Sharenting and bioethics: challenges for children’s privacy and safety

Abstract

Sharenting, the excessive sharing of information about children on social networks by their parents or guardians, has raised serious bioethical concerns in the digital age. This research analyses the challenges to children’s privacy and safety arising from sharenting. This is an integrative literature review conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Four main thematic categories were established: 1) digital privacy and security; 2) psychological and cultural implications; 3) social and family dynamics; and 4) societal and legal response. The analysis highlights the potential risks to children’s mental health, digital identity and safety, as well as the urgent need for more robust public policies and greater parental awareness. The promotion of conscious sharenting practices and more effective regulation are concluded to be essential to protect children’s digital privacy and safety.

Information dissemination; Bioethics; Privacy; Computer security; Social media

Resumo

A prática do sharenting, ou seja, o compartilhamento excessivo de informações sobre crianças nas redes sociais por seus pais ou responsáveis, tem levantado sérias preocupações bioéticas na era digital. Esta pesquisa analisa os desafios para a privacidade e segurança infantil decorrentes do sharenting. Trata-se de revisão integrativa da literatura realizada segundo as diretrizes Prisma. Foram estabelecidas quatro categorias temáticas principais: 1) privacidade e segurança digital; 2) implicações psicológicas e culturais; 3) dinâmica social e familiar; e 4) resposta societal e legal. A análise destaca os riscos potenciais para a saúde mental, identidade digital e segurança das crianças, bem como a necessidade urgente de políticas públicas mais robustas e maior conscientização dos pais. Conclui-se que a promoção de práticas de sharenting conscientes e uma regulamentação mais efetiva são essenciais para proteger a privacidade e segurança digital das crianças.

Disseminação de informação; Bioética; Privacidade; Segurança computacional; Mídias sociais

Resumen

Practicar el sharenting, es decir, compartir informaciones sobre niños en las redes sociales de manera excesiva por parte de los padres o responsables, ha planteado serias preocupaciones bioéticas en la era digital. Esta investigación analiza los desafíos para la privacidad y la seguridad infantil resultantes del sharenting. Se trata de una revisión integradora de la literatura realizada según las directrices PRISMA. Se establecieron cuatro categorías temáticas principales: 1) privacidad y seguridad digital; 2) implicaciones psicológicas y culturales; 3) dinámica social y familiar; y 4) respuesta social y legal. El análisis resalta los riesgos potenciales para la salud mental, la identidad digital y la seguridad de los niños, así como la necesidad urgente de políticas públicas más robustas y una mayor concienciación de los padres. Se concluye que promover prácticas de sharenting conscientes y una regulación más efectiva es esencial para proteger la privacidad y la seguridad digital de los niños.

Difusión de la información; Bioética; Privacidad; Seguridad computacional; Medios de comunicación sociales

Sharenting is defined as the “practice of a relative who regularly uses social media to communicate in detail about the children in their family,” merging the words “share” and “parenting” ¹. Associated with the increase in the use of networks and social media, sharenting has become a digital extension of parenting ². Within the child’s social nucleus, parents are identified as the most active figures in sharenting, posting everything, from achievements and happy moments to photos that, according to the children, damage their personal image ³,⁴.

Social media exposure can risk the development of the child’s identity, raising issues related to informed consent, privacy, safety, protection, and relationship with parents ⁵. In this context, studies indicate many parents do not have a satisfactory critical view to evaluate their own attitudes on social networks, even lacking the necessary knowledge about the privacy mechanisms of the profile and publications ⁵-⁷.

Lipu and Siibak ⁵ report that, according to the company AVG Technologies, 81% of children under two years of age in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and Spain already have “digital footprints” created by their parents, demonstrating the prevalence and complexity of this phenomenon.

The excessive sharing of images and information of children online, a practice recently characterized as oversharenting, not only leads to engagement on social networks, but over time it becomes an integrated and naturalized habit in the family experience ⁸,⁹. This behavior brings significant challenges regarding the constant surveillance and digital identity formation of children who are exposed to a wide audience without explicit consent ¹⁰,¹¹.

Given this scenario, it is essential to assess the bioethical implications of this phenomenon, promoting greater awareness of the repercussions of these digital practices and encouraging the development of guidelines that protect the integrity and rights of children in the digital environment. Thus, this study aims to analyze the bioethical implications of sharenting, exploring how this practice influences children’s privacy, digital safety, and identity development.

Method

This is an integrative literature review, a method that enables the analysis of various research types (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods) ¹² to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the bioethical issues associated with sharenting. The guiding question of the study was: What are the bioethical implications of sharenting in the privacy, safety, and identity development of children?

Searches were conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and SciELO databases in September 2023, using combinations of the descriptors “sharenting” and “bioethics or ethics”. These strategies were complemented by the analysis of the bibliographic references of the selected studies to identify additional relevant literature. All searches were documented to ensure the replicability of the study.

Articles published in scientific journals between 2016 and 2023, in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, which discussed ethical, bioethical, social, and psychological aspects of sharenting were included. Studies that were not directly related to this review’s objective were excluded, as well as those that discussed sharenting from the perspective of family members other than parents.

After data extraction, the first selection was performed using the Ryyan ¹³ platform by two independent reviewers (SIR and LFG), who assessed titles and abstracts to determine relevance according to the study aim and inclusion and exclusion criteria. The articles that passed the first selection were submitted to an analysis of the full text. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by consensus or, when necessary, by a third reviewer (LPO).

After the selection was completed, the articles were downloaded in full, and the data were organized and coded using the QSR NVivo 14 software for Windows ¹⁴. Then, Bardin’s content analysis was used ¹⁵, which involved coding the data into thematic categories and subsequent interpretation to identify recurring patterns and themes. The data were synthesized narratively, highlighting the main findings and discussing how they relate to the bioethical issues of sharenting to identify patterns, differences and gaps, aiming to formulate recommendations for future practices and public policies ¹⁶.

Results and discussion

The findings of the integrative review on sharenting were organized into thematic categories that emerged from the content analysis of the 73 articles reviewed. Figure 1 shows the systematic search, extraction, selection, and analysis of the articles included in the sample.

