Sharenting in School
“Sharenting” is the online tracking and sharing of confidential information by parents about children that could lead to stereotypical assumptions. The article “The problem with sharenting,” authored by Anya Kamenetz, explores the limitations of sharing information about children online. Technology tools such as GoGuardian, Grade books, Facebook, and Instagram have resulted in over-publicized confidential information about children (Kamenetz). Although some children have benefited from social media presence, the consequences of a failed reputation are inevitable, considering that some information shared online can reveal personal issues, which can be degrading (Kamenetz). Therefore, the author’s rationale is that “sharenting” is a catalyst for biased profiling and unnecessary scrutiny of children.
Main Findings
Technological applications and software have played a vital role in tracking users’ activities. As Kamenetz mentions, schools utilizing online applications such as Grade books could attract harsh punishments on a child based on their performance. The reason is that the app allows parents to view their child’s scores each time they are praised or disciplined. Even though tracking could motivate parents to be involved in their child’s academic journey, it could also be a catalyst for punishment for students with low scores (Kamenetz). Some parents use such technologies to boast about their child’s academic performance publicly. This factor indicates that these applications expose confidential information attracting scrutiny or unfair judgment on some students.
The author also explores the disadvantages of exploitation of privacy cultivated by the overutilization of Google software. For instance, the GoGuardian software monitors children’s online searches on school-issued computers, meaning they become accustomed to constant surveillance. Further, she discusses that information about their online search can be used to place them in special programs, including mental health for students perceived to be stressed (Kamenetz). My perception is that such behavior indicates cyber security breaches such as exploitation of privacy for users of digital systems, which places children in vulnerable situations of being profiled.
Children’s presence online has increased drastically with the growing use of technology. The author posits that “The average age at which a child gets her smartphone has dropped to 10.3 years” (Kamenetz). This factor indicates that most kids find technology amusing, promoting the parental habit of constant tracking. Sometimes online tracking of children can create the wrong perception about a child leading to extreme measures being applied (Kamenetz). My rationale is that some sites visited by children are unintentional and could be triggered by many factors, including advertisement prompts which could lead to mistrust between parents and their kids. Therefore, tracking enhances unnecessary scrutiny, which could have detrimental social impacts.
Parental exploitation of their freedom of expression is also significant in accelerating scrutiny and possible profiling. Kamenetz explains that “one study from Britain found that nearly 1,500 images of the average child had been placed online by their fifth birthday”. Parents publicize their children online due to the gratification they receive from telling their children’s stories online. In such situations, the children are exposed to social media pressure, which can affect normal child development. For instance, the need to constantly update online followers on recent developments can take a toll on the child’s right to a quiet and private life (Kamenetz). This factor indicates that social media influence can change the normalcy of living, negatively affecting introverted children.
The author stresses the effects of sharing information about children online through relatable case scenarios. For example, she mentions that children can live with lifetime guilt, especially when information shared about them damages or involves a specific disability or chronic illness. Employers and romantic prospects can retrieve this information in the future affecting their chances of acceptance. As mentioned in the article, “a conflict of interests exists as children might one day resent the disclosures made years earlier by their parents (Kamenetz). This factor indicates that a life of public scrutiny is unprofitable for both parent and their children considering that it could have detrimental effects on the child in the future.
Summary
The author’s rationale is that children’s exposure to technology comes with various limitations, including unnecessary scrutiny and negative profiling. Information accessed by educators and public followers about children can be used against children. Educators can profile them as academically incompetent or mentally unstable based on their performance on the internet. Online followers can also discriminate against children depending on the information they access, which sometimes is a single narrative or damaging tale about the child. Therefore online sharing of confidential information can have detrimental consequences on the child’s chances of leading a normal life.
Work Cited
Kamenetz, Anya. “The Problem of Sharenting.” The New York Times. Web.