By+Adrienne+Lafrance

Babies， like cats， are everywhere on the web.

In the United States， the vast majority of two-year-olds—more than 90 percent of them—already have an online presence. More than 80 percent of babies younger than that are already on social media， too. Many children make their internet debut as grainy gray blobs on Facebook-posted ultrasound images before theyre even born.2

Sometime past toddlerhood， these kids might become aware that their online identities are already being shaped in some depth， and usually by their parents.3 Given the searchable， shareable， long-lasting nature of whats published on the web， this dual role of parent and publisher raises a host of questions about privacy， consent， and the parent-child relationship more broadly.4

As a result， researchers， pediatricians， and other childrens advocates are in the early stages of designing a public-health campaign to draw attention to what they say is an inherent conflict between a parents freedom to publish and a childs right to privacy.5

“Its very rare that parents are sharing maliciously， but they havent considered the potential reach or longevity of what is happening with the information theyre posting，”6 says S tacey Steinberg， a law professor at the University of Floridas Levin College of Law and the associate director of the schools Center on Children and Families.

Its typical for adults to mention a childs name and birthdate in birth announcements and other posts on sites like Facebook and Instagram， for instance， which puts kids at risk of identity theft and digital kidnapping—when someone lifts images of another persons kids and portrays them as their own.7 Some parents publish real-time information about their childrens whereabouts8， potentially risking their safety. And well-meaning adults readily go online to share photos of their kids in a variety of intimate settings.9

Steinberg writes in her new paper of a blogger who posted photos of her young twins while they were potty training10. “She later learned that strangers accessed the photos， downloaded them， altered them， and shared them on a website commonly used by pedophiles，”11 Steinberg wrote. “This mother warns other parents not to post pictures of children in any state of undress12， to use Googles search features to find any images shared online， and to reconsider their interest in mommy blogging.”

But even posting baby photos to a private Facebook group or protected Instagram account is not without risk. “With private groups， there is this false sense that everybody in the group knows each other and has the same interests in mind，” Steinberg said.

Parents and caregivers dont just have to trust that the people they choose to share with wont download， redistribute， or otherwise misuse images—they also have to trust that the people who can access shared baby photos have their own robust privacy settings， and that they control who else can use their social media accounts， and so on.13 Many parents believe privacy settings are enough of a safety net， Steinberg wrote， so “they use little discretion sharing with their chosen audience.14 In reality， even these posts can reach a large audience.”

The implications of all this sharing extend far beyond questions of security， and get at the heart of a new paradigm in parenting.15 Caregivers are no longer merely gatekeepers16 for their children but also， in many cases， potentially the distributors of information about their children to mass audiences. There are clear benefits to all this sharing—for families and friends who are geographically dispersed， and for parents who share details about their childrens lives to seek advice from trusted friends， for example—but this new model can also pose a threat to a childs sense of autonomy over his developing identity.17

Parents make value-based choices for their children all the time.They often tell their kids what to believe or which football team to root for18. There is no “bright line” that dictates when and how its appropriate for parents to express themselves through their children.19 Yet when identity-shaping decisions—made by parents， then distributed online in ways that ultimately remove parental control—are digitally preserved for years or longer， such decisions potentially get in the way of a childs selfactualization.20

Childrens advocates argue that kids have a moral right to control their own digital footprint， and perhaps even a legal right. Giving children the right to say“no， its not okay for you to post that”—regarding images and quotes，21 as well as descriptions of their accomplishments and challenges—is something Steinberg says she feels especially strongly about. “By age four， children have an awareness of their sense of self，” she writes. “At this young age， they are able to build friendships， have the ability to reason22， and begin to compare themselves with others. Parents who post regularly can talk about the internet with their children and should ask young children if they want friends and family to know about the subject matter being shared.”

Children benefit from being “heard and understood，” she says， but it seems likely that such conversations would also encourage children to think critically23 about how online sharing might affect them. Developing this line of thinking from an early age prepares children to manage their own behaviors online as they grow—and its a more nuanced way of thinking about online publishing than teaching kids to never share anything whatsoever.24

“This first generation of children who grew up on social media are coming of age25， and theyre just now entering adulthood and the job market，” Steinberg added. “It would be wise of us to invite them to the table as childrens rights advocates as we talk about the best way to move forward.”