Figure 1
Flowchart of the search, extraction, selection, and analysis of the articles

The complexities in sharenting practices are demonstrated, highlighting both the direct consequences for children and the broader implications for families and society. The categories reflect on the main themes and bioethical issues associated with this practice: digital privacy and safety, psychological and cultural implications, social and family dynamics, and societal and legal response.

Privacy and digital safety

In the contemporary digital age, online privacy and safety of children have become growing concerns, particularly in the context of sharenting ¹⁷-¹⁹. This category analyzed the complex ramifications by which sharenting can compromise children’s privacy and digital safety, from the creation of premature digital footprints to the risks associated with inadvertent and inappropriate exposure of photographs on social media ²⁰,²¹.

Ong and collaborators ²² define six agents who are interested in sharenting (parents, the market, children themselves, the community, and policymakers) and propose three ways of sharenting: passive, active, and invisible. Active sharenting refers to posting information about the child, such as marking the child’s school in the publication. The passive one occurs when, in this same example, the school saves the photo in which it was tagged and shares it in its own account. The invisible occurs when parents are not aware of the dimension of the information disclosure, such as when they agree to the terms of an application related to pregnancy and do not understand that this data will be sold to third parties, putting children’s privacy at risk.

Sharenting is also related to another recent term, shareveillance, unification of the words share and surveillance, a phenomenon that describes the imminent sharing of information ²³. Social networks are fertile means for this state of surveillance, allowing the sharing and manipulation of personal information and the observation of information shared by others. A large online audience, the possibility of identifying the child, and the risk to the child’s privacy are criteria that lead to the characterization of sharenting and the described surveillance status ²⁴,²⁵.

This practice has positive aspects, such as parents sharing tips and advice among themselves, especially in cases of children with special needs, which generate support and welcoming, or the dissemination and learning via published tips and advice for child raising ¹,²⁶. However, it also has negative characteristics, such as issues involving privacy violations, digital fraud, present, and future psychological risks, legal problems regarding child custody, use of the child’s image for advertisements, cyberbullying, and pedophilia ³.

In this context, the shared information is accessed by potential kidnappers—and these, in turn, are rarely strangers to the family. So, even if a profile has restricted access to friends only, the information will remain at risk when exposed in the media and social networks, due to the privacy policies of such platforms. In the study by Walrave and collaborators ²⁷, cases in which fake profiles used photos published by parents, but were found on child abuse sites, were analyzed.

Further enhancing the risk of this exposure via inappropriate content and the use of accounts as an economic mechanism, the creation of profiles of children in their prenatal state by parents and family members stands out, as is the case of online diaries reporting child monitoring ⁶.

As for the incidence of fraud that uses the identity of children, excessive data sharing could lead to 7.4 million incidents in 2030 and cause millions of dollars in losses ²⁸. In addition, identity theft of these children can cover economic, criminal, and medical issues ²⁹. In this sense, the Australian Online Safety Commission warns that half of the content in pedophile networks is taken from publications made on social media platforms ³⁰.

“Digital kidnapping” refers to the use of children’s photos in fake profiles, which impersonate the child or their parents, or who do not have authorization from the family to use these images in the various virtual environments ¹. Note that even children’s birth dates can be revealed precisely by the publication of birthday photos ³, whereas physical integrity is threatened via posts that expose the school they attend, such as photos wearing a uniform ⁷.

Therefore, facing ethical dilemmas regarding data sharing on children and adolescents in the media and social networks is extremely relevant in the current scenario. In this context, conflicts regarding consent, privacy, and protection of minors are just some of the bioethical aspects in a tension between parental needs and duties, exposing the unpreparedness of parents in protecting their children’s privacy in the information society ³¹-³³.

The lack of children’s consent for publications involving them stands out in this theme and directly implicates the relationships between parents and children ¹. Even in cases in which permission is provided by the child, without due awareness of the risks and the scope of online exposure, in the future these publications become a target for removal, but the information remains on the internet due to sharing tools. In addition, they can still impact the chances of admission to institutions and professions due to the digital identity created by parents ²⁰,³⁴, so digital marks that will remain in the future may not have the child’s consent ³⁵.

Note that parents who practice sharenting do not believe they are violating their children’s privacy ¹⁸. Thus, engagement in this activity often begins without taking into account issues involving children’s privacy and safety. On the one hand, parents must legally, morally, and ethically exercise their role as protectors over the child, on the other, there are particular wants and needs of those who adhere to mass sharing in social media ³⁶.

In addition, the number of reports of parents who feel judged by society and by their acquaintances when they do not adhere to sharenting is significant ³⁶. There is a structural issue that involves the new digital culture, and the influence and pressure that individuals feel when they do not adhere to certain social customs in the online environment ³.

Data analysis on digital privacy and safety therefore reveals the need for greater awareness and education of parents about sharenting consequences, as well as on proper use of social media. Legal implications and vulnerabilities exposed demand more robust public policies to protect children in the digital environment. In addition, the challenges identified reinforce the importance of a dialogue between technology developers, legislators, and civil society, to create a safe environment that respects the rights and dignity of children in these spaces.

Psychological and cultural implications

The early online exposure promoted by sharenting has significant psychological implications, which affect children’s development and well-being. In this thematic category, it was analyzed how the constant early digital presence influences children’s perception of themselves, their social interactions, and their mental health, as well as the motivations for mass sharing to be conducted by parents, mainly associated with collectivist and Western cultures.

Unlike in the past, when family members accompanied the exposure of children’s photographs, with the emergence of social networks on the internet, photos are exposed not only to restricted people, but to a public, and perpetually, leading to child datafication ³⁷. In 2017, around 13 million photos were published on Instagram, and approximately 81% of children residing in Western countries have an online presence even before the age of 2 ³⁸. At the same time, about 300 photos and information of children are shared by their parents on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter/X ²⁹.

Benevento ³⁹ says that a survey conducted by the Family Online Safety Institute identified that one in ten parents has already received requests from their children to remove the online content. Sarkadi and collaborators ⁴⁰ observed that in a population of children aged four to 15 years, the view on sharenting is often negative. Sharing photos with acquaintances is more acceptable than publishing images on social networks without the children’s consent and older children are more positive to publishing, while younger children defend an opposite position.

