Parental Overshare: The Exploitation of Vulnerable Individuals by Parents on Social Media

 

Angela Pecora

Strategic Communications, Elon University

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements in an undergraduate senior capstone course in communications

Abstract

The rapid expansion of “sharenting,” a growing phenomenon on social media platforms where parents post personal content about their children, has transformed minors—particularly those with special needs or chronic illnesses—into highly visible subjects online, prompting critical ethical concerns. While some parents aim to raise awareness and advocate for inclusivity, others prioritize financial gain, popularity status, or sympathy at the expense of their children’s privacy and well-being. The research investigates the motivations behind parental sharing behaviors, the positive and negative impacts on children’s lives, and the role of societal perceptions in shaping these practices. Through in-depth interviews with six female participants, including caregivers, educators, and a social media influencer, the study identifies critical ethical dilemmas such as the lack of informed consent, the perpetuation of stereotypes, and the risks associated with creating permanent digital footprints. Findings examine both the potential benefits of fostering awareness and community and the dangers of exploitation and psychological harm. The analysis shows the blurred line between advocacy and misuse, calling for greater awareness, education, and ethical practices in digital parenting.

Keywords: sharenting, exploitation, online privacy, special needs, social media ethics
Email: apecora@elon.edu

I. Introduction

In today’s society, social media is the driving force for communication, connecting people from across the world. Social media is where people get news, knowledge, and entertainment. It has transformed how we share our lives, ideas, and experiences. People also use social media for online presence, driven by the potential for fame, financial gain, and validation. As users share their content that attracts views and followers, some people take advantage of this opportunity. This powerful platform presents negative challenges, specifically when it comes to the ethical use of posting personal content and stories.

Parents sometimes see this as an opportunity to use their families, often prioritizing money, popularity, or the sympathy of others over their children’s well-being. This can target vulnerable individuals, in particular, children and adults with special needs or illnesses who cannot always physically voice their needs and wants. These individuals are frequently showcased in posts that aim to evoke pity or admiration. While parents may believe they are raising awareness or advocating for their child, the reality is that this exposure can compromise the child’s rights and privacy. By placing their children in the spotlight for personal gain, parents risk neglecting the emotional and ethical implications of their actions. This exploitation raises important questions about the responsibilities of parents and society in protecting vulnerable individuals in an increasingly digital world.

There is a lack of research on this social phenomenon of “sharenting,” where parents are exploiting their children on media platforms. The goal of this research is to fill that gap. This research will examine the trend of parents exploiting their children with special needs and illnesses on social media for selfish motives like financial bonuses, popularity, or pity. With this in mind, it will examine the ethical considerations and potential impacts posting may have on an individual’s overall well-being.

II. Literature Review

Communication Privacy Management Theory (Petronio, 2002) offers a useful framework for this study. The theory explains how individuals make decisions about protecting private information, often weighing risks against perceived benefits. Applied here, the theory emphasizes how parents act as privacy managers for their children yet may violate these boundaries when the drive for validation, financial gain, or advocacy overrides considerations of consent and long-term privacy. This research challenges CPM’s assumption that privacy boundaries are typically negotiated, as children with special needs often cannot participate in these decisions.

The impact of social media on children

Ahmad, Abdullah, and Damit (2018) provide a comprehensive overview of the impact of social media on children, particularly emphasizing the crucial roles that parents play on the internet. Social media platforms can serve as vital tools for parents of children with special needs, enabling them to connect with like-minded individuals, share experiences, and access valuable resources. This connectivity forms a sense of community and support, allowing parents to feel less isolated in their challenges. However, the researchers also identify significant risks associated with oversharing, stating, “The boundaries between advocacy and exploitation can become blurred” (Ahmad et al., 2018, p. 10). This observation evinces the potential invasion of children’s privacy and the exploitation of their personal experiences for social media engagement, raising ethical dilemmas about what should be shared online. The research points out that while these platforms can unite families, they can also negatively impact children’s privacy, mental health, and overall well-being, making them more vulnerable to cyberbullying and exploitation.

