At the end of the year, the strange news is rushing to KPI again.
The main content of the video blogger [Chick Daily] is a mother's life record of her own children. Recently, the blogger made a video of "12-year-old brother and young daughter sleeping in the same bed", which caused the comment area to wonder, what is the mentality of this mother?
Suspected panties
With the intervention of the local women's federation, everyone found that parents who took their children as shooting materials and packaged them as Internet celebrities to make money really struggled.
This group of people is called the "Nibble Clan". In the matter of being an Internet celebrity, it is true that everyone is equal, even if it is a child, there are also children's Internet celebrity bloggers, who can also receive advertisements and tips, so many parents have been born to use the daily traffic monetization of children.
A hundred ways to eat
In the investigation results, the results of the investigation said that in the "daily life of the little chick", everyone was suspected of whether the brother was obscene to his sister, and after the malicious editing of netizens, the netizens did not buy it.
Although the blogger has been banned, there are still many netizens who are unhappy, so they launched a charge against the "nibbling baby" bloggers. There are a lot of children's Internet celebrities, much smaller than the daily protagonists of the chicks.
3-year-old Internet celebrity Peggy was raised to 70 pounds by her parents. In the video, she often said that she did not want to eat, but her mother would continue to add food to her, and the title of the video was also very fishy, feeling that her parents might be a former employee of UC.
After being complained about by a large number of complaints, Peggy's parents said that she was originally a huge child, born with 9 pounds, and only made a few hundred videos.
This makes people a little confused, so why don't parents eat themselves into huge parents as Internet celebrities? Then maybe the account can live a long life, not to earn only a few hundred to be complained about to be removed.
Peggy's parents are disguised as chicken babies, but the chickens are the appetite of the baby. Like this 1-year-old little Internet celebrity who wears diapers to cook, he can be called a chicken. The child's parent said that the child was because he liked it, so he had to go to the kitchen.
I believe that some people are born to like to create food, but still a little curious, in this environment that is very easy to contact with boiling water, open flames, knives, what skills are exercised by children? Memories of limbs in the lower kitchen? It can't be said that it is the original characteristic that inspires human beings to have a sense of security by staying on the edge of the fire.
In general, the main content of Niwabo is nothing more than two categories, one is to eat, and the other is to wear.
If you want to pick a relatively good one among the two peaches, then eating and sowing is still in the low-level stage of taking children to do evil, and some adults who create fashionable children are doing adult things in the name of babies.
Previously, an online store shot a children's underwear advertisement deliberately enlarged the child's private parts, and would ask the child model to take some very adult poses.
The problem of the store is a matter of certainty, but this kind of shooting, don't parents go to accompany it? If the parents are present, they also think ok, parents in addition to receiving money, other things are thrown into hiding?
There are also some parents, in order to fulfill the task of Party B, they really do not treat netizens as outsiders, and shoot the "daily sharing" that adults are embarrassed to watch.
As an unmarried and childless outsider, I had no interest in how my parents basked in their children's "pure lust", "heart machine makeup" and eating broadcasts. But if a child records a "Mommy and Daddy are paying me, how do I plan to spend the money," I'm still interested.
So, are there really parents who make money from their children and give their children "labor remuneration"?
Children are young and dignified
Relying on children to make money is not only domestic, there is also a "little net red" Ryan abroad, when he was four years old, he began to record unboxing videos under the guidance of his parents, and his cute appearance attracted many people to watch, becoming the "world's highest-paid oil pipeline network red" in 2019 in just four years.
Earning nearly 800 million yuan a year, the content he recorded seems to be very simple, just unboxing, but the focus is on helping various products to do with goods.
Some media say they are a modern version of "sparrow to phoenix", his parents met at a carnival party, married two years after giving birth, and his mother committed theft when she was in college.
It is such a parent, but because of a cute baby, they have become rich.
The videos they recorded did not seem to hurt children, but even so, the Foreign Fair Trade Commission intervened, believing that these advertisements violated the privacy of children and easily made them a tool for criminals to abuse children.
You see, in the case of "Shewa", "career" and leisure are two different things.
Just as we will feel that "logging" is like going to work and tired in large online games, one or two shots can be taken with your hands, and it is not the same to let the child be the protagonist of a series of videos.
When everyone laughed at the cute baby on the APP, they rarely thought about whether the baby was willing or not.