Most children feel ashamed, uncomfortable, and frustrated because of sharenting. A recent study noted that 71.3% of 12-16-year-olds in the United Kingdom believe their parents do not respect their privacy online and 39.8% experienced moments when their parents shared personal photos that are considered shameful ⁵.

Children with fragile health status often become the target of the creation of profiles on social networks that publicize their trajectory and growth amid difficulties ⁴¹, exposing everything from their happiest moments to the episodes of greatest vulnerability ³⁴. This practice aims to reach for support to overcome the difficulties faced in health services and promotes the engagement of different families who experience similar situations, in addition to informing the public about medical conditions that are little discussed ⁴². As adults, these children do not want their identities to remain related to illness and value the removal of published content ³⁴.

Most teens assume that awareness of the virtual environment takes shape by the age of 13. They point out that they disregard photos from when they were babies or very young due to the difficulty of self-recognition ²⁷ but persistently feel unable to change the scenario that involves sharenting, attributing devaluation to personal consent while experiencing frustration and violation feelings in this scenario ⁴³. In addition, by growing up amid sharenting, teens and young adults can normalize the practice of disclosing personal information on the internet and, when they become parents, replicate that culture ²⁵.

Nevertheless, Hoy, Fox and Deitz ⁴⁴ find that parents believe all their children’s information is sensitive to exposure to marketing. However, although they feel sensitive and concerned about their children’s exposure, inexperienced parents often adhere to sharenting, even if there is a feeling of guilt while sharing information. Similarly, other studies show that parents’ concerns about privacy and safety issues generally do not affect the tendency to sharenting ⁴⁵,⁴⁶.

Four justifications are present in parents’ speech regarding their children’s exposure: 1) active participation and children’s fun with the posts; 2) permission for children to create their own publications; 3) integration of children’s participation as part of the educational discipline; and, 4) representation of children as ordinary individuals in everyday situations ⁴⁷.

In addition, the narrative emerges that sharenting is driven by an amateurism dedicated to publishing as a hobby, non-monetary ⁴⁸. Conversely, the disclosure of common and regular routines also proves to be a strategy to strengthen the ties between the public and the account owner ⁴⁹, promoting greater user engagement, which makes publications more valued and relevant ⁵⁰.

According to Hassan ⁴⁵, a hypothesis for the sharenting tendency is because parents see their children as extensions of themselves. Sharenting is thus also seen as a form of self-representation, either by trying to display talents and aesthetic choices of parents, or by promoting the image of maternal and paternal perfection ⁵¹. Holiday, Norman and Densley ⁵² corroborate the idea by noting that even though the children are in the publications, the focus and care of the exposure was directed to parenthood and the self-representation of the parents.

The need to know and be seen by countless people is a cultural phenomenon ¹⁷, and the search for personal validation and integration in groups is a characteristic of human behavior that fits the metrics imposed by social media ⁸. By sharing information about their family activities, parents want to expose their competencies in this role, and, by publishing images and achievements of their children, they indirectly shape their own representation ³⁹.

Aiming for social validation, economic, family, and motherhood problems are often omitted in publications. Displaying only positive and appearance-reinforcing aspects on social networks is a social trend, promoting the personal image linked to the idea of “good parent” and “good family” ⁵³. On the other hand, in publications made in blogs related to stories, experiences, and information about parenthood, the use of writing seems to be a personal way of resolving personal matters ⁵⁴.

Mothers are generally more likely to engage in sharenting ²¹, and it is frequent that companies seek out these mothers to disclose their data in exchange for followers, so that this “commercialization” of the children’s image continues to strengthen ⁶, while these women feel a high level of stress ²⁹. Mothers who act as influencers or mumpreneurs ³¹ stand out in this environment and, most of the time, demonstrate the multiple responsibilities linked to the role of women in society. In this role, one must work and be a mother at the same time and the role of mother often gains greater focus in the media, allowing the profitable mix between the maternal side and professional life ⁵⁵.

Vulnerability related to consumerism is also a potential motivation for mothers to expose their children on social media in exchange for successive engagement with brands and stores ⁵⁶,⁵⁷. Publications with children were found to be statistically more successful in their engagement results compared to other posts by influencer mothers ⁵⁸.

Fatherhood is also being adapted to the online world by the phenomenon identified by the term Instadads, aimed at men who use Instagram to share their experiences as fathers. These profiles highlight the image of a fatherhood that is more involved with domestic and family narratives, while contributing to the digital economic world in a similar way to influencer mothers ⁵⁹. In addition, their publications usually focus on their children’s achievements and victories, achieving less rejection ⁶⁰.

Thus, sharing is also an opportunity for financial gain, in which parents establish partnerships with brands and, by acquiring followers, their children’s publication becomes a profitable source for the family. In addition, gaining a voice to help and advice others, along with financial gain, are shown to be motivating in this context ⁴⁹,⁶¹,⁶².

Parenthood is seen as serious periods of adjustment and change that can lead to social isolation, thus, sharenting is a way to reconnect with relatives and friends or to form new bonds online ⁶³,⁶⁴, especially in situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic ⁶⁵,⁶⁶. The feeling of loneliness in motherhood is notoriously related to the increased use of social networks ¹⁰, which can also be used to show how proud they are of their children and store memories. This motivation is especially reinforced by Facebook, which provides daily memories of past years and days, via publications made over time ²⁷.

For Kline ²³, the production of large amounts of information also fits to deal with the inaccuracy and unpredictability of parenting. In this sense, the pressure resulting from intensive parenting, arising from the modern parental culture, leads parents to seek online communities to share experiences and acquire knowledge without possible external judgments. Mothers, especially, believe people they communicate with on the internet have the same goals, concerns, and motivations for seeking the online environment, and believe they are trustworthy ¹⁹.

In the sample of Ranzini, Newlands and Lutz ⁶⁷, sharenting is an extension of the preexisting behavior of parents on social media, together with regarding the decisions they make about privacy. Typically, the criteria for sharing personal information link to the criteria for publishing information about their children. According to Bhroin and collaborators ⁶⁸, parents with greater technological skills adhere more to sharenting, possibly because they believe their digital habits and criteria are favorable, which may mean they have more concerns about privacy protection.