As the authors note, “Social media can empower parents by providing them with a support system” (Ahmad et al., 2018, p. 5), yet this empowerment comes with responsibilities. They emphasize the necessity of minimizing these risks through education directed at both children and their parents, caregivers, and educators. Children need to be taught effective procedures to protect their privacy, which should be modeled by adults who demonstrate good practices online. This shows how a lack of parental care can create opportunities for misuse of children on social media.

Kusuma (2024) explores the legal perspectives of child exploitation on social media, especially in relation to child protection laws. The research argues that while many parents aim to raise awareness about their children’s special needs, their motivations for sharing can sometimes lead to ethical issues around exploitation. Kusuma points out that “The act of posting about a child’s disability can shift from being a means of advocacy to a potential source of personal gain for parents” (Kusuma, 2024, p. 95), which raises important questions about consent and the child’s ability to agree. The marketing of childhood experiences on social media poses serious ethical challenges, as children may not fully understand the consequences of their parents’ sharing behaviors. The article calls for stronger legal protections to safeguard children from exploitation.

Borgos-Rodriguez, Ringland, and Piper (2019) analyze the experiences of parents that have children with developmental disabilities on platforms like YouTube. The research reveals how these parents leverage social media to share their daily lives, aiming to provide insight into the challenges they face. The study examines the tension between the desire for advocacy and the risk of exploitation, as children may be depicted in vulnerable situations without fully understanding what they are doing. As much as “sharing can lead to increased visibility and awareness about developmental disabilities,” (Borgos-Rodriguez et al., 2019, p. 15) it can also be taken too far. It can also create “The tension between advocacy and exploitation necessitates a careful consideration of the ethical dimensions of online sharing” (Borgos-Rodriguez et al., 2019, p. 20). The article discusses the motivations behind parents’ behaviors, including social validation and pride, while also addressing the well-being concerns related to their children. By analyzing the phenomenon of “sharenting,” it provides valuable insights into how some parents prioritize social approval over their children.

Doğan Keskin, Kaytez, Damar, Elibol, and Aral (2023) address “sharenting” and its implications for a child’s upbringing. The research emphasizes that “the lack of informed consent from children can lead to privacy violations and potential psychological harm” (Dogan Keskin et al., 2023, p. 1359), explaining how young children often cannot comprehend or live properly from their parents’ online activities. Additionally, the article introduces the concept of “Sharenting Syndrome,” exploring how parents use their children as objects for online attention. Through quantitative research methods and surveys, the study critically examines the motivations behind sharenting, revealing that societal pressures for validation can cloud parental judgment.

Harrod (2024) critiques the ethical implications of “sharenting,” arguing that “Parents have a legal and moral obligation to protect their children’s interests” (Harrod, 2024, p. 1215), especially in an age where social media can have lasting effects.  The research also points out that “This practice often prioritizes parental aspirations over the child’s well-being,” (Harrod, 2024, p. 1220) making it about the parents’ personal gain and not proper care of their children.

Iskul and Joamets (2021) focuses on the child’s welfare in the context of parental oversharing on social media. It argues that parents often overlook their children’s rights when sharing personal information online, leading to potential violations of privacy. The constant posting can have detrimental effects on the child’s development and self-esteem as well as “long-term consequences, including emotional distress and vulnerability to exploitation” (Iskul & Joamets, 2021, p. 110). This practice frequently neglects the child’s perspective and ability to consent to the exposure.

Pacht-Friedman (2022) examines the monetization of children in the context of social media, and the lack of protections for child social media stars in the United States. Pacht-Friedman argues that “The rise of influencer culture has led to the exploitation of children, particularly those with special needs” (Pacht-Friedman, 2022, p. 362). An illustrative example discussed in the article reveals that due to YouTube’s policies, an account had to be registered in the mother’s name rather than the daughter’s, denying the child access to the earnings made from her own content. This analysis contributes to the broader conversation about ethical practices in parenting and social media, advocating for change that prioritize the welfare of children over profit motives.

