A mega-influencer on TikTok named Emilie Kiser lost her son to drowning. As endless parasocial relationships come to the surface, there are conversations about the ethics of child exploitation.
Every word of this post made my stomach curl up into my throat—each sentence another notch tighter. The hatred. The disdain. The mockery. Not subtle, not veiled, not critical in any constructive sense. Just outright contempt for a grieving mother and the life of a three-year-old boy who drowned. And then to go so far as to mock his name? “.(The name, go figure.)” Are you serious? What does the fact that someone might be of a certain religious faith, education level or political leaning have to do with the death of a child?
You’ve written a post cloaked in concern but soaked in cruelty. Let’s not pretend this was about child protection. This was a spectacle. A grieving mother buried her son, and you picked through the digital remnants of her life to justify a hit piece.
First, the critique of family vlogging has merit. Yes, parasocial dynamics are real. Yes, monetizing childhood is ethically murky, and yes, laws like Coogan’s need expansion and enforcement. But none of that justifies dehumanizing a mother whose child just drowned. You even admit to not knowing the details so how are you linking his death with her choice to vlog about her family??
Second, the phrase “you don’t get to live that publicly without repercussions” is grotesque. A three-year-old drowned. That’s not a “repercussion” of internet fame. That’s a tragedy. You’re implying that visibility invites fate to punish. That’s theology, not ethics. And bad theology at that.
Third, the disdain for stay-at-home moms (“popping out kids and being on their phone all day”) betrays class contempt and ignorance. Managing a home, raising children, and building income online is modern domestic labor. You’re sneering at women for building a livelihood under surveillance capitalism. If you have an issue with that system, critique it, not the women surviving within it.
Lastly, you imply that because strangers grieved publicly, the child’s life was somehow less sacred, more performative. That’s not how dignity works. Grief is messy. Community care, even when clumsy, is not inherently “unhinged.” Maybe people sent flowers or bought teddy bears because they saw a child, not a content object.
At the heart of your post is something darker than concern. It’s not just judgment of a mother’s choices—it’s open disgust that she exists at all. Your problem isn’t the internet. It’s Emilie. It’s women like her. Women who are soft and domestic, who build lives you don’t understand or respect. That’s what’s really burning you.
You’re not shedding light on anything. You’re just revealing yourself.
That's a lot of words to defend making exploiting your children your full time job. A lot of words to defend spending your precious time watching a total strangers kids on the internet for entertainment. It's weird as fuck to have this kind of defensive reaction, maybe you should do a bit of self reflection.
Absolutely co-sign. I have been on the receiving end of my fair share of online bullying (for lack of a better word; there’s more nuance to the various forms of harassment), and I recognize the author’s not-so-hidden slights and not-so-carefully-worded judgments IN MY BONES. Nope nope nope.
This is the literal opposite of support for a family going through a tragedy. Let’s remember, please, that moms in our country have next-to-no ways to make money while raising children in the absence of strong community/family systems or government-subsidized childcare. And the “arguments” being made here are so besides the point that it makes me see red. Obviously we don’t want to see children exploited. But wow, is this article ever infuriating — not to mention deeply and nauseatingly
“Let’s remember, please, that moms in our country have next-to-no ways to make money while raising children in the absence of strong community/family systems or government-subsidized childcare.” This 👏🏼. We have next to no ways. Zero.
If you truly care about the systemic issues - child safety, influencer culture, online exploitation - maybe start by acknowledging the difference between profit-driven spectacle and a family tragedy. One is deliberate. The other is an unthinkable loss.
Until you can separate those, your critiques are just rhetorical cudgels that do more to mock grief than to protect children. And that’s the only thing that doesn’t make sense. @Jordan Reid
Not true. You just haven’t found the ways. I have 5 children that I homeschooled, and now 3 are in college. I found ways to earn money to help cover expenses without selling my family to strangers online. You can accomplish anything you set your mind to.
Little girl, I have two undergraduate degrees and a graduate degree. I chose to stay home with my kids, and made good money while raising them. I worked part time to cover the “extras” of music lessons, vacations, and more. My three oldest are in college, the oldest a phd candidate at an Ivy League university. I accomplished a great deal, and I’m proud of the choices I made. Stop making assumptions you can’t back up with facts.
Agree. To use an absolutely viral and highly searched story of a CHILD’S PASSING, a tragedy, to make a weak attempt at tired commentary in the most inappropriate time? So gross and something I’ve been so lucky to avoid on this platform. You could have common sense and decency and write a poignant publication about the exploitation of children and family content (that I’d happily read,) without this angle. Cruel and frankly, embarrassing.
It seems, though your reply, that you take personal offense to what the author wrote. Do you post information about your family daily, and are thus offended by the author’s critique, or are you just attempting to commandeer her article? I think your charged emotional reaction is unwarranted. I don’t think the author was trying to minimize the tragic loss of this child. I think she was highlighting the prevalence of young families who post everything about their lives online and therefore, when tragedy strikes, they aren’t able to grieve privately. But maybe this young family doesn’t want to grieve privately. Maybe their online presence is soothing to them in this difficult time. But this article is just one author’s viewpoint. I think your harsh critique of her is just as troubling as your own criticism, and maybe tinged with a bit of guilt.
Exactly. How dare a mother escape the capitalist hell of leaving her children to make a living at home with them. It breeds so much jealousy from other women.
My stomach churned more the further into this assassination assignment I read. This was a crass, thinly veiled attempt at sympathy that failed spectacularly… Thank you for saying what many of us were thinking 🤍
Thank you for this. I'm a stay at home mom with two under two and one is a heart warrior. (And I ADORE my kids btw but days can get long and hard for sure!) My days are full of dosing meds, barely getting a chance to eat and drink water, and changing countless diapers. Maybe some SAHMs get to sit around but most of the ones I know? Not a chance. 😅
Agreed with every word. I am disgusted by this piece—*this* is what’s wrong with the internet. Not parasocial relationships or “mommy bloggers.” Judgment and disdain for a lifestyle the writer has no clue about and no intentions to understand. A ripple effect of our culture that sadly says so much about our society today. There are a million things I could say, and I have NEVER commented on a stranger’s post on Substack before, but shame on the writer of this post. Her contempt is thinly veiled. Let the poor family mourn in piece… dissecting them (in such a jealous and unoriginal way, nonetheless) is truly disgusting.
Let’s stop crucifying mothers that exist especially when they just lost their child. This author monetizes being critical of mothers about monetizing motherhood.
Yes, there’s a conversation to be had about exploiting your children for profit.
But maybe we save it for literally any time other than right after she buried her child?
Right now, maybe we and fellow woman extend some decency to a woman trying to survive capitalism, grief, and the algorithm.
We all mess up our kids. Most of us just don’t profit from it.