Consequently, parents who are more liberal about the use of the internet develop restriction strategies and rules that coincide with lower levels of sharenting ³⁵,⁶⁸. In the sample of Bhroin and collaborators ⁶⁸, note that parents who are excessively concerned with the revelation of their children’s private information tend to share more on social networks, leading to a paradox.

Reinforcement of stereotypes is also evident in the content of the children’s post on social media. By using hashtags, parents not only associate with social groups, but also shape their children’s identity ³⁸. Thus, instead of exercising their freedom of speech and identity, adolescents who have gone through the online exposure may unconsciously fit into stereotypes and identities created by their parents ³¹.

Therefore, the psychological and cultural implications of sharenting are profound and require careful attention from parents and caregivers. It is crucial that adults are aware of psychological and cultural consequences of their sharing choices and work to minimize negative impacts. Educating parents about the effects of sharenting and promoting mindful practices can help protect children’s mental health and well-being in an increasingly digital world.

Social and family dynamics

Sharenting affects not only the exposed individual but also social and family dynamics, shaping parent-child interactions and influencing social norms. Thus, sharenting practices are intertwined with family relationships, changing communication and expectations in the family nucleus.

According to Cino and Wartella ²¹, a significant number of parents want people in their family to contribute in controlling the effects of sharenting. Such parents adopt privacy settings, seek children’s consent for publications, delete posts they consider harmful to their children, and seek safer means of publication. In parallel, they define what friends and family are allowed to publish on social media or not. In fact, the main concern is the loss of control over information, which, once on the internet, can no longer be guaranteed as private ²⁹.

Cino and Vandini ³⁷ discuss tensions resulting from the breaking of rules and limits established by parents regarding their children’s publications on social networks, especially when relationship between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law is affected. Crossing these boundaries is one of the greatest factors of tension within family dynamics, giving rise to the term grand-sharenting, used in situations in which grandparents publish grandchildren’s content without parental authorization.

While some mothers set explicit boundaries for posts that expose their children, others set implicit boundaries, considering them common sense for privacy awareness. Frustrations arise when content that would be published later or that should not be exposed are disseminated without parental consent. In all these contexts, the decision on how to act in the face of these violations and the loss of control of the children’s privacy become crucial points in family tensions ³⁷.

“Child effects” or “child mediation” are methods used by adolescents to mitigate the consequences of sharenting ⁸,⁶⁸,⁶⁹. By mediation, adolescents guide their parents on appropriate technological practices, which often includes teaching them about appropriate behavior in social media. However, the idea of being influenced by children can provoke aversive feelings in parents, as they feel as if they lose authority or interpret such behaviors as controlling and restrictive ⁶⁰.

In addition, even with intentions aimed at sharenting, Cataldo and collaborators ³¹ mention a paradox in the phenomenon of mass sharing by parents: the distancing of people from the actors of the sharenting, which can negatively affect association with other individuals when the behavior is seen as a violation of social norms. Mascheroni and collaborators ¹⁰ highlight another tension of digital motherhood via establishment of an online infrastructure among mothers, which resembles a “guilt cycle,” although the internet also offers a supportive environment for new mothers.

Therefore, the need to balance parents’ freedom of expression and children’s privacy is highlighted, pointing to recommended practices that can protect both parents’ interests and children’s rights.

Societal and legal response

Sharenting evokes a variety of social and legal responses, reflecting growing concerns about children’s privacy, safety, and rights in the digital age. Different societies and legal systems are thus facing the challenges posed by sharing children’s information on social media.

Attention to sharenting by the global media and academy has grown, indicating a possible retaliation by some countries, because, although it does not constitute a crime per se, sharenting can facilitate other crimes. Stratman ⁷⁰ addresses the case of Wren Eleanor, a famous three-year-old child who has more than 17 million followers on a profile on the social network TikTok managed by her mother. The child’s followers noticed comments aimed at pedophilia in the videos, and the public reaction to this exposure took on a massive character in along with the public’s concern for the child.

Consequently, numerous negative comments directed at the mother and her character of exposure took over the internet, mainly aimed at her motivation to maintain her daughter’s profile and her behavior on the internet. This behavior is often interpreted as an attempt by parents to obtain direct and indirect benefits by exposing their children ⁸. In this context, the “moral panic” theory suggests the sensationalist representation of sharenting on social media can incite public fear and self-punishment ³.

There is a growing demand for robust public policies to manage sharenting, given the limited control children have over their own exposure online. Therefore, the need for clear regulations on all social platforms, in line with global laws, is imperative ⁶. Parents seek actions from governments and big tech companies to fill gaps in the protection of their children’s privacy and data, with public policies that promote awareness about the safe use of the internet ⁷¹.

Significant laws, such as the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, enacted in the United States in 1998 ⁷², enable parents to control the information collected about their children, underscoring the need to protect children’s data from misuse by marketers. This law, along with the Brazilian Statute of the Child and Adolescent ⁷³ and the United Nations Children’s Fund’s (UNICEF) Convention on the Rights of the Child ⁷⁴, sets out guidelines to safeguard children’s privacy and safety, as undue exposure may constitute a violation of fundamental rights ⁷¹.

Internationally, legislation has been instituted in this regard, such as the 2016 French one cited by Blum-Ross and Livingstone ⁵⁴, which allows people who were exposed online during childhood to sue their parents for privacy violation. Haley ⁷⁵ mentions the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, which also reinforces the right to be forgotten by allowing individuals to adjust or remove old records to prevent future harm.

Gligorijev ⁴³ points out the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom also recognizes, in this context, the parents’ behavior may not be consistent with the interests of their children, negatively affecting them in this context. According to the author, in the context of protecting children’s privacy, it is crucial to address the differences between societal expectations about parental responsibility and some parents’ actual practices on social media.

In Brazil, freedom of speech finds limits when confronted with other fundamental rights, such as dignity, which requires a thoughtful approach in cases of conflict of rights ⁷¹. In addition, the responsibility of social networks in sharenting management is critical, and platforms such as Google are implementing advice to set content removal criteria ⁷⁵. The need to educate parents about safe sharing practices online is also an urgent issue to minimize the risks associated with sharenting ⁷⁶.