Stephenson, Page, Wei, Kapadia, and Roesner (2024) investigates parental sharing behaviors on TikTok, exploring the discourse surrounding children’s online privacy in the context of “sharenting.” The research identifies risks, including “The lack of informed consent from children and the long-lasting implications of digital footprints” (Stephenson et al., 2024, p. 12). The article outlines five types of “sharenting,” showcasing the exposure of children in various contexts, such as parenting education and videos that depict children in distress. The research analyzed 328 TikTok videos examining “sharenting” and 438 discussing “sharenting” norms, revealing prevalent practices that put children at risk.

Stormer et al. (2023) explores the phenomenon of caregiver psychological maltreatment (PM) behaviors on social media platforms, particularly focusing on TikTok. Their research uncovers how sharing content about children can go from advocacy to harmful acts. The authors argue that “Certain online behaviors, framed as supportive or humorous, can actually undermine a child’s sense of safety and well-being” (Stormer et al., 2023, p. 590). Their research identifies 35 creators who posted videos demonstrating psychological maltreatment (PM), emphasizing that this pattern of behavior negatively impacts a child’s upbringing. They further state that possible harm “necessitates a critical examination of what constitutes responsible sharing” (Stormer et al., 2023, p. 595), which leads to the need for guidelines to protect children from harmful content while promoting ethical sharing practices among parents.

Research Questions

The research will answer the following questions:

RQ1: What motivations do parents have for sharing their children with special needs on social media, and how do these motivations relate to ethical considerations?

RQ2: What are the perceived positive and negative impacts of sharing these experiences on the privacy and well-being of children with special needs, and how does their age affect this?

RQ3: How do societal perceptions influence the ethical implications of parents posting about their children’s disabilities and illnesses on social media?

This research hopes to bring awareness to the growing concern over the unethical exploitation of these individuals who cannot advocate for themselves and the impact of social media use. This is important to study as children and adults with special needs or those suffering from illnesses often are not strongly advocated for on the internet.

III. Methods

This study was reviewed and approved by the Elon University Institutional Review Board (IRB). All participants provided informed consent prior to participation, and data collection complied with IRB-approved protocols for confidentiality and voluntary participation. Each interviewee also granted permission for their quotes to be used in the research.

This research employed in-depth interviews. The study involved a total of six women between the ages of 30 and 59, all of whom are either caretakers or work professionally disabled children every day. Four of the participants work on the board for the ARC of High Point in North Carolina, which is a non-profit organization that aims to help adults with intellectual disabilities learn, work, and play. One participant is a special education teacher in Staten Island, New York, and one participant is a parent to a son with special needs. Out of the four participants that work at the ARC, one is a caretaker for a sister with special needs and a social media influencer, another is a parent of two children with special needs. All six participants were qualified based on their direct involvement with children and adults with special needs, and for some, their active presence on social media.

The interviews were conducted by a video Zoom call, a phone call, or in person. Each interview was designed to last approximately 30 minutes; however, some extended over an hour due to the depth and complexity of the discussions. Each interview began with an introductory question to ease participants into the conversation and gather initial thoughts on the topic.

IV. Results

All participants were familiar with the trend of “sharenting,” but not all were aware of the extent it is growing on social media platforms today. The participants who work at the ARC of High Point have their own term for this trend called “inspiration porn,” defined as “publicly putting pictures and videos out on the internet that are exploiting a population of people with disabilities and painting them in a bad light” instead of empowering them. According to activist Stella Young, it refers to the “objectification of disabled people for the benefit of non-disabled people” (Mills, 2022).

“Sharenting” manifests on social media in five ways: children being funny, family trends, parenting education, comedy at kids’ expense, and videos of children undressed or in distress. These examples especially correlate to parents of individuals with special needs because these individuals are often looked down upon and referred to as “forever babies,” “cute,” or “funny.” Parents use these individuals because they may act, speak, or look differently as comic relief for views and followers. All participants shared that they have seen at least two or more videos of individuals with disabilities in distress on social media platforms – especially TikTok and Instagram – that were posted by guardians.

