Family Channels: Can They be Done Right?

Family channels have not come without controversy; this is due to child exploitation and in many cases abuse inflicted by parents. This article tackles the issue of child exploitation as a product of family channels. It focuses specifically on the Australian family channel The Norris Nuts, its main point is to use The Norris Nuts as an example of a family channel which is done better than most. Most YouTube family channels are extremely exploitative; it is clear there needs to be more measures in place that protect the rights of the children involved. This article will not only address the issues that come from family channels but outlines what family channels are and why they are exploitative, The Norris Nuts as an example of a family channel done better, 8 Passengers as an example of an exploitative and abusive family channel and finally it will discuss the difference between these channels and the way they operate. The Norris Nuts are a family channel done better than most, they create authentic and relatable content while also promoting a positive and inclusive community without exploiting their children.

In recent years family channels on YouTube have surged in popularity. These family channels have been met with a lot of controversy, specifically regarding the treatment of the children that are part of these channels. Family channels are YouTube channels which generally feature a young family with a lot of children, the channels usually involve the family doing different challenges, everyday vlogs, special event vlogs, and personal moments for the kids. The kids have their every moments filmed and are overworked with their parents pumping out not only YouTube videos but content on all social media platforms. These family influencers profit from sharing the trauma and drama in their children’s lives, which creates an environment where consent from the featured children isn’t possible (Abrams, 2020). At the hand of their parents, the children in these family channels don’t have a choice regarding featuring in these videos, they are financing the entire family, and their parents are reaping all the benefits at the hand of their child. In order to maximise content creation these children are often homeschooled by unqualified parents making them lack the proper education their parents owe to them, as well as lacking social skills as they are not interacting with other children. On top of this, they are traumatizing their children by working them to the bone and shoving a camera in their face at every moment including bad ones. Due to the newness of family channels, there is currently nothing in place to restrict the hours these children are made to work by their parents. A way to describe what these parents are doing is sharenting. Sharenting is defined as parents posting about their children online and has become more widespread with the popularity of social media (Stauff, 2020). The way children are exploited through family channels is an extreme example of sharenting. It’s not just photos and videos for family and friends to see, it’s this on top of personal and embarrassing moments being shared for the whole world to see. This extreme sharenting also exposes children to predators online, in some cases parents purposely expose their children to this audience for their own monetary gain. It is so important that measures are put in place to protect these children from exploitation. Potential measures include them receiving monetary compensation for the long hours they’ve had to work and perform to an audience for. Family channels are only becoming more popular; it is so important that there be measures in place to protect not only the current children in this industry but all those to come in the future.

The Norris Nuts is an example of a family channel which is done better. The Australian channel has built a positive and inclusive community, while also producing authentic content. The channel was initially seen to be exploitative to the kids. Fans were concerned with the way personal and embarrassing moments were shared, as well as concerns that the kids were being overworked as they not only had to star in the videos but also edit the videos. The family now posts weekly videos consisting of daily vlogs and life updates. This is opposed to when previously they would profit off the kids personal and embarrassing moments, this change has helped them to be viewed as less exploitative. These kids also genuinely (seem too at least) enjoy creating and participating in content. Where previously the channel was more an example of “Sharenting”, it has definitely become more “Kidfluencing”. “Kidfluencing” is a form of digital sharing where children are creating and sharing their own content (Ali and Coronado, 2023). The Norris Nuts channel has not fully transitioned from “Sharenting” to “Kidfluencing”, but it is evident that the kids have much more of a say in these videos. The eldest two kids in the Norris family are now 20 and 18, with the other main kids featured on the channel being 14 and 16. Two of the main children being adults and the other two being teens has definitely matured the channel, and it is evident that the kids are more in charge of their channel. While the parents are still present in the videos they are only in charge of content to the extent of surprising the kids with trips and experiences and coming up with videos ideas. Aside from their main channel The Norris Nuts also have a few side channels for extra content. These are the Norris Nuts Gaming channel, and the Norris Nuts Do Stuff channel. These channels are completely run by the kids, and you can tell they enjoy making this content. The gaming channel involves them playing games with one another and creating their own challenges. On the Norris Nuts Do Stuff channel, they are essentially doing that, doing stuff. Recently content on that channel has involved them going to places to eat, reacting to things, challenges, and some each individual “Norris Nut” making their own video of their choice without their siblings. The fact that they get to make their own content shows that they genuinely enjoy doing what they do. It would be a completely different story if these kids didn’t enjoy creating content. All things considered, compared to a lot of other family channels The Norris Nuts is definitely much less exploitative. But this is not to say that a family channel can exist without exploitation.