Didn’t know what to make of the op until I read your response: yes. Thank you for articulating how I feel. Life and loss just happen to us humans; Emilie and her family are enduring terrible grief and heartache that comes for us all in some form. There is actually no requirement to comment on it if we didn’t know her, no need to dig up details about them and whether or not their pool was fenced.
Mike drop. Thank you for putting into words what name of us undoubtedly felt reading this post. I think perhaps OP does not have enough life experience to be writing opinion pieces about motherhood and grief. Stick to 2000s hip hop, please. Let grieving mothers alone FFS.
This feels cruel within the context of this tragedy. And I wasn't sharing my opinion, I was reporting on the mom influencers I spoke with who are changing their minds because of the parasocial outcry
The goal wasn't to be cruel. It's to be realistic and shed light on a very serious topic amid the social media landscape. I don't feel I shared anything outside of facts about the family and their content.
In fairness, you're still doing the exact same thing you criticize other viewers for: discussing a situation in which you aren't privy to any of the facts. You still watched her videos because the accident drew you in. You still wrote this article about. You're ignoring what others say because you already have your opinion. And making fun of a dead boy's name is pretty cruel, regardless of how untraditional it is or how it fits your view of these people.
I'm a journalist. It's my job to bring awareness to news. If you re-read the post, you'll see I simply displayed facts. I didn't blame the parents for his death or say accidents don't happen. The theme is about parasocial relationships and how people think they know these young children. And yes, it is because of the boy being exploited by his parents that millions of strangers are invested in his tragic passing. Again, that's a fact. It doesn't take away from the sadness of the situation.
1. Being a ”journalist” doesn't mean you're being ethical, and it doesn't make your behavior more valid that anyone else's.
2. Maybe you need to reread the piece because there was a lot more than just facts there, there was quite a bit of personal opinion and if you can't see that, that's an issue.
3. Making the suggestion that parents who post content of their kids are only focused on making content and not caring for their kids, in a post about the accidental death of the child of a family vlogger, is simply a cowardly way to blame her without using those exact words. You are constructing a series of events that did not happen and drawing a conclusion based on your opinion of how family vloggers act. Even the title of your piece blames the mother and implicitly suggests that Trigg's death is directly related to her vlogging.
4. You keep stating the theme is about parasocial relationships, but you spent much less time discussing these relationships than simply offering your opinion on people who engage with family-centered accounts. You don't discuss what a parasocial relationship is, why someone would develop this kind of relationship, or what kind of impact that might have on a family. The only effect you identify is having millions of people dissect the death of your child, but that can happen to anyone in the public spotlight and even normal people that become temporarily famous for a tragedy. Simply being interested in/saddened by the passing of a little boy you don't know isn't a parasocial relationship.
5. Regardless of the context, it's still really shitty to make fun of a dead boy's name.
🎯 I don't know much about the Kisers but I know what it's like to grieve the loss of a child and to have everyone dissect them while grieving AND her being mere weeks post partum? Phew. I only feel love towards them rn!
You did too blame them. They didn’t have fencing around their pool and you pointed out why they didn’t in a critical way. (Even if one was justified in pointing it out, IT JUST F’ING HAPPENED. Salt in the wound, lady. Read the room.)
Did we read the same article? The criticism wasn’t directed at others discussing the situation—it was quite clearly at the mother’s decision to exploit her children’s lives for influencer fame, leading to the outcome of millions grossly dissecting her son’s death. Also, making fun of the boy’s name?? Are you talking about referring to the nickname? She merely pointed out how bizarre it is that *total strangers* refer to him by his family nickname. Again, the whole point was commentary on the toxicity of influencer culture and parasocial relationships.
thank you for this! i’m going to do a deeper dive into the definition of parasocial relationships and why they can be so harmful. this situation was meant to tell that story but many people took it out of context. so i’m going to do it again but a bit differently
That's wonderful, and something you probably should have done before posting this piece. I'm not typically one to call so much attention to an article but your lack of ability to engage in a meaningful manner and reflect on how you're own opinions influence your writing is honestly hard to see. Obviously you're entitled to whatever opinions you want, but if you continue to publish opinion pieces degrading others under the guide of objective journalism then you are going to cause damage.
Also, readers can't take something out of context if you never provided that context in the first place.
There was no degradation. The supporters of Emilie have apparently had this article pointed out to them with a request to attack the writer. These comments are so THICKLY and unfairly NEGATIVE and not reflective of the article that it cannot be remotely believed to be organic. It is a sad day when an honest third-party reflection on a tragedy is characterized as a direct attack.
I cannot FATHOM the parents' pain. And I lay no blame on anyone, but surely we can talk about the 'online family' phenomenon objectively, and speculate on it's exacerbation of an already impossibly harrowing situation.
Maybe not, because I'm not sure how you missed the criticism of other people commenting and interacting with this mom's account. How creators making videos about the realities of drowning deaths and how quickly and quietly they happen are out of line because they don't know the facts of THIS drowning - even though the author is doing the same thing by suggesting the mother's negligence caused his death. And no, I'm not referring to the nickname, I'm referring to the passive-aggressive "of course" following the first time she used his name, because him being a part of a white millennial family that names their kids "strange" nontraditional names fits her stereotype of family vloggers. Again, if discussing relationships was the point then she missed it by focusing on how she thinks vlogging is responsible for this boys death.
All the people criticizing the article have a right to their opinion, but your interpretation is not the only correct interpretation. I did not read the article in the same way you did, nor did I interpret it the same way. I understood the article and what she was trying to say and I think she has a very good point. Parents don’t have the right to document their children’s lives and put them out on the Internet for total strangers to see without them having any consent. If you can’t understand that, then that’s on you not on the author. It’s disgusting that people put their children out there and years and years and decades from now people will still be able to pull up their childhood even if they don’t want others to view it. It’s crass and there are plenty of other ways to make money. Millions of mothers do it every day without exploiting their children. Have your opinion as I do mine, but don’t expect everyone to agree with it.
Well said, and as a mom of 5, I absolutely agree. I’m starting to feel that this is a older parent versus younger parent issue. I would never think to broadcast all of my children’s information in a public journal. Why would you do that? Because as you said, one day, you may not want that information out there, but there it is, permanently, forever. If it’s not exploitation, what is it? I mean, one thing it is for sure is narcissism.
I think it’s too soon to have posted this article ABOUT these people (whom I’ve never heard of before I read your post). That poor child died THIS month?? And you had to post this THIS month?? Not cool, lady.
All your points were spot-on (I suppose?) but were… cruel.
(You had to mention the Stanley? And the remark about the fencing? Nah, you’re raking them over the coals here. They’re two young people caught up in a lucrative social media universe that they were likely raised in and don’t really know any better and now they’ve suffered an incredible gutting loss… and you’re mean-girling them under the guise of, what, ‘journalism’?)
I feel gross just for having read your whole post.
Wait. I have a pool and I’m stuck on something you said…this pool was unfenced???? In California?? California law REQUIRES pool fencing.