Eight central themes emerged from analysis of the interviews: Awareness and Advocacy, Personal Motives, Ethical Concerns of Labeling, Sense of Community, Lack of Privacy and Consent, Long-Term Psychological and Social Effects, Education vs. Exploitation, and Shaping Public Understanding.

RQ1: Motivations and Ethical Concerns

Awareness and Advocacy

Parents often share content on social media to raise awareness about disabilities and illnesses. These posts can educate society, create a sense of community, and advocate for inclusivity. Many parents view this as a way to reduce stigma and demonstrate their child’s abilities and accomplishments in a positive light. For example, sharing milestones or participation in events showcases children as valuable members of society and helps normalize disabilities. Participants pointed to instances where social media posts have successfully sparked dialogue, influenced policy, and secured resources for families of children with special needs. Participant 3 shared “I am a caretaker for my adult younger sister with down syndrome, and we collectively run a TikTok account for our jewelry business, and we also have a personal account.” The younger sister makes a commission off every piece of jewelry they sell. Their TikTok page went viral and now has 580k followers. People have been inspired by the younger sister’s accomplishments and visually see how she lives a normal life.

Participant 1 shared her connection to posting on social media as her nephew is a child with autism. His mom posts pictures to bring awareness on how to properly communicate with those with autism like her son and how he lives to show he experiences life the same as anyone else. Both Participant 3 and Participant 1 highlight how social media can be a tool to advocate for those who need a larger voice and how individuals who are different can still live the same.

Similarly, Participant 2 saw on Facebook a story about a FOX 8 News reporter that has a 3-year-old daughter with cancer. The reporter documented his daughter’s journey through fighting cancer on Facebook and Participant 2 said “He did a beautiful job because he did it in a way of not asking for money but just to show what it is like to go through a major illness.” Participant 2 also added, “He told the story but did not overshare.” The reporter only showed how they got through a tough time. This also fits into the theme of positively spreading awareness on a difficult situation by bringing more light than darkness to it. Together, all the experiences shared by the participants collectively emphasize how social media, when used responsibly, can serve as a powerful platform to advocate for vulnerable individuals by promoting awareness and advocacy, showcasing the strengths of facing challenges than the weaknesses.

Personal Motives

On the other hand, some parents share content for personal gain, which raises moral concerns. Participant 3 said “Posting the likeness and image of your children is a dangerous game to play.” It is dangerous because of the motivations such as financial incentives, social media popularity, or the pursuit of sympathy shift the focus from advocacy to exploitation. Examples include crowdfunding campaigns that exaggerate the severity of a child’s condition or posting content that invites pity rather than empowerment. Participant 6 said that this behavior “Often prioritizes the parents’ needs, including validation and attention, over the child’s well-being.” Participant 5 elaborated on how a lot of content is posted by guardians or parents, whether it is intentional or unintentional, that result in the public automatically feeling bad for the family that they have to “deal” with a child that has special needs. Participant 2 said “People need to grow responsibility and not post anything that could come off as searching for sympathy, but I have rarely seen that change yet.” Participant 2 shared that she has two children with special needs and noted that no one has ever expressed pity toward her or her family because they choose to focus on positivity and avoid speaking negatively about their experiences. However, she acknowledged that this is not the case for many parents, as many are more likely to seek sympathy from others as a way to cope with the challenges of raising a child with special needs. This reliance on sympathy often shapes how they share their stories online, sometimes prioritizing emotional responses over acceptance and understanding.

One of the most prominent aspects identified was the financial benefit that parents may derive from sharing their children’s lives on social media. Participant 4 has heard several parents admitting that their social media accounts, which feature their children with special needs, have become a significant source of income. This income is primarily generated through sponsorships, viewer and follower status, and donations. For instance, Participant 6 noted that “Brands often approach them for collaborations, leveraging the emotional appeal of their content to market products.” The monetary gain from these activities provides an incentive for parents to continuously share content, sometimes at the expense of their children’s privacy and well-being. Participant 1 said “People should be held accountable when asking for money for fundraising reasons by connecting with an agency so that the public knows it is going to the right place.” The growing platforms and popularity often motivate parents to continue to share personal content that prioritize their own benefits over their children’s lives.