Communication privacy management (CPM) theory suggests parents establish clear rules for information disclosure, protecting their children’s privacy, and controlling the dissemination of data by third parties ⁵,⁵⁶. Finally, strategies such as “conscious sharenting,” proposed by Walrave and collaborators ⁶⁴, and anti-sharenting stances stress methods to protect children while maintaining online participation. These approaches emphasize the importance of ensuring that children cannot be identified in photos and limiting access to publications, ensuring that parents carefully consider how their actions will affect their children in the future.

Limitations

The limitations to be considered when interpreting the results of this study are its integrative review methodology, which, although comprehensive, may have excluded some relevant studies that did not strictly fit the established inclusion and exclusion criteria. Most of the analyzed articles also come from countries with high levels of digital and economic development, which may not fully reflect the specificities of sharenting in different socioeconomic contexts, such as Brazil.

Final considerations

Sharenting, as an emerging phenomenon in the digital age, shows significant bioethical challenges for privacy, safety, and child development. This study highlighted the complexity of the bioethical implications and the urgent need for more robust regulatory and educational approaches to protect children’s interests.

Parents should be aware of the risks associated with sharenting and be encouraged to select more responsible practices. Greater engagement and cooperation between parents, educators, policymakers, and technology professionals is critical to develop effective strategies that minimize risk without compromising the benefits of online social interactions.

In addition, the need to institute public policies that keep up with technological and cultural evolution is reinforced, ensuring that laws and regulations are adequate and effective to deal with sharenting specificities. Digital literacy and education, starting at an early age in school and in the family, can play a crucial role in preparing children and parents to integrate into the digital world in a safely and ethically. While sharenting remains a practice integrated into modern digital life, it is imperative that everyone involved manage the consequences of their actions in a way that protects children’s rights in the digital landscape and promotes their well-being.