I am sorry and very sad for this family. I am. I do not want to sound unkind and I know I do. But people. C’mon. We keep the pot handles turned in so there isn’t an accidental burn, never leave our wee ones in the bathtub unsupervised, make sure the car seat is safe and the seat belts are buckled. We check for allergens in the food, put gates on stairs where the kids could tumble down, nets around trampolines. All day, we do a hundred little things to keep our kids safe. Please. Fence your pool. Alarm the door and pool. This is a horrible tragedy. Made more so by this tiny one time mistake. It was avoidable.
I'm a Floridian who now lives in California -- most pools in California do not have fences. Florida every pool I went to does. It was really rare to see a pool without a fence. They had a net for their pool in Arizona.
So, to be clear, this family that you don’t know, that just went through an unimaginable tragedy, is disgusting. But you making an entire article shaming them and making fun of them is not?
You realize that thinking you personally know someone despite having never seen them in person is basically the definition of a parasocial relationship, yes?
Privacy. I think they relinquished that. Are people foul? Yes. Is it unexpected given the “influencer” lifestyle they chose? No. When you have gazillion people watching and commenting on your entire life some are not going to be nice.
This feels out of line and the connection of the tragedy to your topic is a reach and timed in poor taste — ironically it feels like you’re exploiting a tragedy just to make a point that isn’t even totally relevant to the tragedy. You’re capitalizing on an event where people are desperate for details to draw people to your content. The tragedy hasn’t shed any “light” on the dangers of family vlogging as your title suggests because as far as we know nothing about vlogging contributed to his death, you just have a bunch of annoying videos on your timeline of other people capitalizing on the tragedy to draw viewers to their page and benefit from the algorithm when people are, again, desperate for news and information. Yeah that’s gross, but people have been doing it since the dawn of Facebook. For example, any time someone in your home town dies you see a slew of people suddenly posting and tagging them saying “I remember when Bobby and I sat next to each other in kindergarten. I haven’t seen him in 25 years but what a beautiful soul. So sad to have lost him” annoying and weird but hardly dangerous.
Also, for the record, I encountered Emilie’s content before she rose to popularity, the content that made her popular, and it was never centered on her son — he was only occasionally present. I don’t follow her now but even looking at her recent content it isvery much centered on her, and her children happen to be in it because they’re her children. I think there is a huge difference between content creators who happen to be mothers and their children occasionally show up, and content creators who center their content on their children constantly and reveal a lot of personal information about them. I think it’s great when creators pull their children completely from their content — and admire it because it takes a lot of hard work and intentionality! but I don’t think your child showing up while you document you living your life is necessarily exploitation.
This poor boy's death seems to have brought Dahvi an opportunity to attack a family who are already in the midst of a terrible tragedy. And she is relishing it.
Definitely think this is a harsh take given drownings DO happen silently and unfortunately, quite often, especially in places like AZ (where I live), where almost everyone has a pool and it’s pretty much the only available family activity when the temps soar. Also, I’m sure she’s beating herself up more than anyone on the internet could possibly. The sadness she must feel is unfathomable. I do, however, agree with the sentiment that sharing every moment of your kids lives for financial gain is exploitation. I have kids; I post here and on Instagram. They are not present in either by name or likeness. It’s not fair when they don’t have a say and we all know that this shit does not disappear.
The overarching theme of my post was to express that because she made her kids the focal point of her content, the public is invested in ways that no regular person should be. It's a larger discussion. And I don't know the details behind this particular drowning, but when parents are focused solely on content, they can miss important care. That's just a fact. I'm not doubting that accidents happen, and I'm not judging her parenting. I'm judging based on the fact that she exploits her kids online. That is sick.
Damn. It's honestly wild to suggest that because she makes money off of her family (which I don't support) that she's a negligent parent and her son drowning is a result of lack of care. That really messed up.
You are all over these comments either willfully misinterpreting the article or just straight up lying about it. Maybe you should ask yourself why you're so defensive about these people. Nowhere in this article was it suggested the parents were negligent. To anyone who's not here to defend these frankly creepy family influencers, this article is about the parasocial relationships that were encouraged by the responsible adults in this family with A CHILD that now mean this family can't grieve in peace and privacy. Your inability to grasp this really says more about you than the author.
People told her to fence the pool, the law is that the pool should have had a fence. She didn't want a fence because of the "aesthetic"so yes their is a very good argument that her vlogging contributed to her son's death.
The theme, intent, and point of the piece was crystal clear and well articulated. The army of TikTok addicts arriving here with pitchforks claiming you’re a “jEaLoUs hAtEr” who hates women is absolutely wild. The piece earned a click of the subscribe button from me.
ANY parent can fuck up. God forbid but it’s true. You’re making a correlation between her focusing on content and missing ‘important care’. What if it happened and the parent was working remotely on their laptop at an office job? Or the parent was busy taking care of another child? Or just was distracted or preoccupied? SHIT happens. HORRIBLE shit happens.
These parents will blame themselves until the end of time. Don’t you realize that?
You keep saying you wrote this about parasocial relationships but I agree with other people here who suggest that this is, instead, a hit piece which reeks of disdain. You BLAME them for his death as if it is linked to the stupid vlogging. Its not. It was an accident. It could have happened to any one.
A real ‘journalist’ would have focused on parasocial relationships, defined it (you never really do), and these poor folks might have been a sentence or two alongside OTHER PROOF in your ‘article’ about similar parasocial relationships. But no… you went all-in on these people, and ONLY these people, and in your disdain you also mock (yes, mock) the women who posted comments re: this tragic event, expressing grief and care.
I’d rather 1000s of people expressing kindness grief and care in parasocial relationships than 1 casually cruel ‘journalist’ now having to defend her thesis.
I honestly wondered if this article was written just to get views and comments. I feel like the author used this family and their tragedy for her own gain, which is ironic, considering the content of the article.
I have 3 sons and did all the crunchy mama stuff with them. They all happen to have combined my and my partners’ genes in extremely aesthetically pleasing ways and I could have garnered a bazillion likes etc if I’d hopped on that bandwagon… oh, and I was at that time a yoga teacher living in bucolic English countryside. And I would never in a thousand years make my kids part of my brand. I think it is normalised abuse in all honesty, based in narcissism and a sense of ownership. Children aren’t an accessory.
I am hardline about this but it’s because I believe that people need time and space to grow before their digital footprint outweighs the time they’ve even existed for on the planet. My eldest son is a pro skateboarder and social media is a central part of that, so it’s not that I’m totally anti displaying one’s life. I just think that having any idea of what it actually means to do so is a work in progress that actual adults are finding extremely challenging.
I think if children (in the case of your son, for example) express a desire to be on camera or reach an age where they can clearly decide for themself, that's a totally different scenario, which can be treated similarly to featuring friends or romantic partners. But showcasing every trip to the grocery store, every meal, every tuck into bed at a young age is absolutely unhinged.
