Is Family Vlogging on Its Way Out? The Ethical Dilemma of Monetising Childhood
Family vlogging has become a fixture on YouTube and social media, where parents document their daily lives with their children for an audience of millions. While this content is often framed as wholesome entertainment, the ethical concerns surrounding child privacy, monetisation, and long-term consequences are becoming harder to ignore. With growing scrutiny over child exploitation, evolving platform policies, and a greater understanding of the impact on those who grew up in these environments, family vlogging as it exists today may not be sustainable.
Academic research and legal discussions increasingly highlight the risks associated with monetised content featuring children. Studies such as Family Vlogging and Child Harm: A Need for Nationwide Protection and Family Influencing in the Best Interests of the Child have raised concerns about the absence of protections for children whose private lives become a source of income for their families. Some experts argue that family vlogging is a modern form of digital child labour, with children contributing to a profitable business model without their informed consent, contracts, or financial security.
Why This Stuck With Me
I have spoken with multiple people who grew up in family vlogging environments, but one conversation has stayed with me more than most. A 15-year-old boy contacted me some time ago, asking if there was anything I could do to help him get his family’s YouTube channel removed. His parents refused to stop filming him, and he was desperate for a way out.
He had saved $200 of his own money (obviously I didn’t take it) to try and pay for help from me, because he felt like he had no other options, which kind of confirmed he’s not getting any revenue from the channel. He was being bullied at school over what was posted online, and if he asked not to be filmed, his parents guilt-tripped him into continuing.
“They tell me I should be grateful. That the videos pay for our house, my school, everything. And that if I don’t want to be part of it anymore, I’m making life harder for them.”
At 15, he was breaking down on the phone over something that should never have been his burden to carry. The distress was clear, but his parents, who had built their platform on him and his younger siblings, refused to listen.
He gave me permission to share this story, and while this was not a recent call, the conversation has stayed with me because it exposed how little control some children have over their own lives when their family profits from their personal experiences.
How Much Do Family Vlogs Earn?
Family vlogging is not simply about sharing memories. It is a lucrative industry, with income streams from advertising revenue, sponsorships, and merchandise. The primary source of earnings is often through YouTube’s ad revenue model, calculated using Cost Per Mille (CPM), or the amount advertisers pay per 1,000 views.
The average CPM for family vlogging content ranges from £2 to £8 per 1,000 views, depending on audience demographics and engagement levels.
A successful family vlogger could make anywhere from £8,000 to £40,000 per month, depending on video performance and sponsorship deals.
These figures highlight why many parents are reluctant to stop, even when their child no longer wants to participate. And unlike professional child actors, there is no legal requirement that any of this money is set aside for the child.
Consent and Control
A key argument in defence of family vlogging is that children “agree” to participate. But legally and ethically, for consent to be valid, it must be informed, voluntary, and revocable. Children are unable to meet these requirements in a way that holds up to scrutiny.
1. Informed Consent
To provide true consent, an individual must understand the long-term consequences of what they are agreeing to. A child, particularly a younger one, cannot reasonably grasp that:
These videos will exist indefinitely, potentially resurfacing years later.
Their personal moments may be downloaded, shared, or misused by strangers.
Their digital footprint could impact future job opportunities, relationships, or education.
A toddler agreeing to be filmed does not equate to an informed choice. They have no concept of how their future self may feel about their entire childhood being available for public consumption.
2. Voluntary Consent
Even if a child does not object to filming, the power imbalance in a family vlog setting raises questions about whether they truly have a choice.
If a child grows up in a vlogging environment, they may not realise that opting out is even possible.
If a family’s income is reliant on the content, a child refusing to participate can be framed as selfish or ungrateful, putting undue pressure on them to comply.
Many vlog children have reported feeling an obligation to perform, not because they wanted to, but because it was what their parents expected.
A child who is guilted into participation is not consenting.
3. The Right to Withdraw Consent
Ethical consent should always be revocable. A person must be able to change their mind at any time. But in family vlogging, this is not a real option.
A child may be fine with being filmed at five but want the content removed by fifteen. By that point, the content has already been seen, shared, and archived elsewhere.
Even if a parent chooses to delete the videos, they may have already been re-uploaded by others, meaning the child can never fully regain their privacy.
Since children in family vlogs have no way of withdrawing their consent in a meaningful way, their participation is not voluntary in the first place.
If a child can’t consent, should their life be content?
Child Acting and Family Vlogging Are Not the Same
Some parents argue that family vlogging is no different from traditional child acting. The comparison does not hold up.
Child actors work under strict labour laws that limit working hours and require contracts and protections.
Child actors portray fictional roles, whereas children in vlogs have their real lives exposed without a separation between performance and reality.
In the UK and US, child actors have Coogan funds, ensuring that a portion of their earnings is protected for their future. Family vloggers are not required to set aside any income for their children. (From my experiences, this rarely happens)
Family vlogging is an unregulated industry, with no oversight to ensure that children are fairly compensated or protected.
Privacy and Safety Risks
One child who reached out to me after growing up in a family vlogging environment told me that his parents filmed so much of their daily lives outside that their home, school uniform, and local landmarks were easily identifiable.
One day, when he was around 10 years old, a man was waiting for him outside his school. This was a direct result of his family’s vlogs revealing too much personal information.
Even after this incident, his parents continued filming. He told me that despite what had happened, they refused to see the risks and prioritised their online success over his safety.
This is an extreme example, but many vlog parents do not fully consider how much information they reveal. Even minor details, such as background locations or school uniforms, can put their children at risk.
Another issue is the audience demographics. Family vloggers market their content as family-friendly, but analytics frequently show that a significant portion of their viewers are adult men over the age of 45. Several people who reached out to me after being featured in family vlogs said that their parents had seen disturbing comments left on their videos. Instead of questioning whether the content itself was attracting the wrong audience, many parents chose to hide those comments and continue posting.
Should Family Vlogging Exist in Its Current Form?
Even if monetisation were removed, the core ethical issue remains: should children be made into content without their control or consent?
If social media platforms and legal systems fail to enforce protections, society has to confront the reality of what this means.
At what point does “sharing” become exploitation?
Why should parents have sole control over their child’s digital footprint?
Are we comfortable with children growing up with entire archives of their private moments available to the public?
For me, the answer is clear: this is not something that should be left unchecked. I have spoken to too many people who grew up in these situations, and their experiences are rarely as positive as their parents claim. Behind the carefully edited content is often a reality of loss of privacy, emotional manipulation, and a complete lack of control over how they are presented to the world.
The idea that parents should have total control over a child’s online presence, with no consideration for their future feelings or autonomy, is deeply unsettling. The digital footprint created through family vlogging is permanent, and many of the children who have reached out to me have expressed feelings of exploitation, humiliation, and regret.
I don’t believe family vlogging, in its current form, is ethical. At the very least, there should be clear legal protections ensuring that children have a right to privacy, financial security from the content they generate, and the ability to remove their own digital presence when they are older.
But as it stands now, the decisions are made entirely by parents, with no accountability. If nothing changes, children will continue to bear the consequences of choices they were never allowed to make.