of followers that praise him for his activist work, he has been vocal on mental health issues, and he encourages his followers to hold government and big corporations to an account.
The media’s cancellation of Russell Brand without any criminal charges being brought against him raises important questions about the boundaries of cancel culture and the presumption of innocence. Brand, a controversial and outspoken comedian, has faced severe backlash for his provocative statements and unconventional views on various topics. While his comments have undoubtedly sparked controversy and debate, the absence of any criminal charges against him highlights the growing trend of public figures being held to account in the court of public opinion, often without a legal basis.
This situation underscores the importance of distinguishing between free speech and harmful behaviour. Cancel culture can sometimes blur these lines, leading to consequences that may seem disproportionate to the alleged transgressions. The case of Russell Brand serves as a reminder of the need for nuanced discussions around cancel culture, ensuring that individuals are held accountable for their actions while also upholding the principle of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It raises questions about how society should navigate the complex intersection of free expression, public accountability, and the potential consequences for individuals in the public eye.
There is also an important topic that seems to be forgotten in this web of madness……..what about the alleged victims. There seems to be a theme that continuously needs to be highlighted when criminality and victimisation is presented. There is little discussion or coverage on the alleged victims. The lack of media sensitivity and lay discussion on this topic either dehumanises the alleged victims by using lines such as ‘Brand is another victim of MeToo’ and comparing him to Cliff Richard and Kevin Spacey, two celebrities that were accused of sexual crimes and were later found not guilty, which in essence creates a narrative that does not challenge Brand’s conduct, on the basis of previous cases that have no connection to one another.
We also need to be mindful on the medias framing of the alleged witch hunt against Russell Brand and the problematic involvement that the UK government. The letter penned by Dame Dinenage sent to social media platforms in an attempt to demonetize Brand’s content should also be highlighted. While I support Brand being held accountable for any proven crimes he has committed, I feel these actions by UK government are hasty, and problematic considering there have been many opportunities for the government to step in on serious allegations about media personalities on the BBC and other news stations and they have not chosen to act. The step made by Dame Dinenage has contributed to the media madness and contributes to the out of hand and in many ways, nasty discussion around freedom of speech. The government’s involvement has deflected the importance of the victimisation and criminality. Instead, it has replaced the discussion around the governments overarching punitive control over society.
Brand has become a beacon of understanding to is 6.6 million followers during Covid 19 lockdowns, mask mandates and vaccinations. This was at a time when many people questioned government intentions and challenged the mainstream narratives around autonomy. Because Brand has been propped up as a hero to his ‘awakened’ followers the shift around his conduct and alleged crimes have been erased from conversation and debates around BIG BROTHER and CONTROL continue to shape the media narrative………
Share this:
Behind the Filter: Navigating the Fine Line Between Genuine Parenting and Child Exploitation in the World of Influencers
As the world of social media influencers continues to expand, certain high-profile cases have brought the issue of mum influencers exploiting their children into the spotlight. These cases serve as cautionary tales, highlighting the potential dangers and ethical pitfalls that come with blurring the lines between personal family life and commercial partnerships. It is important to note that while the spotlight has indeed centred on ‘mum’ influencers this discussion cannot go forward without acknowledging, that we should be shaping the discussion on the way PARENTS create content online.
Mum influencers have become a powerful force in the influencer landscape. They provide a glimpse into the daily lives of mothers, discussing topics such as parenting tips, family dynamics, and the challenges of balancing work and family life. Initially, many followers were drawn to these influencers for their relatability and authenticity. This has created an opportunity for dads to also partake in the ‘business’ of family influencing as many people yearn for the whole family picture, which brings a non-traditional demographic of followers and thus an expansion of interest and growth of followers, and thus bringing the allure of financial opportunities.
As followers increase, family influencers often receive offers from brands seeking to collaborate. This is where the ethical dilemma arises – how far is too far when it comes to integrating children into sponsored content? While some collaborations may involve innocent and genuine family moments, others might push the boundaries, putting children in situations that prioritize profit over their well-being. It is essential to differentiate between content that genuinely celebrates parenthood/ family and content that exploits it. Sharing heartfelt stories, documenting milestones, and discussing the challenges of parenthood and family dynamics can be informative and supportive for other parents. However, the line blurs when children are consistently used to endorse products and/ or services in a way that feels forced or invasive.
Children of influencers often have their lives documented from birth, which raises concerns about their privacy. As they grow older, they might not consent to having their childhood experiences permanently etched into the online realm. The potential impact on their mental and emotional well-being as they come to grips with their digital footprint is a significant consideration. We all have that embarrassing childhood picture that parents have on the wall or in a photo album, however that is in the confines of their home and whose eyes view them can be monitored. The tricky nature of the internet removes that possibility. With visibility comes risk. Publicly showcasing one’s life includes exposure to not only praise but also criticism and negativity. Children that have an online presence in the capacity of being influencers can become targets of online trolls or even predators, who might misuse their images or information. Protecting children from these potential dangers should be a priority for any parent, online or offline.
My previous point made on children of influencers being documented from birth begs reflection on the concept of consent. This can be viewed in many ways; however, the notion of consent becomes murky when children are too young to understand the implications of their online presence. While some influencers argue that their children enjoy being part of the content creation process, it is challenging to gauge how much choice a young child truly has. Blurring the lines between what is a personal family moment and what is a scripted advertisement can complicate this matter further.
As family influencers grapple with this dilemma, there’s an increasing call for responsible content creation, and thus drawing clear boundaries between what is acceptable and what crosses the line into exploitation. Making conscious decisions about the type and frequency of content involving children and avoiding situations that compromise their well-being for the sake of likes, shares, and sponsorship should be paramount, but in many ways, this does not always seem to be considered. There are many examples that come to mind, but for this blog entry I will use a particularly shocking case. In 2020 YouTubers Myka and James Stauffer faced backlash after publicly announcing the decision to “rehome” their adopted son with autism. The Stauffer family, known for their parenting content, had initially garnered support for their adoption journey. The family seemed like any other online family that people aspired to be like. They had four biological children and presented their happy loving family for all to see. However, the revelation that they had monetized the adoption process through sponsored content and merchandise raised concerns about the child’s well-being and whether he was being exploited for financial gain. The backlash following their announcement saw them lose thousands of followers. While there were numerous followers and news outlets that spoke out against the Stauffer’s actions, there was little commentary that focused on the impact that the ‘rehoming’ of their adopted son had on him or their other children. The children should have been at the centre of this story but instead they were pushed to the side.
This blog entry servers as poignant reminders of the potential pitfalls in the world of family influencers and their children. While some cases may involve genuine oversight, it’s essential for influencers and brands to exercise caution and ethical responsibility when involving children in their content.
As influencers strive to maintain authenticity while navigating commercial opportunities, it is crucial that they strike a balance between sharing genuine family moments and protecting the well-being, privacy, and dignity of their children. In a landscape where the line between public and private blurs, parent influencers must remember that their children’s well-being is paramount. Instead of exploiting their children for financial gain, fame and clout.
Thoughts from the criminology team 