4 ms·

> The logical end to the argument is that children should never appear in any kind of commercial media because they can't consent That's not so unreasonable, c

by mLuby 5y ago

> The logical end to the argument is that children should never appear in any kind of commercial media because they can't consent That's not so unreasonable, considering how child stardom seems to mess with kids. Maybe better motion capture+deep fake tech will let professional actors appear as kids in media. Abolishing child labor may have seemed as ridiculous a few hundred years ago as this does today.

dcow 5y ago
No thank you. Children should not be prohibited from acting any more than they should be prohibited from working at Chik-fil-a. How is an adult actor supposed to play a toddler? What are you talking about?
- erhk 5y ago
  Child labour is illegal
  - porpoisemonkey 5y ago
    Is this universally true? In the US it appears that it just means there's more restrictions to what types of jobs you can/can't do and the hours you're allowed to work, but AFAIK it's not actually illegal to work as a child. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/YouthRules/young-workers/non-ag-under-14 https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/YouthRules/young-workers/no...
  - Teever 5y ago
    Define child. Define labour. In my justification 14 years can legally hold some jobs. Are girl scouts going door to door and selling cookies performing labour? Children unloading and loading the dishwasher at home?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
ravenstine 5y ago
Equating any appearance of children for artistic or commercial purposes to child stardom isn't particularly reasonable. Having known my share of child actors (one in a minor hit series and was in several movies, another in a full season of a show that never took off, and one who was in lots of music videos), I don't believe there is anything inherently bad for a child being depicted in media except stardom, which is arguably negative consequences for many adults. Elden isn't a star of anything. His infant likeness appears on an album in the 90's and 99.99999% of people don't know who the hell he is. His argument is that the mere appearance of his naked infant body with a superimposed dollar bill is child exploitation of sexual nature. In spite of his current stance, he's taken photos in his adulthood that resemble the album art in question (albeit with swim trunks on), the argument seems disingenuous and out of left field, and he could never claim to have been damaged by some sort of stardom because nobody identified him until he literally outed himself as the baby on that cover.

by mLuby 5y ago

dcow 5y ago

No thank you. Children should not be prohibited from acting any more than they should be prohibited from working at Chik-fil-a. How is an adult actor supposed to play a toddler? What are you talking about?

erhk 5y ago
Child labour is illegal
- porpoisemonkey 5y ago
  Is this universally true? In the US it appears that it just means there's more restrictions to what types of jobs you can/can't do and the hours you're allowed to work, but AFAIK it's not actually illegal to work as a child. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/YouthRules/young-workers/non-ag-under-14 https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/YouthRules/young-workers/no...
- Teever 5y ago
  Define child. Define labour. In my justification 14 years can legally hold some jobs. Are girl scouts going door to door and selling cookies performing labour? Children unloading and loading the dishwasher at home?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

ravenstine 5y ago

Equating any appearance of children for artistic or commercial purposes to child stardom isn't particularly reasonable. Having known my share of child actors (one in a minor hit series and was in several movies, another in a full season of a show that never took off, and one who was in lots of music videos), I don't believe there is anything inherently bad for a child being depicted in media except stardom, which is arguably negative consequences for many adults. Elden isn't a star of anything. His infant likeness appears on an album in the 90's and 99.99999% of people don't know who the hell he is. His argument is that the mere appearance of his naked infant body with a superimposed dollar bill is child exploitation of sexual nature. In spite of his current stance, he's taken photos in his adulthood that resemble the album art in question (albeit with swim trunks on), the argument seems disingenuous and out of left field, and he could never claim to have been damaged by some sort of stardom because nobody identified him until he literally outed himself as the baby on that cover.