I mean, this influencer herself, who is a grown woman, and who has made a free choice to open up her life to the masses, likely had no idea what that can mean until this awful thing. Consent is much more of a complex issue than it’s often made out to be - like is it even possible to consent to something that we don’t really understand, you know? And no one understands social media yet, it’s a massive social experiment. I am no conservative (have done some wild stuff and live quietly under the radar doing my weirdness lol), but it’s like the boundaries of normality have just completely blown with this stuff.
I guess that’s one of the hard lessons of life, right? The rules of the games we play, the systems we engage with (by choice or otherwise) don’t change when we want them to. Hence, it seems to me, it’s a good idea to choose wisely, and to not chase the shiny alluring thing (money, status, power, whatever). Social media is all about what’s raw and “authentic”, so unfortunately it will feed itself on whatever it can find to keep going, whether that’s a life-changingly beautiful event or a tragedy. I’m learning to look away because voyeurism is voyeurism even if done in a critical or anthropological way. Do you know the Nietzsche quote “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you”? - very apt here I think.
it's definitely otherworldly. hopefully it's a lesson (albeit extremely tragic) to the rest of the mommy vlogger community. but again, i don't expect much to change unfortunately.
No, I mean, as you say, the apparent ease of it all will likely continue to make the complexities/challenges seem either irrelevant or invisible. Honestly, while this is an awful thing (and I actually know someone whose daughter drowned last month so it’s kind of close to home for me), I do also think: live by the sword, die by the sword. If that’s what you choose to do with your life, that’s what’s important to you and the value set you want to imprint onto yourself and install in your kids… well, it’s a free country. I think it’s insanity, I wouldn’t make those choices with a gun to my head. But 🤷♀️
Kids will ask to be in videos if they see their parents making them already. It’s not necessarily ‘free will’. It’s emulation. And it’s hard to blame people for documenting every moment when that is one hundred percent what gets them views, likes, followers and dollars, and they are aware of it.
I think family vlogs should be illegal,filming your children, 24/7, should be illegal. What tf are you doing posting your child's life on the internet. I would never forgive my mum if i turned 18 and my whole teenage life, growing years, mistakes, meltdowns, happiness were online for the whole workd to see
I truly do not understand who is even into this kind of content. Like if some random person started watching your kid in public and then making comments to them and calling them by name, you'd call the police, but it's "ok" to do through a screen? This comment section has been flooded by Tok Tok users who are clearly feeling called out for being the exact kind of parasocial relationship weirdos this article is talking about, but they're clearly not self aware enough to reflect on how bizarre their behaviour really is to everyone else.
this is HANDS DOWN the best comment i’ve seen throughout this thread. SUCH a good point that I will be sharing in my next substack post. You nailed it. It’s creepy AF irl but somehow totally cute and fun behind a screen?! BFFR. you’re also right about facebook energy making its way to substack. i actually didn’t know that existed over here until these comments lollll
You’ve written an article about child exploitation online, familes using both photos/videos of their children and detailed content of their lives, while simultaneously using a specific story of one family and child’s life and death as your content, and a picture of said family and their Children. That is on par in questionability in my eyes.
Whats more is this isn’t even an article on child exploitation online it’s basically you airing your own messy personal bias and reaction to these events. I dont feel any more informed about child online exploitation after reading this. I got to the article feeling confused and wondering what point was supposed to be made exactly. You either didn’t clearly say what you meant, probably because those words would be hard to say, or you arent clear in what you wanted to relay but felt a reaction in your system and took the oportunity to vent.
There are really important conversations with very real critiques that can be had about child online exploitation and they didn’t happen here, nor would they ever need to happen in a way that literally exploits a specific family.
Everyone hating on you isn’t understanding the deeply messed up child exploitation that is happening all day everyday. Yes it can be assumed that parents who sit on their phone posting false videos and images all day cannot possibly be present and that can be dangerous.
I was briefly friends with a Instagram mommy (she’s since moved away and our lifestyles and beliefs don’t align) who posted her kids all over Instagram and had some 20 thousand followers. Everyone knew where her kids went to school etc. One day someone was out front of the school in a van and they called the school office saying “it’s _________’s mom, I’m here to pick him up early. Can you send him out the front doors please”???
The office flagged it as they knew the mother’s voice and they alerted her right away.
THIS 100%!! my tiktok FYP was flooded with random internetgoers talking about this family like they know everything that went down during the incident or even before it, in their daily lives. NO ONE knows these people, and of course it’s a heartbreaking situation overall, but the only reason there’s so much attention on it (for better or worse) is because they were a public family
It’s so sad. I feel so horribly for the family to lose this child but we all need to do better. Myself included. If we are “capturing” every moment we aren’t living in the fucking moment. We don’t need more photos, more followers, more likes. We need more presence and protection of autonomy.
I don't see anyone "hating" on the writer. What I see are people bringing up the very valid point that the writer is exploiting the death of a child to discuss (without really discussing) parasocial relationships.
Excellllent write up Dahvi! I love you for writing this 💙 Thank you for not shying away from this topic in the wake of tragedy *as if death or tragedy absolves people of their transgressions*
Personally, I find even pictures of one’s children on social media reckless. I also find posting endless pics of one’s family life, including vacations, really vulgar.
I am so saddened by this little boy’s death. For the mother’s sake, I hope she was not on her phone……
What a hateful, unsympathetic and badly written piece this is. A young boy has died and you are exploiting it for likes and follows. While I have no love for family vloggers, I have even less for hate-filled, judgemental slop like this.
Every word of this post made my stomach curl up into my throat—each sentence another notch tighter. The hatred. The disdain. The mockery. Not subtle, not veiled, not critical in any constructive sense. Just outright contempt for a grieving mother and the life of a three-year-old boy who drowned. And then to go so far as to mock his name? “.(The name, go figure.)” Are you serious? What does the fact that someone might be of a certain religious faith, education level or political leaning have to do with the death of a child?
You’ve written a post cloaked in concern but soaked in cruelty. Let’s not pretend this was about child protection. This was a spectacle. A grieving mother buried her son, and you picked through the digital remnants of her life to justify a hit piece.
First, the critique of family vlogging has merit. Yes, parasocial dynamics are real. Yes, monetizing childhood is ethically murky, and yes, laws like Coogan’s need expansion and enforcement. But none of that justifies dehumanizing a mother whose child just drowned. You even admit to not knowing the details so how are you linking his death with her choice to vlog about her family??
Second, the phrase “you don’t get to live that publicly without repercussions” is grotesque. A three-year-old drowned. That’s not a “repercussion” of internet fame. That’s a tragedy. You’re implying that visibility invites fate to punish. That’s theology, not ethics. And bad theology at that.
Third, the disdain for stay-at-home moms (“popping out kids and being on their phone all day”) betrays class contempt and ignorance. Managing a home, raising children, and building income online is modern domestic labor. You’re sneering at women for building a livelihood under surveillance capitalism. If you have an issue with that system, critique it, not the women surviving within it.