References

• ¹ Kopecky K, Szotkowski R, Aznar-Diaz I, Romero-Rodriguez JM. The phenomenon of sharenting and its risks in the online environment: experiences from Czech Republic and Spain. Child Youth Serv Rev [Internet]. 2020 [acesso 20 set 2023];110:104812. Tradução livre. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104812
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104812
• ² Marasli M, Sühendan E, Yilmazturk NH, Cok F. Parents' shares on social networking sites about their children: sharenting. Anthropologist [Internet]. 2016 [acesso 20 set 2023];24(2):399-406. DOI: 10.1080/09720073.2016.11892031
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2016.11892031
• ³ Ugwudike P, Lavorgna A, Tartari M. Sharenting in digital society: exploring the prospects of an emerging moral panic. Deviant Behav [Internet]. 2023 [acesso 20 set 2023];45(4):503-20. DOI: 10.1080/01639625.2023.2254446
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2023.2254446
• ⁴ Aydogdu F, Güngör BS, Öz TA. Does sharing bring happiness? Understanding the sharenting phenomenon. Child Youth Serv Rev [Internet]. 2023 [acesso 20 set 2023];154:107122. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107122
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107122
• ⁵ Lipu M, Siibak A. 'Take it down!': Estonian parents' and pre-teens' opinions and experiences with sharenting. Media Int Aust [Internet]. 2019 [acesso 20 set 2023];170(1):57-67. DOI: 10.1177/1329878X19828366
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X19828366
• ⁶ Romero-Rodríguez JM, Kopecký K, García-González A, Gómez-García G. Sharing images or videos of minors online: validation of the sharenting evaluation scale (SES). Child Youth Serv Rev [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 20 set 2023];136:106396. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106396
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106396
• ⁷ Peimanpak F, Abdollahi A, Allen KA, Rakhmatova FA, Aladini A, Alshahrani SH, Brewer J. Validation of the online version of the sharenting evaluation scale (SES) in Iranian parents: psychometric properties and concurrent validity. Brain Behav [Internet]. 2023 [acesso 20 set 2023];13(12):e3300. DOI: 10.1002/brb3.3300
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.3300
• ⁸ Klucarova S, Hasford J. The oversharenting paradox: when frequent parental sharing negatively affects observers' desire to affiliate with parents. Curr Psychol [Internet]. 2021 [acesso 20 set 2023];42(8):6419-28. DOI: 10.1007/s12144-021-01986-z
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01986-z
• ⁹ Lazard L, Capdevila R, Dann C, Locke A, Roper S. Sharenting: pride, affect and the day-to-day politics of digital mothering. Soc Personal Psychol Compass [Internet]. 2019 [acesso 20 set 2023];13:e12443. DOI: 10.1111/spc3.12443
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12443
• ¹⁰ Mascheroni G, Cino D, Amadori G, Zaffaroni LG. (Non-)sharing as a form of maternal care? The ambiguous meanings of sharenting for mothers of 0-to-8-year-old children. Ital Sociol Rev [Internet]. 2023 [acesso 20 set 2023];13(1):111-30. DOI: 10.13136/isr.v13i1.635
  » https://doi.org/10.13136/isr.v13i1.635
• ¹¹ Ordóñez Pineda L, Calva Jiménez S. Threats to the privacy of young persons (minors) from sharenting. Rev Chil Derecho Tecnol [Internet]. 2021 [20 set 2023];9(2):105-30. DOI: 10.5354/0719-2584.2020.55333
  » https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-2584.2020.55333
• ¹² Souza MT, Silva MD, Carvalho R. Integrative review: what is it? How to do it? Einstein (São Paulo) [Internet]. 2010 [acesso 20 set 2023];8(1):102-6. DOI: 10.1590/S1679-45082010RW1134
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-45082010RW1134
• ¹³ Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan: web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev [Internet]. 2016 [acesso 20 set 2023];5(1):210. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
  » https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
• ¹⁴ Houghton C, Murphy K, Meehan B, Thomas J, Brooker D, Casey D. From screening to synthesis: using Nvivo to enhance transparency in qualitative evidence synthesis. J Clin Nurs [Internet]. 2017 [acesso 20 set 2023];26(5-6):873-81. DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13443
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13443
• ¹⁵ Bardin L. Análise de conteúdo. São Paulo: Edições 70; 2008.
• ¹⁶ Khurshid Z, De Brún A, Martin J, McAuliffe E. A systematic review and narrative synthesis: determinants of the effectiveness and sustainability of measurement-focused quality improvement trainings. J Contin Educ Health Prof [Internet]. 2021 [acesso 20 set 2023];41(3):210-20. DOI: 10.1097/CEH.0000000000000331
  » https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000331
• ¹⁷ Hashim NH, Kamarulzaman Y, Hasim MJM, Rahman NAA. "Sharenting": a study of Malaysian parents' use of social media platforms. J Media Commun Res [Internet]. 2021 [acesso 20 set 2023];13(3):125-140. Disponível: https://tny.im/15QaT
  » https://tny.im/15QaT
• ¹⁸ Hinojo-Lucena FJ, Aznar-Díaz I, Cáceres-Reche MP, Trujillo-Torres JM, Romero-Rodríguez JM. Sharenting: Internet addiction, self-control and online photos of underage children. Comunicar [Internet]. 2020 [acesso 20 set 2023];28(64):97-108. DOI: 10.3916/C64-2020-09
  » https://doi.org/10.3916/C64-2020-09
• ¹⁹ Tartari M, Lavorgna A, Ugwudike P. Share with care: negotiating children's health and safety in sharenting practices. Media Cult Soc [Internet]. 2023 [acesso 20 set 2023];45(7):1453-70. DOI: 10.1177/01634437231182002
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437231182002
• ²⁰ Aswathy Prakash G. Parental role in creation and preservation of digital identity of children. Test Eng Manag [Internet]. 2019 [acesso 20 set 2023];81(11-12):4907-11. Disponível: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3521688
  » https://ssrn.com/abstract=3521688
• ²¹ Cino D, Wartella E. Privacy-protective behaviors in the mediatized domestic milieu: parents and the intra-and extra-systemic governance of children's digital traces. Ric Pedagog Didatt [Internet]. 2021 [acesso 20 set 2023];16(3):133-53. DOI: 10.6092/issn.1970-2221/13276
  » https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1970-2221/13276
• ²² Ong LL, Fox AK, Cook LA, Bessant C, Gan P, Hoy MG et al. Sharenting in an evolving digital world: increasing online connection and consumer vulnerability. J Consum Aff [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 20 set 2023]; 56(3):1106-26. DOI: 10.1111/joca.12462
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12462
• ²³ Kline K. Ecstatic parenting: the "shareveillant" and archival subject and the production of the self in the digital age. Ethics Educ [Internet]. 2020 [acesso 20 set 2023];15(4):464-75. DOI: 10.1080/17449642.2020.1822706
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2020.1822706
• ²⁴ Brosch A. When the child is born into the internet: sharenting as a growing trend among parents on Facebook. New Educ Rev [Internet]. 2016 [acesso 20 set 2023];43(1):225-35. DOI: 10.15804/tner.2016.43.1.19
  » https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2016.43.1.19
• ²⁵ Brosch A. Sharenting: why do parents violate their children's privacy? New Educ Rev [Internet]. 2018 [acesso 20 set 2023];54(4):75-85. DOI: 10.15804/tner.2018.54.4.06
  » https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2018.54.4.06
• ²⁶ Latipah E, Adi Kistoro HC, Hasanah FF, Putranta H. Elaborating motive and psychological impact of sharenting in millennial parents. Univers J Educ Res [Internet]. 2020 [acesso 20 set 2023];8(10):4807-17. DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2020.081052
