This case study was written for my Communications Ethics course at Brigham Young University (BYU). It explores the ethical responsibilities of parents and social media platforms when sharing images of children online, with a focus on privacy, consent, and protecting children's digital identities. Through ethical decision-making frameworks, I examine how we can balance sharing meaningful memories with respecting the dignity and safety of those pictures.
Summary:
Brooke Baker’s case study, “Sharenting: Privacy Concerns of Sharing Photos and Videos of Children on Social Media,” examines Jacquelyn Eleanor’s decision to share videos of her three-year-old daughter, Wren, on TikTok. What began as a way to preserve family memories developed into an account with millions of followers that generated nearly $15,000 per month. Some videos attracted inappropriate comments and were saved by thousands of users, raising concerns about Wren’s privacy, safety, and potential exploitation for financial gain.
Ethical Question:
Most social media sites require someone to be at least 13 years old before they can create an account. Should social media sites also require the subjects of photos and videos be at least 13 years old before they are posted? Why or why not?
Ethical Analysis:
My personal ethical statement identifies integrity as the foundation of my ethical decision-making. I believe integrity means acting consistently with my values, honoring my commitments, and taking responsibility for how my decisions affect others. It also means doing what is right even when doing so means giving up financial benefits or opportunities for attention. Applying Sissela Bok’s ethical decision-making model, supported by deontology and virtue ethics, I believe social media sites should distinguish between appropriate private family sharing and public sharing that exposes children to unnecessary risk. I do not believe an absolute age of thirteen rule for everyone depicted in photos or videos is the most ethical or logical solution, but I do believe children need stronger protections and more considerate parents.
The first step in Bok’s model is to identify the ethical problem. Although social media platforms generally set an age requirement for creating an account, children younger than 13 can still develop a public presence through content posed by adults. This creates a conflict between a parent’s freedom to share family memories and a child’s right to privacy, dignity,and future control over their digital identity. Children may not understand how widely their images can be curtailed or how others might use them. In Wren’s case, inappropriate comments, widespread savings of videos, and the account’s financial success demonstrate what the purpose and scale of sharing matter.
The second step is to consult one’s conscience. I would ask myself whether I could justify a decision to share a child’s image if it exposed that child to unwanted attention or lasting privacy risks. Parents may have good intentions, such as preserving memories or providing financially for their children, but good intentions do not automatically make every decision ethical. Integrity requires putting the child’s well-being ahead of financial gain or popularity when those interests conflict. I believe parents should consider not only what they are comfortable sharing but also whether their children could reasonably be expected to understand and accept the consequences.
The third step is to seek advice from others and consider the perspective of those affected. Parents, child-safety professionals, and social media platforms can all contribute to decisions about children’s online privacy. Parents generally have the authority to make decisions for young children, and their permission can be sufficient for sharing appropriate family photographs when reasonable safety considerations are met. HHowever, parental permission should not justify every type of public exposure. Children are the people most directly affected, yet they have the ;east ability to control what is shared about them. Platforms also have a responsibility to respond when content or user behavior creates a foreseeable risk to child’s safety.
The fourth step is to evaluate alternatives. Querying everyone depicted in a photo or video to be at least 13 would be difficult to enforce consistently and would prevent many ordinary family experiences from being shared. I believe private accounts, where family memories are shared with a limited audience, are generally appropriate when parents experience good judgment. Public accounts require greater consideration because content can reach strangers, be saved or redistributed, and attract unwanted attention. Platform scolds offer stronger privacy settings, restrict downloading and resharing minors content, provide effective reporting and removal tools, and apply additional safeguards to accounts that repeatedly defeat their children for financial gain. These alternatives better balance family freedom with children’s safety and privacy.
The Perspective of a Wedding Photographer:
My perspective as a wedding photohra[her also informs my reasoning. I sometimes photograph young children at weddings and receptions and believe sharing appropriate images can be ethical because it documents a family’s celebration. My clients agree to my image-sharing policy in their contract, and I respect their requests to not publish particular photographs. However, I recognize that permission does not eliminate every ethical responsibility. Sharing a child in the context of a family celebration, especially when the child is the not main or only subject of the photo, is different from building a large public following around that child’s life. The audience's purpose, scale, and potential consequences all matter.
Deontology & Virtue Ethics:
Deontology supports this position because adults have a moral duty to respect children’s dignity and protect their interests rather than treating them merely as a means of generating attention or income. Virtue ethics reinforces the importance of compilation, integrity, and sound judgment. A responsible parent or photographer considers whether sharing is appropriate, not simply whether it is permitted. Both frameworks support thoughtful sharing while rejecting choices that place a child’s privacy or safety at unnecessary risk.
Conclusion:
I conclude that social media platforms should not impose a blanket rule prohibiting the posting of every child under thirteen. Private family sharing and appropriate photographs documenting meaningful experiences can be ethical. However, public sharing requires greater care, particularly when a child’s images are repeatedly posted, attract inappropriate attention, or generate substantial financial benefits. Parents should take primary responsibility for protecting their children, while platforms should enforce stronger safeguards when children’s privacy or safety is threatened.
Bok’s model helps me reach this conclusion by requiring me to identify the ethical conflict, consult my conscience, consider the perspectives of others, and evaluate safer alternatives. My personal ethical statement reminds me that integrity means doing what is right even when doing so costs money, attention, or opportunity. Ultimately, children deserve privacy, dignity, and protection as they develop the maturity to make informed decisions about their own digital identities.
Sources
Baker, B. (n.d.). Case 3-A : Sharenting: Privacy Concerns of Sharing Photos and Videos of Children on Social Media. Vitalsource Bookshelf online.
Digital Packet - COMMS 304 DCE. Vitalsource Bookshelf online. (n.d.).
Gerard, J. N. (2024, April 6). Integrity: A Christlike Attribute. Homepage - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2024/04/17gerard?lang=eng
ISPWP, I. S. of P. W. P. (n.d.). Code of Conduct. https://ispwp.com. https://www.ispwp.com/pages/code-of-conduct
Painter, C., Shauster, E., & Patterson, P. (n.d.). Media Ethics. Vitalsource Bookshelf online.