Lastly, you imply that because strangers grieved publicly, the child’s life was somehow less sacred, more performative. That’s not how dignity works. Grief is messy. Community care, even when clumsy, is not inherently “unhinged.” Maybe people sent flowers or bought teddy bears because they saw a child, not a content object.
At the heart of your post is something darker than concern. It’s not just judgment of a mother’s choices—it’s open disgust that she exists at all. Your problem isn’t the internet. It’s Emilie. It’s women like her. Women who are soft and domestic, who build lives you don’t understand or respect. That’s what’s really burning you.
You’re not shedding light on anything. You’re just revealing yourself.
Thank you, the disdain was overt. I'm disturbed by anyone who thinks this amounts to true journalism.
I doubt Dahvi will understand the irony of her writing here. This is an article written by a woman who hates other women.
*standing ovation 👏🏻*
That's a lot of words to defend making exploiting your children your full time job. A lot of words to defend spending your precious time watching a total strangers kids on the internet for entertainment. It's weird as fuck to have this kind of defensive reaction, maybe you should do a bit of self reflection.
Absolutely co-sign. I have been on the receiving end of my fair share of online bullying (for lack of a better word; there’s more nuance to the various forms of harassment), and I recognize the author’s not-so-hidden slights and not-so-carefully-worded judgments IN MY BONES. Nope nope nope.
This is the literal opposite of support for a family going through a tragedy. Let’s remember, please, that moms in our country have next-to-no ways to make money while raising children in the absence of strong community/family systems or government-subsidized childcare. And the “arguments” being made here are so besides the point that it makes me see red. Obviously we don’t want to see children exploited. But wow, is this article ever infuriating — not to mention deeply and nauseatingly
exploitative (the irony).
“Let’s remember, please, that moms in our country have next-to-no ways to make money while raising children in the absence of strong community/family systems or government-subsidized childcare.” This 👏🏼. We have next to no ways. Zero.
so you then decide to have kids because you can't afford them? and therefore make content solely driven from their presence? make it make sense.
If you truly care about the systemic issues - child safety, influencer culture, online exploitation - maybe start by acknowledging the difference between profit-driven spectacle and a family tragedy. One is deliberate. The other is an unthinkable loss.
Until you can separate those, your critiques are just rhetorical cudgels that do more to mock grief than to protect children. And that’s the only thing that doesn’t make sense. @Jordan Reid
Not true. You just haven’t found the ways. I have 5 children that I homeschooled, and now 3 are in college. I found ways to earn money to help cover expenses without selling my family to strangers online. You can accomplish anything you set your mind to.
Ok you helped cover expenses, but that wasn’t enough to actually support yourself. Don’t pretend you accomplished more than you actually did.
Little girl, I have two undergraduate degrees and a graduate degree. I chose to stay home with my kids, and made good money while raising them. I worked part time to cover the “extras” of music lessons, vacations, and more. My three oldest are in college, the oldest a phd candidate at an Ivy League university. I accomplished a great deal, and I’m proud of the choices I made. Stop making assumptions you can’t back up with facts.
She has a right to her opinion, as you do. You didn’t have to read the article.
Agree. To use an absolutely viral and highly searched story of a CHILD’S PASSING, a tragedy, to make a weak attempt at tired commentary in the most inappropriate time? So gross and something I’ve been so lucky to avoid on this platform. You could have common sense and decency and write a poignant publication about the exploitation of children and family content (that I’d happily read,) without this angle. Cruel and frankly, embarrassing.
It seems, though your reply, that you take personal offense to what the author wrote. Do you post information about your family daily, and are thus offended by the author’s critique, or are you just attempting to commandeer her article? I think your charged emotional reaction is unwarranted. I don’t think the author was trying to minimize the tragic loss of this child. I think she was highlighting the prevalence of young families who post everything about their lives online and therefore, when tragedy strikes, they aren’t able to grieve privately. But maybe this young family doesn’t want to grieve privately. Maybe their online presence is soothing to them in this difficult time. But this article is just one author’s viewpoint. I think your harsh critique of her is just as troubling as your own criticism, and maybe tinged with a bit of guilt.
chef’s kiss, caroline. thank you for speaking some sense 😅
Exactly. How dare a mother escape the capitalist hell of leaving her children to make a living at home with them. It breeds so much jealousy from other women.
My stomach churned more the further into this assassination assignment I read. This was a crass, thinly veiled attempt at sympathy that failed spectacularly… Thank you for saying what many of us were thinking 🤍
Thank you for this. I'm a stay at home mom with two under two and one is a heart warrior. (And I ADORE my kids btw but days can get long and hard for sure!) My days are full of dosing meds, barely getting a chance to eat and drink water, and changing countless diapers. Maybe some SAHMs get to sit around but most of the ones I know? Not a chance. 😅
This is worded so perfectly, thank you for sharing.
Agreed with every word. I am disgusted by this piece—*this* is what’s wrong with the internet. Not parasocial relationships or “mommy bloggers.” Judgment and disdain for a lifestyle the writer has no clue about and no intentions to understand. A ripple effect of our culture that sadly says so much about our society today. There are a million things I could say, and I have NEVER commented on a stranger’s post on Substack before, but shame on the writer of this post. Her contempt is thinly veiled. Let the poor family mourn in piece… dissecting them (in such a jealous and unoriginal way, nonetheless) is truly disgusting.
How is this not child exploitation too?
Let’s stop crucifying mothers that exist especially when they just lost their child. This author monetizes being critical of mothers about monetizing motherhood.
Yes, there’s a conversation to be had about exploiting your children for profit.
But maybe we save it for literally any time other than right after she buried her child?
Right now, maybe we and fellow woman extend some decency to a woman trying to survive capitalism, grief, and the algorithm.
We all mess up our kids. Most of us just don’t profit from it.
Didn’t know what to make of the op until I read your response: yes. Thank you for articulating how I feel. Life and loss just happen to us humans; Emilie and her family are enduring terrible grief and heartache that comes for us all in some form. There is actually no requirement to comment on it if we didn’t know her, no need to dig up details about them and whether or not their pool was fenced.
Mike drop. Thank you for putting into words what name of us undoubtedly felt reading this post. I think perhaps OP does not have enough life experience to be writing opinion pieces about motherhood and grief. Stick to 2000s hip hop, please. Let grieving mothers alone FFS.
Loved this!
This feels cruel within the context of this tragedy. And I wasn't sharing my opinion, I was reporting on the mom influencers I spoke with who are changing their minds because of the parasocial outcry
The goal wasn't to be cruel. It's to be realistic and shed light on a very serious topic amid the social media landscape. I don't feel I shared anything outside of facts about the family and their content.
In fairness, you're still doing the exact same thing you criticize other viewers for: discussing a situation in which you aren't privy to any of the facts. You still watched her videos because the accident drew you in. You still wrote this article about. You're ignoring what others say because you already have your opinion. And making fun of a dead boy's name is pretty cruel, regardless of how untraditional it is or how it fits your view of these people.