  » https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.081052
• ²⁷ Verswijvel K, Walrave M, Hardies K, Heirman W. Sharenting, is it a good or a bad thing? Understanding how adolescents think and feel about sharenting on social network sites. Child Youth Serv Rev [Internet]. 2019 [acesso 20 set 2023];104:104401. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104401
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104401
• ²⁸ Williams-Ceci S, Grose GE, Pinch AC, Kizilcec RF, Lewis NA Jr. Combating sharenting: Interventions to alter parents' attitudes toward posting about their children online. Comput Human Behav [Internet]. 2021 [acesso 20 set 2023];125:106939. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106939
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106939
• ²⁹ Ferrara P, Cammisa I, Corsello G, Giardino I, Vural M, Pop TL et al. Online "sharenting": the dangers of posting sensitive information about children on social media. J Pediatr [Internet]. 2023 [acesso 20 set 2023];257:113322. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2023.01.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2023.01.002
• ³⁰ Geddes L. Avoid over-sharenting. New Sci [Internet]. 2019 [acesso 20 set 2023];242(3224):24-5. DOI: 10.1016/S0262-4079(19)30599-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-4079(19)30599-8
• ³¹ Cataldo I, Lieu AA, Carollo A, Bornstein MH, Gabrieli G, Lee A, Esposito G. From the cradle to the web: the growth of "sharenting"- a scientometric perspective. Hum Behav Emerg Technol [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 20 set 2023];2022:5607422. DOI: 10.1155/2022/5607422
  » https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5607422
• ³² Lavorgna A, Tartari M, Ugwudike P. Criminogenic and harm-enabling features of social media platforms: the case of sharenting practices. Eur J Criminol [Internet]. 2023 [acesso 20 set 2023];20(3):1037-60. DOI: 10.1177/14773708221131659
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/14773708221131659
• ³³ Lavorgna A, Ugwudike P, Tartari M. Online sharenting: identifying existing vulnerabilities and demystifying media reported crime risks. Crime Media Cult [Internet]. 2023 [acesso 20 set 2023];19(4):472-90. DOI: 10.1177/17416590221148448
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/17416590221148448
• ³⁴ Burn E. #warriors: sick children, social media and the right to an open future. J Med Ethics [Internet]. 2022 Aug [acesso 20 set 2023];48(8):566-71. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2020-107042
  » https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-107042
• ³⁵ Garmendia M, Martínez G, Garitaonandia C. Sharenting, parental mediation and privacy among Spanish children. Eur J Commun [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 20 set 2023];37(2):145-60. DOI: 10.1177/02673231211012146
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/02673231211012146
• ³⁶ Siibak A, Traks K. The dark sides of sharenting. CJCS [Internet]. 2019 [20 set 2023];11(1):115-21. DOI: 10.1386/cjcs.11.1.115_1
  » https://doi.org/10.1386/cjcs.11.1.115_1
• ³⁷ Cino D, Vandini CD. "My kid, my rule": governing children's digital footprints as a source of dialectical tensions between mothers and daughters-in-law. SComS [Internet]. 2020 [acesso 20 set 2023];20(2):181-202. DOI: 10.24434/j.scoms.2020.02.003
  » https://doi.org/10.24434/j.scoms.2020.02.003
• ³⁸ Choi GY, Lewallen J. "Say Instagram, kids!": examining sharenting and children's digital representations on Instagram. Howard J Commun [Internet]. 2018 [acesso 20 set 2023];29(2):144-64. DOI: 10.1080/10646175.2017.1327380
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2017.1327380
• ³⁹ Benevento A. Identifying hashtag cultures to study the construction of childhood Image and parents' aspirations. Cult Psychol [Internet]. 2023 [acesso 20 set 2023]. DOI: 10.1177/1354067X231191480
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X231191480
• ⁴⁰ Sarkadi A, Dahlberg A, Fängström K, Warner G. Children want parents to ask for permission before "sharenting". J Paediatr Child Health [Internet]. 2020 Jun [acesso 20 set 2023];56(6):981-3. DOI: 10.1111/jpc.14945
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/jpc.14945
• ⁴¹ Goggin G, Ellis K. Privacy and digital data of children with disabilities: scenes from social media sharenting. Media Commun [Internet]. 2020 [acesso 20 set 2023];8(4):218-28. DOI: 10.17645/mac.v8i4.3350
  » https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i4.3350
• ⁴² Cino D. Managing sharing is caring: mothers' social media dilemmas and informal reflective practices on the governance of children's digital footprints. MedieKultur [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 20 set 2023];38(72):86-106. DOI: 10.7146/mk.v38i72.125275
  » https://doi.org/10.7146/mk.v38i72.125275
• ⁴³ Gligorijevic J. Children's privacy: the role of parental control and consent. Hum Rights Law Rev [Internet]. 2019 [acesso 20 set 2023];19(2):201-29. DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngz004
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngz004
• ⁴⁴ Hoy MG, Fox AK, Deitz GD. Parents' perceptions of the sensitivity of their children's personal information and willingness to share with social media marketers: Implications for sharenting. J Consum Aff [Internet]. 2023 [acesso 20 set 2023]; 57(1):346-56. DOI: 10.1111/joca.12502
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12502
• ⁴⁵ Hassan S. Examining the phenomenon of sharenting. Can J Fam Youth [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 20 set 2023]; 14(2):266-71. DOI: 10.29173/cjfy29839
  » https://doi.org/10.29173/cjfy29839
• ⁴⁶ Ünlü DG, Morva O. Whose information should be shared with whom? Parents' awareness of children's digital privacy in Turkey. Media Lit Acad Res [Internet]. 2020 [acesso 20 set 2023];3(2):109-124. Disponível: https://x.gd/LrXZQ
  » https://x.gd/LrXZQ
• ⁴⁷ Morva O, Ünlü DG. Parenting blogs and children's online privacy on the privacy management of parent blogs in Turkey. Ilef Dergisi [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 20 set 2023];9(1):9-30. DOI: 10.24955/ilef.1073284
  » https://doi.org/10.24955/ilef.1073284
• ⁴⁸ Barnes R, Potter A. Sharenting and parents' digital literacy: an agenda for future research. Commun Res Pract [Internet]. 2021 [acesso 20 set 2023];7(1):6-20. DOI: 10.1080/22041451.2020.1847819
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2020.1847819
• ⁴⁹ Porfírio F, Jorge A. Sharenting of Portuguese male and female celebrities on Instagram. Journal Media [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 20 set 2023];3(3):521-37. DOI: 10.3390/journalmedia3030036
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia3030036
• ⁵⁰ Ouvrein G, Verswijvel K. Sharenting: Parental adoration or public humiliation? A focus group study on adolescents' experiences with sharenting against the background of their own impression management. Child Youth Serv Rev [Internet]. 2019 [acesso 20 set 2023];99:319-27. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.02.011
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.02.011
• ⁵¹ Kallioharju M, Wilska TA, Vänskä A. Mothers' self-representations and representations of childhood on social media. Young Consum [Internet]. 2023 [acesso 20 set 2023];24(4):485-99. DOI: 10.1108/YC-06-2022-1541
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/YC-06-2022-1541
• ⁵² Holiday S, Norman MS, Densley RL. Sharenting and the extended self: self-representation in parents' Instagram presentations of their children. Pop Commun [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 20 set 2023];20(1):1-15. DOI: 10.1080/15405702.2020.1744610
