“Instagram, Facebook, and the Perils of ‘Sharenting'”
By Hua Hsu
September 11, 2019
The New Yorker
For the vast majority of people, checking Instagram involves a mix of aspirationalism and voyeurism;
the app feeds on a collective fear that we are missing out on something, whether it’s a fabulous party, a pop-up
sale, or the mere concept of vacation. But the same dynamic doesn’t quite apply to parents sharing pictures of
their young children online. There certainly may be an element of proud boasting: “Oh, this? It’s just my
daughter’s tastefully mismatched outfit,” “Admire my toddler son’s taste in jazz,” etc. But these carefully
chosen glimpses of adorable bliss often do little more than mark a tranquil reprieve during an otherwise arduous
day. The isolation of parenthood delivers one to strange places, especially in the early going, and you need your
tribe. Sharing images or stories on social media makes the experience bearable, connecting one to a larger world
at a time when the scales and contours of life feel as though they are shrinking.
All of this seems harmless enough—annoying, even, if you have hit your saturation point of doughy
newborns. Sometimes we annoy ourselves. I used to go out of my way to maintain the lowest of profiles on the
Internet, yet I now resemble a member of the paparazzi, chronicling every mildly comical turn of my son’s life.
He never got to choose to not be on the Internet. What happens when the slow telos of parenthood meets the
insatiable rhythms of social media is the subject of “Sharenthood: Why We Should Think Before We Talk
About Our Kids Online,” a new book by Leah Plunkett. Plunkett argues that “sharenting” happens any time an
adult in charge of a child’s well-being, such as a parent or a teacher, transmits private details about a child via
digital channels. Some of these activities clearly involve a public, such as posting pictures of your child on
Facebook, or blogging about your kids. Others seem to happen in private but often end up turning your child
into a set of data points, via fertility apps or Amazon wish lists, the use of a Nest cam, or photos stored on a
cloud server. Though these platforms and devices aren’t exploitative, per se, Plunkett argues that they involve
adult decisions that accelerate a child’s entry into “digital life.” Studies estimate that by 2030 nearly two-thirds
of identity-fraud cases affecting today’s children will have resulted from sharenting.
For Plunkett, who is an associate professor at the University of New Hampshire Law School and a
faculty associate at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, at Harvard University, there are a couple
of reasons to be concerned about sharenting. On a philosophical level, sharenting exposes children to the larger
digital world without their consent, robbing them of a kind of agency. It exposes them to platforms that they
might have opted out of altogether—and deprives them of the choice to never be on social media in the first
place. As Plunkett argues, adults sharent because the online world “makes it very easy to do and even
encourages it.” And parents do so without considering the long-term repercussions, while the possibilities for
harm continue to change every day.
This feeds into Plunkett’s second, much broader concern. The underlying problem with sharenting is the
same with many adult-world surveillance and privacy issues: the bargain we have made in exchange for these
services is that we surrender our data and choose not to imagine the worst-case scenarios. At a time when we’re
increasingly aware of data privacy and surveillance, what unforeseen consequences might there be to
maintaining what Plunkett terms a “digital dossier”—especially one that stretches all the way back to the
parents’ gleeful Facebook post revealing that they are expecting? We’ve grown accustomed to someone in the
public eye apologizing for an idiotic tweet from when they were a teen-ager. What if that record stretched back
even further? Could things parents post about children produce real-world outcomes, in terms of fodder for
bullying, professional reputation, or future prospects? Could the fact that children already exist as online entities
affect a child’s “ability to develop their own sense of self”?
We have long taken for granted that companies such as Facebook and Google collect data on us and then
pass that data on to advertisers. But the 2016 election confirmed that our individual whims could be useful to
politicians as well. Plunkett speculates a future in which such data collection, used to forecast our tastes or
allegiances, could begin at conception. Today, long before children take their first step, their digital data already
travels to “thousands, likely tens of thousands, of human and machine users.” How long until someone claims
the power to predict who a child will become as an adult based on these data points? At a time when the desire
for metrics seems boundless, what if a child’s development, tracked online, could translate into a “personal
capital” score, akin to China’s “social credit” system? How far back could a college-admissions officer or credit
checker peer into one’s engagement with social media? Plunkett is describing a set of questions, about data and
privacy, that many of us already grapple with. Yet it all seems particularly nefarious in the context of children,
for whom a defining condition of life is that they are captive to forces they cannot possibly grasp.
Plunkett has described “Sharenthood” as a placeholder rather than a polemic, and it’s useful to approach
her work this way. It’s an occasion for a broader conversation, at least before resigning ourselves to the new
normal. For example, most people used to take photographs in order to document something for themselves and
for posterity. Nowadays, that experience is compressed, such that many of us take pictures with the intent to
immediately share them with other people. A lot of “Sharenthood” can seem a bit abstract, and Plunkett’s
instinct, as a legal scholar, is to press toward hypotheticals. The laws governing child labor, Plunkett reminds
us, originally presumed the “factory floor or the family dairy farm.” It’s harder to figure out how a child can opt
out of their role in a mommy or daddy blog. Plunkett doesn’t have many concrete answers, and the book can
meander, following a loose, speculative energy.
Its most gripping moments come when she imagines scenarios that seem both far-fetched and, when you
think more deeply about the direction of technological innovation, a bit inevitable. For decades, there have been
toys, from Teddy Ruxpin to Tickle Me Elmo, designed to mimic one-on-one engagement with a child. What
about a future involving “smart” toys with the machine-learning capability to actually converse with, or teach,
children according to their individual quirks? How far into the future is what Plunkett calls “smart Elmo?” A toy
that teaches and sleeps alongside your child while also tracking his or her consumer choices?