Ethical Concerns of Labeling

Labeling vulnerable individuals raises significant ethical concerns, as it often has people viewing these individuals within a single characteristic, increasing the stigma and limiting personal growth. Participant 1 spoke about this issue, expressing a preference for terms like “neurodiverse” over “autistic,” and explained that individuals should be asked how they wish to be identified, ensuring their humanity comes first. Similarly, Participant 2 expressed frustration with labels such as “blind girl,” advocating the need to recognize the person beyond their disability and noted how labels confine individuals to societal expectations. Participant 2 added, “He is my son who happens to have autism,” instead of saying “My autistic son.” Participant 3 had a common opinion to discuss the importance for first-person language, stating, “You do not call someone an autistic person; you call them a person,” reinstating the need for respect and equality and to eliminate society’s attempt to frame a certain population of humans. However, the misuse of language can lead to dehumanization. Participant 4 shared a story of a father who compared his son with autism to a dog and stated, “He said he had trained dogs smarter than his son.” This is an extreme example of the harm caused by inappropriate labeling and it undermines the individual’s worth and value as someone to be seen as simply “not capable” of anything.

Participant 5 said “Labeling contributes to societal marginalization, keeping people in a box which limits their potential,” and explained how there needs to be a cultural shift to empower individuals to rise above the box society tries to keep them in. Participant 5 shared an experience and said, “We like to schedule places to bring the adults in our day program at the ARC of High Point out into the community.” Participant 5, discussing ARC community day trips for disabled adults, noted that “the places usually want to take pictures and show that the ARC of High Point came and post on social media, labeling the adults saying, ‘look at us we helped these individuals with disabilities’ to make their business look better when in reality they do not post for every group that comes to visit.” This selective representation feeds the stereotypes and fails to treat individuals with disabilities as equals.

Participant 6 talked about the personal impact of labeling on social media, saying “I would never label my son for his disability because I see how detrimental it is to others when they are reminded constantly of their disadvantages when it is not truly who they are as a person.” She also added that “These individuals are gifted in so many ways and should not be stuck behind a label given to them from others.” While Participant 5 noted, “Disability is not a bad word or a word we should shy away from,” all participants stressed that the problem lies in how labels are used to segregate and diminish rather than to unite society.

RQ2: Positive and Negative Impacts

Sense of Community

Social media has played a significant role in fostering a sense of community for individuals with special needs and their families, offering a space where they can connect, share experiences, and find support. Participant 1 shared how these connections can provide “A sense of belonging and that they are not alone,” highlighting the importance of finding solidarity through shared experiences. Social media platforms have proven to be an aid for this, as Participant 3 shared their own story about posting on TikTok: “I decided to share my sister and I’s story on TikTok and woke up the next day with 14k more followers, and I soon realized there are people that are looking for support.” She also spoke about the joy it brought to her sister, saying, “My sister now has fans, and people come up to her to tell her they follow her on social media. She finally gets the attention that everyone else receives.” These platforms can foster inclusivity and recognition. Social media not only connects individuals but also plays a key role in normalizing experiences and promoting visibility for marginalized groups. The instant feedback and sense of belonging described by participants show how social media can offer recognition and validation that might not always be found in offline interactions. For families and individuals with special needs, having a platform to share their stories allows them to be seen and heard in ways that might otherwise be overlooked. These stories demonstrate how a community is created through finding support and giving voices a platform to challenge societal norms and promote greater inclusion, helping to shift perspectives and create a more understanding community.