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2020.1744610
• ⁵³ Lazard L. Digital mothering: sharenting, family selfies and online affective-discursive practices. Fem Psychol [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 20 set 2023];32(4):540-58. DOI: 10.1177/09593535221083840
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/09593535221083840
• ⁵⁴ Blum-Ross A, Livingstone S. "Sharenting," parent blogging, and the boundaries of the digital self. Pop Commun [Internet]. 2017 [acesso 20 set 2023];15(2):110-25. DOI: 10.1080/15405702.2016.1223300
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2016.1223300
• ⁵⁵ Boufares Tayaa S, Bouzaabia R. The determinants of Tunisian influencer-mompreneurs' success: an exploratory study of a new form of female web entrepreneurship on Instagram. J Entrep Emerg Econ [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 20 set 2023];14(5):926-49. DOI: 10.1108/JEEE-01-2022-0028
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-01-2022-0028
• ⁵⁶ Fox AK, Hoy MG. Smart devices, smart decisions? Implications of parents' sharenting for children's online privacy: an investigation of mothers. J Public Policy Mark [Internet]. 2019 [acesso 20 set 2023];38(4):414-32. DOI: 10.1177/0743915619858290
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0743915619858290
• ⁵⁷ Amon MJ, Kartvelishvili N, Bertenthal BI, Hugenberg K, Kapadia A. Sharenting and children's privacy in the United States: parenting style, practices, and perspectives on sharing young children's photos on social media. Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 20 set 2023];6(CSCW1):116. DOI: 10.1145/3512963
  » https://doi.org/10.1145/3512963
• ⁵⁸ Garrido F, Alvarez A, González-Caballero JL, Garcia P, Couso B, Iriso I et al. Description of the exposure of the most-followed Spanish Instamoms' children to social media. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Internet]. 2023 [acesso 20 set 2023];20(3):2426. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20032426
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032426
• ⁵⁹ Campana M, Van den Bossche A, Miller B. #dadtribe: performing sharenting labour to commercialise involved fatherhood. J Macromarketing [Internet]. 2020 [acesso 20 set 2023]; 40(4):475-91. DOI: 10.1177/0276146720933334
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146720933334
• ⁶⁰ Ouvrein G, Verswijvel K. Child mediation: effective education or conflict stimulation? Adolescents' child mediation strategies in the context of sharenting and family conflict. Je-LKS [Internet]. 2021 [acesso 20 set 2023];17(3):70-9. DOI: 10.20368/1971-8829/1135555
  » https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1135555
• ⁶¹ Jorge A, Marôpo L, Coelho AM, Novello L. Mummy influencers and professional sharenting. Eur J Cult Stud [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 20 set 2023];25(1):166-82. DOI: 10.1177/13675494211004593
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/13675494211004593
• ⁶² Jorge A, Marôpo L, Neto F. 'When you realise your dad is Cristiano Ronaldo': celebrity sharenting and children's digital identities. Inf Commun Soc [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 20 set 2023];25(4):516-35. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2022.2026996
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2022.2026996
• ⁶³ Walrave M, Verswijvel K, Ouvrein G, Staes L, Hallam L, Hardies K. The limits of sharenting: exploring parents' and adolescents' sharenting boundaries through the lens of communication privacy management theory. Front Educ [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 20 set 2023];7:803393. DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2022.803393
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.803393
• ⁶⁴ Walrave M, Robbé S, Staes L, Hallam L. Mindful sharenting: how millennial parents balance between sharing and protecting. Front Psychol [Internet]. 2023 [acesso 20 set 2023];14:1171611. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1171611
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1171611
• ⁶⁵ Dobrila MC. Online education during pandemic: sharenting vs. children's right to their own image and education. Rev Rom Pentru Educ Multidimens [Internet]. 2021 [acesso 20 set 2023];13(1):431-46. DOI: 10.18662/rrem/13.1/380
  » https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/13.1/380
• ⁶⁶ Er S, Yilmazturk NH, Ozgul T, Cok F. Parents' shares on Instagram in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Turkish J Educ [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 20 set 2023];11(1):1-15. DOI: 10.19128/turje.949445
  » https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.949445
• ⁶⁷ Ranzini G, Newlands GE, Lutz C. Sharenting, peer influence, and privacy concerns: a study on the Instagram-sharing behaviors of parents in the United Kingdom. Soc Media Soc [Internet]. 2020 [20 set 2023];6(4). DOI: 10.1177/2056305120978376
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120978376
• ⁶⁸ Bhroin NNIN, Dinh T, Thiel K, Lampert C, Staksrud E, Ólafsson K. The privacy paradox by proxy: considering predictors of sharenting. MEDIA Commun [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 20 set 2023];10(1):371-83. DOI: 10.17645/mac.v10i1.4858
  » https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i1.4858
• ⁶⁹ Atwell GJ, Kicova E, Vagner L, Miklencicova R. Parental engagement with social media platforms: digital mothering, children's online privacy, and the sense of disempowerment in the technology-integrated society. J Res Gend Stud [Internet]. 2019 [acesso 20 set 2023];9(2):44-9. DOI: 10.22381/JRGS9220193
  » https://doi.org/10.22381/JRGS9220193
• ⁷⁰ Stratman A. Sharenting and exploitation: a qualitative content analysis of public reactions to the Wren Eleanor situation. Can J Fam Youth [Internet]. 2023 [acesso 20 set 2023];15(2):1-23. DOI: 10.29173/cjfy29930
  » https://doi.org/10.29173/cjfy29930
• ⁷¹ Eberlin FB von T. Sharenting, liberdade de expressão e privacidade de crianças no ambiente digital: o papel dos provedores de aplicação no cenário jurídico brasileiro. Rev Bras Polít Públicas [Internet]. 2018 [acesso 20 set 2023];7(3):282. DOI: 10.5102/rbpp.v7i3.4821
  » https://doi.org/10.5102/rbpp.v7i3.4821
• ⁷² United States. Children's online privacy protection rule. Federal Register [Internet]. 2013 [acesso 22 nov 2024]; 78(12):3.972-4.014. Disponível: https://x.gd/PtuOA
  » https://x.gd/PtuOA
• ⁷³ Brasil. Lei nº 8.069, de 13 de julho de 1990. Dispõe sobre o Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União [Internet]. Brasília, 16 jul 1990 [acesso 22 nov 2024]. Disponível: https://x.gd/4HVdA
  » https://x.gd/4HVdA
• ⁷⁴ Fundo das Nações Unidas para a Infância. Convenção sobre os Direitos da Criança. Unicef Brasil [Internet]. 1989 [acesso 22 nov 2024]. Disponível: https://x.gd/haLXx
  » https://x.gd/haLXx
• ⁷⁵ Haley K. Sharenting and the (potential) right to be forgotten. Indiana Law J [Internet]. 2020 [acesso 20 set 2023];95(3):1.005-20. Disponível: https://x.gd/9XNZM
  » https://x.gd/9XNZM
• ⁷⁶ Hladíková V, Madlenák A. Sharenting on social networks as an ecological form of presentation of the visual content exposed to the influence of groundswell. Danube [Internet]. 2023 [acesso 20 set 2023];14(2):89-106. DOI: 10.2478/danb-2023-0006
  » https://doi.org/10.2478/danb-2023-0006

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  11 Apr 2025
• Date of issue
  2025

History

• Received
  7 May 2024
• Reviewed
  17 Sept 2024
• Accepted
  14 Oct 2024