The territory of the “commercial sharenter” is where Plunkett’s queries about the ethical dimensions of
putting your kids on the Internet merge with her concerns about data and surveillance. New parents, for whom
commiseration becomes a kind of currency, represent an attractive audience. You can begin to see why bloggers
or YouTubers who dispense parental advice rooted in anecdote or experience can be so successful. Someone
with a few more months’ experience—and, say, with a child who eats vegetables—can suddenly seem like a
prophet, telling of the glories that await in another land.
Yet turning one’s family into content occasionally leads somewhere dark. Plunkett mentions
“DaddyOFive,” a popular YouTube channel run, until 2017, by a couple named Michael and Heather Martin.
The Martins, who were both in their mid-thirties, weren’t offering advice. Instead, they specialized in “prank”
videos involving their five children, essentially poking fun at their own negligent approach to parenting. At its
height, “DaddyOFive,” which Michael started in 2015, had about seven hundred and fifty thousand subscribers.
As the channel grew, it attracted more viewers who felt that the parents’ antics, which occasionally involved
slapping or yelling at their kids, or telling them that they were being put up for adoption, or breaking their toys,
were cruel. Although the Martins claimed that the videos were staged and that their children consented to
playing their roles, authorities eventually intervened. A psychologist in the trial found that two of the children,
who were nine and eleven at the time, had experienced “observable, identifiable, and substantial impairments of
their mental or psychological ability to function.” The Martins were sentenced to five years of probation, and,
though the videos were deleted, Plunkett explains that the abused children are forced to experience “perpetual
reruns.” The Martins’ attorney assured the court that the couple would become more “careful” with their
children and social media.
From Plunkett’s perspective, the legal side of things can’t possibly anticipate the long-term effects of the
Martins’ aggressive sharenting. The Martins’ five children will continue to grow and, like most tweens and
teens, figure out who they are. Yet a version of them, bawling and pleading, will remain on the Internet, frozen
in time. The Martins, however, just represent a more extreme version of how many of us live online, expanding
our networks, sharing our lives with people beyond our physical reach. It’s hard to feel like you’re in the same
universe as the Martins when you’re simply posting a clip of a child dealing with brain freeze on Facebook. But
Plunkett’s argument is that these acts rest on the same continuum. As the psychiatrists Rebecca Schrag
Hershberg and Daniel T. Willingham recently argued, laughing at a child’s foibles is never “innocent.”
Perhaps Plunkett’s greatest contribution is how fastidiously she parses the term “sharenthood,” which
has circulated since at least the early twenty-tens. As often happens, the mere act of giving this pattern of
behavior a name has the effect of rendering it suspect, if a bit lame. As a shameless sharenter—albeit one with
poor, if not nonexistent, commercial instincts—“Sharenthood” made me consider my own choices: whether it
was healthy to use my son’s e-mail address to sign up for mailing-list-only coupons, why YouTube only
recommends pirated cartoons to me these days. Yet it’s impossible to generalize from a child’s perspective.
Some kids grow to be embarrassed by what their parents post, while others wonder why they aren’t featured
even more. Mine might one day wonder why so many videos exist of him asking for “jazz,” which, for a while,
was the word he used instead of “music.” “Sharenthood” didn’t resolve anything for me, and maybe that’s
asking too much. In the end, Plunkett’s advice is to “make more mindful choices” about our digital lives. Yet
parenthood is often such a blur that mindfulness seems impossible, a kind of deliberation and peace that might
as well be another country. As adults, we should know better—even if we often have no idea what we are
Why Work with Us
Top Quality and Well-Researched Papers
We always make sure that writers follow all your instructions precisely. You can choose your academic level: high school, college/university or professional, and we will assign a writer who has a respective degree.
Professional and Experienced Academic Writers
We have a team of professional writers with experience in academic and business writing. Many are native speakers and able to perform any task for which you need help.
Free Unlimited Revisions
If you think we missed something, send your order for a free revision. You have 10 days to submit the order for review after you have received the final document. You can do this yourself after logging into your personal account or by contacting our support.
Prompt Delivery and 100% Money-Back-Guarantee
All papers are always delivered on time. In case we need more time to master your paper, we may contact you regarding the deadline extension. In case you cannot provide us with more time, a 100% refund is guaranteed.
Original & Confidential
We use several writing tools checks to ensure that all documents you receive are free from plagiarism. Our editors carefully review all quotations in the text. We also promise maximum confidentiality in all of our services.
24/7 Customer Support
Our support agents are available 24 hours a day 7 days a week and committed to providing you with the best customer experience. Get in touch whenever you need any assistance.
Try it now!
How it works?
Follow these simple steps to get your paper done
Place your order
Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.
Proceed with the payment
Choose the payment system that suits you most.
Receive the final file
Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.
No need to work on your paper at night. Sleep tight, we will cover your back. We offer all kinds of writing services.
No matter what kind of academic paper you need and how urgent you need it, you are welcome to choose your academic level and the type of your paper at an affordable price. We take care of all your paper needs and give a 24/7 customer care support system.
Admission Essays & Business Writing Help
An admission essay is an essay or other written statement by a candidate, often a potential student enrolling in a college, university, or graduate school. You can be rest assurred that through our service we will write the best admission essay for you.
Our academic writers and editors make the necessary changes to your paper so that it is polished. We also format your document by correctly quoting the sources and creating reference lists in the formats APA, Harvard, MLA, Chicago / Turabian.
If you think your paper could be improved, you can request a review. In this case, your paper will be checked by the writer or assigned to an editor. You can use this option as many times as you see fit. This is free because we want you to be completely satisfied with the service offered.