Beyond personal stories, social media has become a powerful platform for advocacy and empowerment. Participant 2 said that “The media is a great way to promote job opportunities for those with special needs so the world can see we need to change and bring society together,” explaining its role in sparking societal change and increasing inclusion. The sense of support within these online spaces was reiterated by Participant 5, who shared, “If you post, someone is more than likely to say, ‘I know how you feel,’” illustrating how sharing personal experiences helps build empathy and understanding. Similarly, Participant 6 reflected on how these connections have been life-changing, stating, “Without social media, I would have never met all the mothers I am friends with today that I can relate to.” These voices together demonstrate how social media has become an invaluable resource for creating community, and offering real, meaningful support to individuals with special needs and their families.

Lack of Privacy and Consent

Children with special needs, particularly those who are young or nonverbal, often cannot provide informed consent for the content shared about them. Parents act as the primary decision-makers, but their choices can expose their children to long-term consequences. For example, most participants noted that once personal details or sensitive moments are posted online, they become part of a permanent digital footprint that may follow the child into adulthood. This lack of privacy affects the child’s autonomy and creates risks of future embarrassment or resentment.

Participant 4 stated, “Using social media to exploit anyone is unethical, especially when it involves an individual who cannot advocate for themselves.” This reveals the imbalance of power and the moral responsibility of caregivers to protect their loved ones’ dignity. Participant 6 further emphasized this, sharing, “My son is an adult and is not as functioning where he does not even know what social media is, therefore, I would never post his personal life since he cannot say for himself whether he wants something posted of him.” She also added, “It is sad to see that parents make the decision themselves for the individual when the child is not fully aware of what is happening.” This lack of awareness from the individual stresses the potential harm of creating a digital footprint without their informed consent, a concern echoed by Participant 1, who shared, “I have seen a parent post that I feel is not okay because they were showing all their bite marks from the child and that the child has done to themselves during a fit and the content of the videos was not educational, just exploiting their child’s private struggles.” She added, “The child was in a vulnerable state, and the last thing they needed is someone filming them and being posted without asking or respecting their privacy.”

While some individuals may enjoy and consent to being part of social media, this is not always the case. Participant 3 shared a contrasting perspective, stating, “I do not put controls or restrictions on my sister’s social media accounts or her phone in general.” She added, “She consents to every video or post made and actively wants to do it because it is fun.” This demonstrates how consent and active participation can create a positive dynamic. However, for those who are nonverbal or cognitively unable to express consent, Participant 2 suggested, “Get their permission if they are verbal, and if they are nonverbal, there are ways to communicate with them through reading facial expressions if they want something done or not.” This approach reflects an effort to include the individual in the decision-making process, even when traditional methods of communication are unavailable.

Participant 5 spoke about another viewpoint and said, “You never know what their home life is like or what happens before and after the camera rolls. People just believe whatever is out there.” This brings awareness to the nature of social media, which can distort reality and create misunderstandings about the individual’s life. As Participant 6 concluded, “If the person can be more involved in the process of the posts, that is more appropriate and allows true consent.” These perspectives collectively emphasize the critical importance of respecting privacy, prioritizing consent, and avoiding the exploitation of individuals with special needs, ensuring their dignity and autonomy remain protected in a digital world.

Long-Term Psychological and Social Effects

The long-term psychological and social effects of sharing private moments of individuals with special needs or illnesses on social media can lead to permanent harm. Participants spoke out about the lasting consequences of these actions, particularly when parents share content without considering the individual’s future feelings or dignity. Participant 1 noted, “If they are young, these videos will follow them forever, especially children with autism; they can look different at age five to when they are an adult.” These actions, specifically at a young age, can have lasting repercussions, as memories of vulnerable moments remain accessible to the public indefinitely. Participant 1 shared the experience of “A boy who is now a college graduate and a beautiful writer who struggled a lot when he was younger, and his mom used to post him, showing his behavioral issues.” She added, “Looking back on it now, he is embarrassed and not okay about it today.” These examples demonstrate how early exposure without consent can lead to embarrassment, resentment, and damage to self-esteem in adulthood.

