News
Sharenting – Privacy concerns by the exposure of minors on social media
What happens when parents not only fail to provide special protection, but also place their children in situations that are either dangerous or have a negative impact on them? Can, or indeed should, the State intervene?
Isn’t my right today to upload or not upload photos from my infancy or childhood, affected by the fact that my parents have long ago already exercised that right on my behalf?
I remember one of the conversations I had with my daughter when she was in the early stages of her teenage years, just as she was being introduced to the world of social media. Why was I so cautious – that was the point – about the photos I posted on my own social media accounts? Why, whilst other mums were so proudly posting photos of their own children, had I – and others, of course – not posted one? A few years have passed since then, my daughter has grown up, and I can now look at the issue from a distance.
The issue of us parents overexposing our underage children online has taken on significant proportions. So much, so that over the past decade, a specific term has been invented for the phenomenon: sharenting. Although it is an English term, it has been adopted as such in several other languages. The scale of the issue is such that it has attracted the attention of international organisations such as UNICEF, and many organisations and bodies concerned with children’s rights. It has also become the subject of academic research.
Sharenting refers to the sharing of information and images of minor children by their parents. It involves frequently sharing details of a minor child’s life, as well as photographs or videos. The issue is clearly neither simple nor one-dimensional. Sharenting has legal, sociological and psychological implications.
I think the question that needs to be answered is what needs we are serving, and whether those needs serve the children and their best interests. There are cases where information is shared precisely to help the child. I am thinking, for example, of parents of children who, for various reasons, need help and support, and social media can be beneficial. Obviously, we are not talking about these cases. We are talking about cases where experts warn of the negative impact or even the risks to children. About excessive exposure, about unintentional objectification.
The first point, which I think we can all agree on, is that the concept of parenthood differs from person to person. As we often say, children do not come with an instruction manual, and every father and every mother raises and cares for their child as best they can, as dictated by their conscience and principles, and as they themselves believe is best for their child. There are no magic formulas, just as there are certainly no infallible parents.
A key aspect of this issue is legal and concerns privacy. Every adult has a right to privacy. In other words, they have the right to decide what information, images and videos relating to them they wish to share with the outside world. In my view, this right clearly extends to our childhood selves as well. But isn’t my right today to upload or not upload photos from my infancy or childhood, affected by the fact that my parents have long ago already exercised that right on my behalf?
One school of thought argues that, in all matters, it is the parents who decide for their children. Therefore, the same applies here. However, it is not quite that simple. On the one hand, the matters which parents decide on relate to issues of vital importance to the child (e.g. food, shelter, safety), or are part of their integration into society, or concern the child’s own development—physical, mental and intellectual. Personally, apart from a few rare cases, I find it hard to accept how sharenting exactly relates to the child themselves and any of their own needs.
In most cases, children may choose differently as adults, such as changing their religion. Here, our actions are irreversible. The digital footprint is permanent. For even if a person requests that the platforms remove them from the internet – as they have a legal right to do under certain conditions – they cannot control where and how the information, photographs and videos concerning them have been stored or otherwise processed.
Finally, one point that comes into the equation is that children are not an extension of ourselves, nor do they belong to us. This is now widely accepted. Children are recognized in international legal texts as independent individuals, with their own personality, their own needs and their own rights. Due to the physical, mental, emotional and psychological vulnerability inherent in their age, they require special protection. But what happens when parents not only fail to provide this special protection, but also place their children in situations that are either dangerous or have a negative impact on them? Can, or indeed should, the State intervene?
Some countries, such as France, seem to have regulated this issue through specific legislation since 2024. Others, such as Germany, appear to be addressing it through existing legislation concerning privacy and parental care. It will be interesting to see if and how the remaining countries of the European Union will respond in the coming years.
Article provided by INPLP member: Alexia Kountouri (Tassos Papadopoulos & Associates LLC, Cyprus)
Discover more about the INPLP and the INPLP-Members
Dr. Tobias Höllwarth (Managing Director INPLP)
News Archiv
- Alle zeigen
- Juni 2026
- Mai 2026
- April 2026
- März 2026
- Februar 2026
- Jänner 2026
- Dezember 2025
- November 2025
- Oktober 2025
- September 2025
- August 2025
- Juli 2025
- Juni 2025
- Mai 2025
- April 2025
- März 2025
- Februar 2025
- Jänner 2025
- Dezember 2024
- November 2024
- Oktober 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- Juli 2024
- Juni 2024
- Mai 2024
- April 2024
- März 2024
- Februar 2024
- Jänner 2024
- Dezember 2023
- November 2023
- Oktober 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- Juli 2023
- Juni 2023
- Mai 2023
- April 2023
- März 2023
- Februar 2023
- Jänner 2023
- Dezember 2022
- November 2022
- Oktober 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- Juli 2022
- Mai 2022
- April 2022
- März 2022
- Februar 2022
- November 2021
- September 2021
- Juli 2021
- Mai 2021
- April 2021
- Dezember 2020
- November 2020
- Oktober 2020
- Juni 2020
- März 2020
- Dezember 2019
- Oktober 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- Juli 2019
- Juni 2019
- Mai 2019
- April 2019
- März 2019
- Februar 2019
- Jänner 2019
- Dezember 2018
- November 2018
- Oktober 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- Juli 2018
- Juni 2018
- Mai 2018
- April 2018
- März 2018
- Februar 2018
- Dezember 2017
- November 2017
- Oktober 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- Juli 2017
- Juni 2017
- Mai 2017
- April 2017
- März 2017
- Februar 2017
- November 2016
- Oktober 2016
- September 2016
- Juli 2016
- Juni 2016
- Mai 2016
- April 2016
- März 2016
- Februar 2016
- Jänner 2016
- Dezember 2015
- November 2015
- Oktober 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- Juli 2015
- Juni 2015
- Mai 2015
- April 2015
- März 2015
- Februar 2015
- Jänner 2015
- Dezember 2014
- November 2014
- Oktober 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- Juli 2014
- Juni 2014
- Mai 2014
- April 2014
- März 2014
- Februar 2014
- Jänner 2014
- Dezember 2013
- November 2013
- Oktober 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- Juli 2013
- Juni 2013
- Mai 2013
- April 2013
- März 2013
- Februar 2013
- Jänner 2013
- Dezember 2012
- November 2012
- Oktober 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- Juli 2012
- Juni 2012
- Mai 2012
- April 2012
- März 2012
- Februar 2012
- Jänner 2012
- Dezember 2011
- November 2011
- Oktober 2011
- September 2011
- Juli 2011
- Juni 2011
- Mai 2011
- April 2011
- März 2011
- Februar 2011
- Jänner 2011
- November 2010
- Oktober 2010
- September 2010
- Juli 2010
