The Marketplace of Childhood: When Government Policy Meets Digital Exploitation

The headlines sound almost too dystopian to be real: Republicans in Congress want to redefine what constitutes a “dependent child,” potentially forcing parents of 8, 9, and 10-year-olds into work requirements for food assistance. While the reality is more nuanced than viral social media posts suggest, the provision in Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” would indeed change SNAP (food stamp) work requirements so that only parents caring for children under 7, not 18, would be exempt from mandatory work or training.

This isn’t about redefining dependents across the board, but it’s still a jarring policy shift that treats childhood as if it expires at seven years old. As GOP Rep. Doug LaMalfa defended the proposal, explaining that children 7 and older are “in school for about seven hours per day, five days a week,” giving parents time to do something outside the home, as if caring for school-age children requires no parental presence or support.

Yet while we’re rightfully horrified by this policy, we’re simultaneously participating in an even more troubling redefinition of childhood: the wholesale monetization of kids on digital platforms.

Advertisement

The Influencer Industrial Complex

According to journalist Stephanie McNeal, the influencing industry generated approximately $21 billion in 2023. A significant portion of that wealth flows from content featuring children, kids who are building brands before they can build sandcastles, earning six figures before they lose their baby teeth.

We call them “child influencers” or “kid creators,” sanitizing language that obscures a basic truth: these are working children. They’re performing for cameras, following scripts, promoting products, and generating revenue. The only difference between them and child actors is the lack of labor protections, union oversight, and mandatory education requirements.

The Legal Awakening

Fortunately, some states are beginning to recognize this digital child labor for what it is. California’s new Child Content Creator Rights Act, effective January 1, 2025, requires content creators who feature minors in at least 30 percent of their content to deposit 65 percent of the minor’s gross earnings into a trust account. Illinois became the first state to pass such protections in 2023, followed by Minnesota with similar legislation taking effect July 2025.

These laws represent a crucial acknowledgment that social media has fundamentally changed what labor means, and legislative protections need to catch up to these new realities. The laws extend California’s historic Coogan Law—which protected child actors since the 1930s—to include digital content creators.

The Exploitation Paradox

But here’s where it gets complicated: many of these “kidfluencers” aren’t technically employees. They’re family members being monetized by their parents. As Kevin Franke, ex-husband of disgraced family vlogger Ruby Franke, testified to Congress: “Vlogging my family, putting my children into public social media, was wrong, and I regret it every day”.

The new laws attempt to thread this needle by focusing on compensation and consent. Minnesota’s law notably prohibits children under 14 from “engaging in the work of content creation” and requires content to be deleted if a minor requests removal. But enforcement remains challenging when the “employers” are parents exercising what courts have traditionally viewed as parental authority.

The Government’s Mixed Messages

This creates a bizarre contradiction in how we view childhood and work. Congress wants to push parents of 8-year-olds into mandatory employment while simultaneously allowing those same children to work as content creators with minimal oversight. We’re telling struggling families that caring for school-age children isn’t valuable enough to warrant food assistance, while celebrating families that monetize their children’s childhood for millions of followers.

The SNAP policy sends a clear message: childhood dependency should end at seven because kids can supposedly fend for themselves during school hours. Meanwhile, family vloggers are building empires on the premise that every moment of childhood—from tantrums to birthday parties—is valuable content worth monetizing.

Where’s the Line?

So where exactly is the line between exploitation and empowerment? Is a 7-year-old unboxing toys on YouTube more or less deserving of labor protections than their parent seeking food assistance?

Legal scholars note that “parental authority is not above state limitations” and that the state “has the power to restrict parental control, including the regulation of child labor”. Yet we’ve created a digital wild west where traditional child labor protections simply don’t apply.

The truth is uncomfortable: we’ve made a marketplace out of childhood, and now the government wants in on both ends. We’re simultaneously expanding what we consider “child work” in the digital space while contracting what we consider “dependent childhood” in policy spaces.

The Bottom Line

Whether it’s forcing parents into work requirements or allowing the monetization of childhood for content, both policies treat children as economic units rather than developing humans who need protection, stability, and—yes—dependency.

The real question isn’t whether an 8-year-old needs parental care or whether a 6-year-old can “work” as a content creator. It’s whether we’re willing to prioritize children’s wellbeing over economic productivity and viral content. Until we answer that question honestly, we’ll continue to have a government that cuts food assistance for families with school-age children while those same children generate millions in advertising revenue.

The marketplace of childhood is open for business. The question is whether we’re buying what they’re selling.