I'm a journalist. It's my job to bring awareness to news. If you re-read the post, you'll see I simply displayed facts. I didn't blame the parents for his death or say accidents don't happen. The theme is about parasocial relationships and how people think they know these young children. And yes, it is because of the boy being exploited by his parents that millions of strangers are invested in his tragic passing. Again, that's a fact. It doesn't take away from the sadness of the situation.
1. Being a ”journalist” doesn't mean you're being ethical, and it doesn't make your behavior more valid that anyone else's.
2. Maybe you need to reread the piece because there was a lot more than just facts there, there was quite a bit of personal opinion and if you can't see that, that's an issue.
3. Making the suggestion that parents who post content of their kids are only focused on making content and not caring for their kids, in a post about the accidental death of the child of a family vlogger, is simply a cowardly way to blame her without using those exact words. You are constructing a series of events that did not happen and drawing a conclusion based on your opinion of how family vloggers act. Even the title of your piece blames the mother and implicitly suggests that Trigg's death is directly related to her vlogging.
4. You keep stating the theme is about parasocial relationships, but you spent much less time discussing these relationships than simply offering your opinion on people who engage with family-centered accounts. You don't discuss what a parasocial relationship is, why someone would develop this kind of relationship, or what kind of impact that might have on a family. The only effect you identify is having millions of people dissect the death of your child, but that can happen to anyone in the public spotlight and even normal people that become temporarily famous for a tragedy. Simply being interested in/saddened by the passing of a little boy you don't know isn't a parasocial relationship.
5. Regardless of the context, it's still really shitty to make fun of a dead boy's name.
I agree with every single thing you wrote here. This isn’t journalism. This is a woman with an opinion. And making fun of his name, just so gross.
🎯 I don't know much about the Kisers but I know what it's like to grieve the loss of a child and to have everyone dissect them while grieving AND her being mere weeks post partum? Phew. I only feel love towards them rn!
You did too blame them. They didn’t have fencing around their pool and you pointed out why they didn’t in a critical way. (Even if one was justified in pointing it out, IT JUST F’ING HAPPENED. Salt in the wound, lady. Read the room.)
Any yeh, mocking his name was uncool too.
Did we read the same article? The criticism wasn’t directed at others discussing the situation—it was quite clearly at the mother’s decision to exploit her children’s lives for influencer fame, leading to the outcome of millions grossly dissecting her son’s death. Also, making fun of the boy’s name?? Are you talking about referring to the nickname? She merely pointed out how bizarre it is that *total strangers* refer to him by his family nickname. Again, the whole point was commentary on the toxicity of influencer culture and parasocial relationships.
thank you for this! i’m going to do a deeper dive into the definition of parasocial relationships and why they can be so harmful. this situation was meant to tell that story but many people took it out of context. so i’m going to do it again but a bit differently
That's wonderful, and something you probably should have done before posting this piece. I'm not typically one to call so much attention to an article but your lack of ability to engage in a meaningful manner and reflect on how you're own opinions influence your writing is honestly hard to see. Obviously you're entitled to whatever opinions you want, but if you continue to publish opinion pieces degrading others under the guide of objective journalism then you are going to cause damage.
Also, readers can't take something out of context if you never provided that context in the first place.
There was no degradation. The supporters of Emilie have apparently had this article pointed out to them with a request to attack the writer. These comments are so THICKLY and unfairly NEGATIVE and not reflective of the article that it cannot be remotely believed to be organic. It is a sad day when an honest third-party reflection on a tragedy is characterized as a direct attack.
I cannot FATHOM the parents' pain. And I lay no blame on anyone, but surely we can talk about the 'online family' phenomenon objectively, and speculate on it's exacerbation of an already impossibly harrowing situation.
Maybe not, because I'm not sure how you missed the criticism of other people commenting and interacting with this mom's account. How creators making videos about the realities of drowning deaths and how quickly and quietly they happen are out of line because they don't know the facts of THIS drowning - even though the author is doing the same thing by suggesting the mother's negligence caused his death. And no, I'm not referring to the nickname, I'm referring to the passive-aggressive "of course" following the first time she used his name, because him being a part of a white millennial family that names their kids "strange" nontraditional names fits her stereotype of family vloggers. Again, if discussing relationships was the point then she missed it by focusing on how she thinks vlogging is responsible for this boys death.
All the people criticizing the article have a right to their opinion, but your interpretation is not the only correct interpretation. I did not read the article in the same way you did, nor did I interpret it the same way. I understood the article and what she was trying to say and I think she has a very good point. Parents don’t have the right to document their children’s lives and put them out on the Internet for total strangers to see without them having any consent. If you can’t understand that, then that’s on you not on the author. It’s disgusting that people put their children out there and years and years and decades from now people will still be able to pull up their childhood even if they don’t want others to view it. It’s crass and there are plenty of other ways to make money. Millions of mothers do it every day without exploiting their children. Have your opinion as I do mine, but don’t expect everyone to agree with it.
Well said, and as a mom of 5, I absolutely agree. I’m starting to feel that this is a older parent versus younger parent issue. I would never think to broadcast all of my children’s information in a public journal. Why would you do that? Because as you said, one day, you may not want that information out there, but there it is, permanently, forever. If it’s not exploitation, what is it? I mean, one thing it is for sure is narcissism.
I think it’s too soon to have posted this article ABOUT these people (whom I’ve never heard of before I read your post). That poor child died THIS month?? And you had to post this THIS month?? Not cool, lady.
All your points were spot-on (I suppose?) but were… cruel.
(You had to mention the Stanley? And the remark about the fencing? Nah, you’re raking them over the coals here. They’re two young people caught up in a lucrative social media universe that they were likely raised in and don’t really know any better and now they’ve suffered an incredible gutting loss… and you’re mean-girling them under the guise of, what, ‘journalism’?)
I feel gross just for having read your whole post.
It was cruel though. A child died. You have no fucking idea what this family is going through and, trust me, that makes you very lucky.
I think it was a goal. Your piece was so cruel. Horrific.
Wait. I have a pool and I’m stuck on something you said…this pool was unfenced???? In California?? California law REQUIRES pool fencing.
I am sorry and very sad for this family. I am. I do not want to sound unkind and I know I do. But people. C’mon. We keep the pot handles turned in so there isn’t an accidental burn, never leave our wee ones in the bathtub unsupervised, make sure the car seat is safe and the seat belts are buckled. We check for allergens in the food, put gates on stairs where the kids could tumble down, nets around trampolines. All day, we do a hundred little things to keep our kids safe. Please. Fence your pool. Alarm the door and pool. This is a horrible tragedy. Made more so by this tiny one time mistake. It was avoidable.
Arizona. Not California.
Did a quick check and Arizona has the same laws as California.