There are also children who are forced to repeatedly make "hungry crying" expressions, children who overeat in front of the camera, children who make an adult appearance and smoke in the yellow cavity to play the role of social people... What did they gain and what did they lose?
Not to mention, there is an easy breed of abuse and illegal control.
Recently, it was mentioned that three men forced a mentally disabled girl to do a vulgar live broadcast, which caused an uproar and anger in public opinion. Such extreme cases actually reflect some of the more "moderate" risks .
People with mental disabilities lack the ability to resist control, and is not the same for young children? In the face of the greed and coercion of parents, they, like the girls in the news, have no right to say no, and they cannot even complain.
Children are young, but they are also dignified.
When they lack the ability to resist, it is not appropriate to crush their "autonomy" and "self-esteem" with forced control. Moreover, the so-called dividend of Internet celebrities is more often just to make the beneficiaries such as parents live better, and the children themselves are uncomfortable.
They may not be able to express their feelings in an organized way, but the feeling of being used as a tool will never be overshadowed by a reason to "be good for the family" in a vacuum.
Will such an Internet celebrity child really find the experience of "making money" in childhood interesting? I strongly doubt that.
Today's adults always like to talk about their "original family shadow", but we always lack enough sensitivity to those who are creating "original families", allowing the same or even worse things to happen again and again.
Sister E Conclusion:
Such a topic is too much to say, or have to go around the platform to guide up.
The news that Internet celebrities and mentally disabled girls were forced to live stream vulgarly reminds me of the early days of some platforms.
At that time, in the face of the new thing of live broadcasting, many people did not know what content creation was, and did a lot of "super earthy" live broadcasts that did not know why, swallowing iron nails, drinking liquor, unprotected acrobatics, and even directly self-harming in front of the camera... After causing surprise to the traditional media, the platform was rectified, and this "super earthy live broadcast" atmosphere with a barren and bloody smell gradually stopped.
Video content on major platforms has never been "free to grow", nor has it been allowed to grow barbarically.
In my opinion, the problem of "net red baby" is simpler than the original "earthy demon style", many anchors really did not know how to attract attention at the beginning because of problems such as vision, so the soil law was launched, according to the three customs of horror. But the makers of net red dolls, obviously know what has traffic, are not ignorant of parenting, but just don't care.
In this case, the platform should show a "care" attitude. Don't let the videos of minors as the protagonists be hot according to the traffic algorithm, reduce the weight, and do not accept promotion... But we can glimpse the bottomless pandering of the platform to the gold standard of traffic in many "problem influencers".
In fact, I don't think that short video platforms are bad, content creation can be guided and constrained, and through continuous improvement of evaluation indicators, it can promote the standardization of content creation. In this regard, the capabilities of the platforms are much stronger than they claim on their own.
Of course, practitioners always like to take advantage of loopholes, such as encouraging long-term live broadcasting, there will be a large number of labor model anchors with more than 10 hours a day; if the platform sets the "completion rate" indicator, it will make many videos shorter and shorter. But these are too long and too short, which hinder the generation of quality content.
Therefore, what kind of creative direction is encouraged by platform and data evaluation is an issue of equal importance as creative freedom. We only complain that low content is useless, how to make money for high-quality creators, how to punish vulgar communicators, is a problem that platforms and public opinion should think about.
As the saying goes, "good water raises crucian carp, bad water raises ants", which makes sense, and the level of public appreciation and the quality of the work affect each other. I don't think our audience is naturally the bad water for raising ants, nor should we push the problem on "water quality".
The drug dealer played by Andy Lau in the ancient movie "Disciple" also excused himself in this way, "It is that rotten person who wants to take drugs themselves, what does it have to do with me?" ”
No, the addicts themselves are not right, and the drug dealers who provide services to "push" drugs to them are the first evils of crime.
Similarly, the large spread of vulgar content is more of a problem for content producers and promoters. Those children eat broadcasts or minors smoke and drink, full of social tone of the work, the audience really "like to watch" before the home page, rather than buying the promotion of the creation of the Internet celebrity works?
Taking a step back, even if there are really many people watching them, they don't deserve to be popular.
Consider the harm to minors, just as we refuse to abuse animals and be naked, to reject such trends.
What kind of "internet celebrity" to create, this should be a matter of choice, not which side the wind blows and where the grass falls.
Today's late-night topic is:
What do you think of the "Nibbles"?
Let's talk about it in the comments section