1. peril： 危險，險事；sharenting： 即share+ parenting，指父母勤于將孩子的動態(tài)和照片分享到社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)的行為。

2. 有很多小孩的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)首秀甚至是在他們出生之前——那時他們只是臉書上曬出的超聲波圖片，是一團不成形的顆粒物。debut：（于社交場合等的）首次露面，首次出現(xiàn)；grainy：（照片、膠片等）不清晰的，有顆粒的；blob：（形狀）不清晰的物體；ultrasound： 超聲波檢查。

3. toddlerhood： 兒童學(xué)步期；identity： 身份，特性；in depth： 全面地，深入地。

4. 鑒于網(wǎng)上發(fā)布的信息具有可搜索、可分享和存時長等特性，父母兼信息發(fā)布者的這種雙重身份更廣泛地引發(fā)了大量關(guān)于隱私、許可及親子關(guān)系的問題。dual： 雙重的；a host of： 大量；consent： 贊同，準(zhǔn)許。

5. 因此，研究人員、兒科醫(yī)生以及兒童權(quán)益維護者們率先發(fā)起了一個公共健康運動，旨在引起人們對父母隨意發(fā)布信息與孩子隱私權(quán)之間的內(nèi)在沖突予以關(guān)注。pediatrician： 兒科醫(yī)師；advocate： 擁護者，支持者；inherent： 內(nèi)在的，固有的。

6. 很少有父母是出于惡意而分享，但他們卻沒考慮到信息分享后所引發(fā)問題的波及范圍或持續(xù)時間。maliciously： 惡意地；longevity： 壽命。

7. digital kidnapping： 電子綁架，這一現(xiàn)象就是下面描述的情況：某些人盜取他人孩子的照片，然后上傳，并說成是自己的孩子；lift：偷盜；portray： 描繪。

8. whereabouts： 行蹤，去向。

9. well-meaning： 善意的；readily：輕易地，迅速地；setting： 環(huán)境，場合。

10. potty training： 如廁訓(xùn)練。

11. alter： 修改；pedophile： 戀童癖者。

12. undress： 赤身裸體。

13. 家長和看護者不僅要確保他們的分享對象不會下載、散布或者濫用照片，還要確保那些能看到孩子照片分享的人自己的隱私設(shè)置也很安全，并且對誰能使用自己的賬號熟稔于心等等。redistribute： 再分配；robust： 健壯的，健全的。

14. safety net： 安全保障；discretion： 謹慎。

15. implication： 可能的影響（或作用、結(jié)果）；paradigm： 典范，范例。

16. gatekeeper： 看門人，指看護者，把關(guān)人。

17. geographically： 在地理上；disperse：分散；autonomy： 自主權(quán)。

18. root for： 支持。

19. 并沒有明確的界限規(guī)定家長何時以及以何種途徑借子女表達自我才是合適的。dictate： 規(guī)定。

20. 但是那些關(guān)乎到孩子個體養(yǎng)成的決定——由父母做出，然后發(fā)到網(wǎng)上，直到最終失去控制——會在網(wǎng)上保存數(shù)年甚至更久，而這些決定有可能阻礙孩子實現(xiàn)自我價值。get in the way of： 妨礙，阻礙；self-actualization： 自我實現(xiàn)。

21. regarding： 關(guān)于；quote： 引用，引述。

22. reason： v. 思考，理解。

23. critically： 批判性地。

24. 早期培養(yǎng)這種思維方式可以讓孩子隨著年齡的增長管理自己的網(wǎng)絡(luò)行為——相比告訴孩子什么都不要分享，更加微妙的方法是讓孩子去思考互聯(lián)網(wǎng)分享。line：（說話或思維的）方式，方法；nuanced： 微妙的；whatsoever： 任何，絲毫（加強否定語氣）。

25. come of age： 成年，長大成人。