Bảo vệ trẻ em là ở đây chứ đâu

nhà nước cần có luật: với các trẻ em nổi tiếng trên mạng xã hội, tiền tạo ra từ các tài khoản này cần được trích % vào quỹ mang tên các em đó cho tới năm 18 tuổi, chứ không phải bố mẹ giữ hết (các em khi trưởng thành có thể kiện lại bố mẹ khi tiền không được chuyển),

-----

More and more children, by which I mean minors below legal working age, are producing content as online influencers. A lot of Instagram or YouTube or TikTok accounts feature such children, and they can be cute, endearing or (depending on your mood) annoying — as well as profitable. By one estimate, the most successful children working in this area — called “kidfluencers” — can generate more than $20 million a year in revenue…

Legally, these children have no claim to the income their sites generate. Thankfully, many parents are loving and generous (hào phóng). But not all. There is no data on how social media earnings are distributed within the family, but the long history of child movie and TV stars indicates (chỉ ra)  that many receive little or nothing.

...Enter the state of Illinois, where a recently passed law gives successful child social media stars a right to some percentage of the earnings they generate, to be held in a trust in their name until they turn 18. Such legislation has precedent. In the early days of Hollywood, California passed the Coogan Law, which gives child actors a right to a certain percentage of earnings, which employers have to place in trust accounts. New York has passed similar legislation.

The social media case is tougher to enforce (khó thực thi hơn), because often the parents themselves are the de facto employer and there is no contract specifying terms (không có hợp đồng xác định các điều khoản). And how is the relative contribution of the child to the family income to be assessed? (Time spent onscreen? Cuteness? What if the social media (mạng xã hội) presence leads to a book contract or podcast?) Nonetheless, the law sends a clear signal that the children do have some rights to the generated income, and grown children can sue their parents if the money is not passed along.

Note however that: “It is neither practical nor desirable for the state to insert itself into family decision-making on a regular basis.”  So we should expect only limited gains from such legislation.  Furthermore, unlike with child stars in the movies and on TV, there is no real paper trail of contracts and transactions (giao dịch).  On the upside, those superior property rights for “kidfluencer” (trẻ con có tầm ảnh hưởng) income might get some kids to want to work more, rather than less.

Not everyone will like that outcome of course (một kết quả hiển nhiên).

source: bloomberg,