Ahh. I thought she was in California. I stand by everything else I said though.
I hate that this little boy is a cautionary tale.
I'm a Floridian who now lives in California -- most pools in California do not have fences. Florida every pool I went to does. It was really rare to see a pool without a fence. They had a net for their pool in Arizona.
100% agree.
So, to be clear, this family that you don’t know, that just went through an unimaginable tragedy, is disgusting. But you making an entire article shaming them and making fun of them is not?
Not exactly don’t know. As she said they were in your living room every day. They wanted us to look.
You realize that thinking you personally know someone despite having never seen them in person is basically the definition of a parasocial relationship, yes?
How to pin this comment to the top? It's perfect
She literally said in her post that she had never heard of them before.
And? Becuz they wanted us ‘to look’, they’re not afforded any decency?
Privacy. I think they relinquished that. Are people foul? Yes. Is it unexpected given the “influencer” lifestyle they chose? No. When you have gazillion people watching and commenting on your entire life some are not going to be nice.
🙌🏻
This feels out of line and the connection of the tragedy to your topic is a reach and timed in poor taste — ironically it feels like you’re exploiting a tragedy just to make a point that isn’t even totally relevant to the tragedy. You’re capitalizing on an event where people are desperate for details to draw people to your content. The tragedy hasn’t shed any “light” on the dangers of family vlogging as your title suggests because as far as we know nothing about vlogging contributed to his death, you just have a bunch of annoying videos on your timeline of other people capitalizing on the tragedy to draw viewers to their page and benefit from the algorithm when people are, again, desperate for news and information. Yeah that’s gross, but people have been doing it since the dawn of Facebook. For example, any time someone in your home town dies you see a slew of people suddenly posting and tagging them saying “I remember when Bobby and I sat next to each other in kindergarten. I haven’t seen him in 25 years but what a beautiful soul. So sad to have lost him” annoying and weird but hardly dangerous.
Also, for the record, I encountered Emilie’s content before she rose to popularity, the content that made her popular, and it was never centered on her son — he was only occasionally present. I don’t follow her now but even looking at her recent content it isvery much centered on her, and her children happen to be in it because they’re her children. I think there is a huge difference between content creators who happen to be mothers and their children occasionally show up, and content creators who center their content on their children constantly and reveal a lot of personal information about them. I think it’s great when creators pull their children completely from their content — and admire it because it takes a lot of hard work and intentionality! but I don’t think your child showing up while you document you living your life is necessarily exploitation.
Totally agreed, the lack of reflection about herself writing about a tragedy she knows nothing about is ironic.
You seem invested in child welfare Caitlyn. Have you done anything for the children being genocided with your tax dollars?
Wow. Way to pivot.
She's spent a lot of time trolling here that could have been used to help the living.
This poor boy's death seems to have brought Dahvi an opportunity to attack a family who are already in the midst of a terrible tragedy. And she is relishing it.
Definitely think this is a harsh take given drownings DO happen silently and unfortunately, quite often, especially in places like AZ (where I live), where almost everyone has a pool and it’s pretty much the only available family activity when the temps soar. Also, I’m sure she’s beating herself up more than anyone on the internet could possibly. The sadness she must feel is unfathomable. I do, however, agree with the sentiment that sharing every moment of your kids lives for financial gain is exploitation. I have kids; I post here and on Instagram. They are not present in either by name or likeness. It’s not fair when they don’t have a say and we all know that this shit does not disappear.
The overarching theme of my post was to express that because she made her kids the focal point of her content, the public is invested in ways that no regular person should be. It's a larger discussion. And I don't know the details behind this particular drowning, but when parents are focused solely on content, they can miss important care. That's just a fact. I'm not doubting that accidents happen, and I'm not judging her parenting. I'm judging based on the fact that she exploits her kids online. That is sick.
Damn. It's honestly wild to suggest that because she makes money off of her family (which I don't support) that she's a negligent parent and her son drowning is a result of lack of care. That really messed up.
You are all over these comments either willfully misinterpreting the article or just straight up lying about it. Maybe you should ask yourself why you're so defensive about these people. Nowhere in this article was it suggested the parents were negligent. To anyone who's not here to defend these frankly creepy family influencers, this article is about the parasocial relationships that were encouraged by the responsible adults in this family with A CHILD that now mean this family can't grieve in peace and privacy. Your inability to grasp this really says more about you than the author.
People told her to fence the pool, the law is that the pool should have had a fence. She didn't want a fence because of the "aesthetic"so yes their is a very good argument that her vlogging contributed to her son's death.
The theme, intent, and point of the piece was crystal clear and well articulated. The army of TikTok addicts arriving here with pitchforks claiming you’re a “jEaLoUs hAtEr” who hates women is absolutely wild. The piece earned a click of the subscribe button from me.
thank you!!! 🫶
100% this kind of insane ignorant boomer-coded nonsense is why I left Facebook and it looks like it's leaking to Substack.
ANY parent can fuck up. God forbid but it’s true. You’re making a correlation between her focusing on content and missing ‘important care’. What if it happened and the parent was working remotely on their laptop at an office job? Or the parent was busy taking care of another child? Or just was distracted or preoccupied? SHIT happens. HORRIBLE shit happens.
These parents will blame themselves until the end of time. Don’t you realize that?
You keep saying you wrote this about parasocial relationships but I agree with other people here who suggest that this is, instead, a hit piece which reeks of disdain. You BLAME them for his death as if it is linked to the stupid vlogging. Its not. It was an accident. It could have happened to any one.
A real ‘journalist’ would have focused on parasocial relationships, defined it (you never really do), and these poor folks might have been a sentence or two alongside OTHER PROOF in your ‘article’ about similar parasocial relationships. But no… you went all-in on these people, and ONLY these people, and in your disdain you also mock (yes, mock) the women who posted comments re: this tragic event, expressing grief and care.
I’d rather 1000s of people expressing kindness grief and care in parasocial relationships than 1 casually cruel ‘journalist’ now having to defend her thesis.
You failed in this article.
I honestly wondered if this article was written just to get views and comments. I feel like the author used this family and their tragedy for her own gain, which is ironic, considering the content of the article.
I’m with ya on that!
I have 3 sons and did all the crunchy mama stuff with them. They all happen to have combined my and my partners’ genes in extremely aesthetically pleasing ways and I could have garnered a bazillion likes etc if I’d hopped on that bandwagon… oh, and I was at that time a yoga teacher living in bucolic English countryside. And I would never in a thousand years make my kids part of my brand. I think it is normalised abuse in all honesty, based in narcissism and a sense of ownership. Children aren’t an accessory.
I am hardline about this but it’s because I believe that people need time and space to grow before their digital footprint outweighs the time they’ve even existed for on the planet. My eldest son is a pro skateboarder and social media is a central part of that, so it’s not that I’m totally anti displaying one’s life. I just think that having any idea of what it actually means to do so is a work in progress that actual adults are finding extremely challenging.
