Seeking social media stardom for their underage daughters, mothers post images of them on Instagram. The accounts draw men sexually attracted to children, and they sometimes pay to see more.

The ominous messages began arriving in Elissa’s inbox early last year.

“You sell pics of your underage daughter to pedophiles,” read one. “You’re such a naughty sick mom, you’re just as sick as us pedophiles,” read another. “I will make your life hell for you and your daughter.”

Elissa has been running her daughter’s Instagram account since 2020, when the girl was 11 and too young to have her own. Photos show a bright, bubbly girl modeling evening dresses, high-end workout gear and dance leotards. She has more than 100,000 followers, some so enthusiastic about her posts that they pay $9.99 a month for more photos.

Over the years, Elissa has fielded all kinds of criticism and knows full well that some people think she is exploiting her daughter. She has even gotten used to receiving creepy messages, but these — from “Instamodelfan” — were extreme. “I think they’re all pedophiles,” she said of the many online followers obsessed with her daughter and other young girls.

Elissa and her daughter inhabit the world of Instagram influencers whose accounts are managed by their parents. Although the site prohibits children under 13, parents can open so-called mom-run accounts for them, and they can live on even when the girls become teenagers.

Non-paywall link

  • snooggums@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    There are a ton of reasons to have pictures of children on the internet. How would schools show science fairs and sports events to the community without pictures of children?

    There is a middle ground between pretending children don’t exist and pimping them out to thirsty pedos.

    • De_Narm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I thought about these, but the context was social media. I wouldn’t ban shools etc. to post these on their own sites, just not on e.g. instagram.

      The problem about any kind of gray area inbetween these two sides is that any sufficiently large social media platform cannot curate them. Either ban all or none of them.

      • snooggums@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        What abrestaurants? What about child actors? Companies that cater to children? Family retaurants? Newspaper articles about children helping at the dog shelter? What about a family posting about their child helping at a dog shelter to encourage others to helppesos?

        How many of these generally innocent things could be easily cooped to serve pedos?

        Your proposal to ban every picture of a child unless it meets some arbitrary criteria because of some pedos is absolutely ridiculous. Just punish the pedos and those that are profiting off catering to pedos and let the 99.99% of images of children that are not involved in that shit exist.

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Uh, you do know that none of those pictures are vital free speech? Now that I think about it, just make it illegal to profit from a child’s image. Child actors can be put through hell by their guardians too.

          If you make it illegal to profit from a child’s image, schools and dog shelters (wtf) could easily post pictures. Movies and Instagram Moms would be the only ones who lose.