The 8 Passengers channel is an extreme example of an exploitative and abusive family channel. The 8 Passengers channel was a Utah based Mormon family channel operated by mother of 6, Ruby Franke. In 2023 Ruby Franke was charged with 4 counts of child abuse, which did not come as a surprise to many. There were many warning signs on the channel which came from Franke’s harsh and strict parenting style. This channel was very different to most family channels which reach a young audience, this channel was essentially Franke giving parenting advice using her children as examples. Those familiar with the 8 Passengers channel were not surprised by Ruby Frankes arrest, her strict parenting style had sparked criticism many times before (Bubalo, 2024). This channel was more an example of “sharenting”. Through the YouTube channel, Franke was promoting her harsh parenting style to other parents who would actually implement this parenting style. There were many signs of abuse through the children’s “punishments” that Ruby would share with subscribers, yet nothing was done until it reached extremes. One example of abuse that was shown on the YouTube channel was Franke’s eldest son telling viewers his room was taken from him, and he was made to sleep on a beanbag for 7 months for pulling a prank on his younger brother. This abuse was publicly shared online for years before Franke’s arrest, but nothing was actually done. Another example of this abuse was something again publicly and willingly shared by Ruby, she revealed her 6-year-old daughter was in charge of packing her own lunches for school. This clip shows Ruby ranting to the camera that she told her daughters teacher she “is responsible for making her own lunches in the morning, so the natural outcome is she is just going to be hungry, and hopefully nobody gives her food, and nobody steps in and gives her lunch” (Ruby Franke, from a since deleted video). Ruby faced extreme backlash for this due to outrage that not only she expects her 6-year-old to prepare her own lunch but the lack of remorse. Not only was there a handful of times Ruby’s abuse was evident through the channel, but it was obvious the children did not want to be on camera and did not want their embarrassing and personal moments to be recorded. Franke was happy profiting off her children being uncomfortable. This extreme example of a family channel goes to show why there needs to be restrictions in place to protect the rights of these children.

Even though The Norris Nuts is an example of a family channel done better, there still needs to be measures in place to protect the rights of the children that are a part of these family channels. There is currently nothing in place to protect these children. One restriction I’ve identified to be put in place is the content that these children are a part of should be treated like child performance work. These “kidfluencers” are the new child actors, when child acting was new it did not have the restrictions in place that it does now, it was exploitative much like these family channels are for “kidfluencers”. These YouTube family channels should have the same restrictions in place. “Kidfluencing” is work, and it is child labour (Clark and Jno-Charles, 2025). “Kidfluencers” and children apart of these family YouTube channel need to be treated the same as child performers, just because there is parental consent doesn’t mean its ok, these parents do not always have their children’s best interest at heart.  Another identified measure to be put in place is for children on family channels to have mandatory earnings put aside for them. In California, for children in the entertainment industry there is a law in place called Coogan’s law. Coogan’s law requires a minimum of 15% of all minors’ earnings to be put into an inaccessible trust known as a Coogan account (SAG-AFTRA, 2025). In the case of the children part of family YouTube channels, there is nothing in place to protect their earnings. It is up to the parents to put aside and fairly distribute earnings to their children, there needs to be something in place to ensure these children are receiving a fair cut and the parents aren’t pocketing it all. Unless there are child protection laws put in place for this industry, family channels cannot operate ethically. “Kidfluencing” and family YouTube channels are only growing in popularity, so these children need to be protected from future exploitation.

Without any protective laws in place, family YouTube channels cannot exist without being exploitative of the children involved. Though most family channels are exploitative and toxic, The Norris Nuts is an example of a channel which is not. However, there should still be restrictions in place to minimize child exploitation. A family YouTube channel cannot be completely ethical without anything in place to protect the children. If protective measures were put in place such as the same child protection laws in place for child performers, and financial compensation to be put aside for these children these family channels could operate more safely.