I think if children (in the case of your son, for example) express a desire to be on camera or reach an age where they can clearly decide for themself, that's a totally different scenario, which can be treated similarly to featuring friends or romantic partners. But showcasing every trip to the grocery store, every meal, every tuck into bed at a young age is absolutely unhinged.
I mean, this influencer herself, who is a grown woman, and who has made a free choice to open up her life to the masses, likely had no idea what that can mean until this awful thing. Consent is much more of a complex issue than it’s often made out to be - like is it even possible to consent to something that we don’t really understand, you know? And no one understands social media yet, it’s a massive social experiment. I am no conservative (have done some wild stuff and live quietly under the radar doing my weirdness lol), but it’s like the boundaries of normality have just completely blown with this stuff.
right! if this is how she (or any other momfluencer) wants to live, they’ll have to accept the good and the bad that come along with it
I guess that’s one of the hard lessons of life, right? The rules of the games we play, the systems we engage with (by choice or otherwise) don’t change when we want them to. Hence, it seems to me, it’s a good idea to choose wisely, and to not chase the shiny alluring thing (money, status, power, whatever). Social media is all about what’s raw and “authentic”, so unfortunately it will feed itself on whatever it can find to keep going, whether that’s a life-changingly beautiful event or a tragedy. I’m learning to look away because voyeurism is voyeurism even if done in a critical or anthropological way. Do you know the Nietzsche quote “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you”? - very apt here I think.
it's definitely otherworldly. hopefully it's a lesson (albeit extremely tragic) to the rest of the mommy vlogger community. but again, i don't expect much to change unfortunately.
No, I mean, as you say, the apparent ease of it all will likely continue to make the complexities/challenges seem either irrelevant or invisible. Honestly, while this is an awful thing (and I actually know someone whose daughter drowned last month so it’s kind of close to home for me), I do also think: live by the sword, die by the sword. If that’s what you choose to do with your life, that’s what’s important to you and the value set you want to imprint onto yourself and install in your kids… well, it’s a free country. I think it’s insanity, I wouldn’t make those choices with a gun to my head. But 🤷♀️
Kids will ask to be in videos if they see their parents making them already. It’s not necessarily ‘free will’. It’s emulation. And it’s hard to blame people for documenting every moment when that is one hundred percent what gets them views, likes, followers and dollars, and they are aware of it.
This might be the only productive, helpful comment here.
I think family vlogs should be illegal,filming your children, 24/7, should be illegal. What tf are you doing posting your child's life on the internet. I would never forgive my mum if i turned 18 and my whole teenage life, growing years, mistakes, meltdowns, happiness were online for the whole workd to see
I truly do not understand who is even into this kind of content. Like if some random person started watching your kid in public and then making comments to them and calling them by name, you'd call the police, but it's "ok" to do through a screen? This comment section has been flooded by Tok Tok users who are clearly feeling called out for being the exact kind of parasocial relationship weirdos this article is talking about, but they're clearly not self aware enough to reflect on how bizarre their behaviour really is to everyone else.
this is HANDS DOWN the best comment i’ve seen throughout this thread. SUCH a good point that I will be sharing in my next substack post. You nailed it. It’s creepy AF irl but somehow totally cute and fun behind a screen?! BFFR. you’re also right about facebook energy making its way to substack. i actually didn’t know that existed over here until these comments lollll
Kinda like The Truman Show
This post reads as an attention grab .
Hope you get the views you wanted exploiting a tragedy.
Yikes this is not it. You are a great writer but this is so cruel
You’ve written an article about child exploitation online, familes using both photos/videos of their children and detailed content of their lives, while simultaneously using a specific story of one family and child’s life and death as your content, and a picture of said family and their Children. That is on par in questionability in my eyes.
Whats more is this isn’t even an article on child exploitation online it’s basically you airing your own messy personal bias and reaction to these events. I dont feel any more informed about child online exploitation after reading this. I got to the article feeling confused and wondering what point was supposed to be made exactly. You either didn’t clearly say what you meant, probably because those words would be hard to say, or you arent clear in what you wanted to relay but felt a reaction in your system and took the oportunity to vent.
There are really important conversations with very real critiques that can be had about child online exploitation and they didn’t happen here, nor would they ever need to happen in a way that literally exploits a specific family.
Everyone hating on you isn’t understanding the deeply messed up child exploitation that is happening all day everyday. Yes it can be assumed that parents who sit on their phone posting false videos and images all day cannot possibly be present and that can be dangerous.
I was briefly friends with a Instagram mommy (she’s since moved away and our lifestyles and beliefs don’t align) who posted her kids all over Instagram and had some 20 thousand followers. Everyone knew where her kids went to school etc. One day someone was out front of the school in a van and they called the school office saying “it’s _________’s mom, I’m here to pick him up early. Can you send him out the front doors please”???
The office flagged it as they knew the mother’s voice and they alerted her right away.
This is one example of thousand I’m sure.
THIS 100%!! my tiktok FYP was flooded with random internetgoers talking about this family like they know everything that went down during the incident or even before it, in their daily lives. NO ONE knows these people, and of course it’s a heartbreaking situation overall, but the only reason there’s so much attention on it (for better or worse) is because they were a public family
It’s so sad. I feel so horribly for the family to lose this child but we all need to do better. Myself included. If we are “capturing” every moment we aren’t living in the fucking moment. We don’t need more photos, more followers, more likes. We need more presence and protection of autonomy.
EXACTLY!!!! preach 🙏
I don't see anyone "hating" on the writer. What I see are people bringing up the very valid point that the writer is exploiting the death of a child to discuss (without really discussing) parasocial relationships.
Excellllent write up Dahvi! I love you for writing this 💙 Thank you for not shying away from this topic in the wake of tragedy *as if death or tragedy absolves people of their transgressions*
thank you autumn! and right, exactly - it’s like we are supposed to just look away because she’s a pretty influencer w a big following.
A ‘pretty’ influencer? You really are pulling out all the stops here.
Personally, I find even pictures of one’s children on social media reckless. I also find posting endless pics of one’s family life, including vacations, really vulgar.
I am so saddened by this little boy’s death. For the mother’s sake, I hope she was not on her phone……
I completely agree. Too many strangers become invested and many obviously use these images for inappropriate purposes.
People underestimate the number of pedophiles online too
It all seems like exploitative parenting, like toddler beauty pageants.
What a hateful, unsympathetic and badly written piece this is. A young boy has died and you are exploiting it for likes and follows. While I have no love for family vloggers, I have even less for hate-filled, judgemental slop like this.
I have a friend who works in cyber security and the on thing he told me was never put images of your children on the internet. Never.
Totally agree...so sad to hear of the passing of their child in such a tragic way. I stay clear of the family vlogs...think it's ridiculous
it’s like otherworldly. like how is this content real?! so crazy to me
And why do people find it interesting? It’s bizarre to me. Both the creators and followers.