Furthermore, Participant 2 stressed that children are not cognitively prepared for the implications of social media exposure, stating, “If they do not want to do it, they shouldn’t, and kids should not be on social media because their brain is not developed to that point of ages 12 or 13 to understand what social media really consists of.” Age plays a significant role in the impacts of sharing. Younger children may not fully understand or consent to the content, while older children or adults with special needs may feel exposed or misrepresented. These effects can shape their self-esteem and relationships, particularly in a society where digital presence is increasingly scrutinized.

Participants also expressed concern about the societal impact of such posts, particularly in reinforcing harmful stereotypes about disabilities. Participant 5 pointed out that, “The stigmatism the media portrays makes it out that people with disabilities have diseases and there is no cure for the way they are, which makes people not want to interact with them as much, and that is the farthest thing from the truth.” Posts that portray moments of struggle or vulnerability can perpetuate misconceptions, painting an incomplete and often inaccurate picture of what it means to live with a disability. These portrayals can create barriers for acceptance and understanding, affecting how others perceive and interact with individuals with disabilities. Participant 1 added that content such as “‘A day in the life’ video with their child but showing them throwing a tantrum is too much to put out and results in false perceptions of the community, fueling a long-term myth of people with disabilities.” The emphasis on struggle over achievement diminishes the public’s understanding of the capabilities and dignity of individuals with special needs.

At the heart of these concerns is the issue of preserving the individual’s dignity and self-respect. Participant 4 stated, “The biggest thing is to preserve their dignity and keep their respect intact.” Posts that showcase personal life events, such as medical treatments or meltdowns, can strip individuals of this dignity and leave them feeling worthless. While some parents may believe they are promoting awareness or advocating for their children, the reality is that these actions can lead to long-term psychological harm and social alienation.

RQ3: Influence of Societal Perceptions

Education versus Exploitation

Social media has the potential to educate other communities by increasing the visibility of individuals with disabilities and their contributions to society. Positive examples include posts that promote achievements, share educational resources, or speaking out about specific conditions. However, participants also noted the prevalence of “inspiration porn,” that objectifies individuals with disabilities, deeming they are “not as qualified” as able people. These narratives frame disabilities as obstacles that define a person’s worth.

While such portrayals have the power to educate and foster understanding, they can also cross into the realm of exploitation, where individuals are objectified for pity or inspiration rather than respected as equals. Participant 1 sees this tension by sharing, “A mother I knew started a GoFundMe to get a lawyer to sue a school for her son being manhandled at the school and she was not told about it.” She added, “The school offered her resources to help, but she wanted the publicity and the drama.” This illustrates how personal situations can be used not for constructive education but to gain attention, potentially prioritizing the parent’s feelings of wanting power over the ethical goal of promoting societal awareness or systemic change. By seeking publicity instead of advocating for reform, such actions can blur the line between advocating for disability rights and exploiting personal information.

Participant 4 furthered this distinction, stating, “The content of a post usually determines its purpose. Some posts are to spread awareness while others are to exploit. The purposes of a post discussing the accomplishments of your child is to spread pride. A post in which a parent is stating all the difficulties of parenting and extra cost of parenting a child with special need is asking for an audience and for the audience to give financial assistance.” This perspective draws attention to the intent behind “sharenting”. Posts celebrating the achievements of individuals with disabilities can educate the public about their capabilities. However, when posts focus solely on difficulties or financial burdens, they risk using the individual as a tool for a selfish gain than a person.

Similarly, Participant 5 critiques the way media often displays everyday moments for individuals with disabilities, stating, “News outlets do it a lot with headlines of ‘girl with Down syndrome got asked to prom’ or ‘boy with cerebral palsy made a basket’ when those are normal things everyone should be experiencing, and it should just be their normal life.” This portrays how framing ordinary milestones as extraordinary can unintentionally exploit individuals with disabilities by treating their experiences as “remarkable.” While such stories may seem celebratory, they often reinforce ableist perceptions by suggesting that these individuals are defined primarily by their disabilities rather than their humanity.

Ultimately, these perspectives explain the complexity of education versus exploitation. Sharing stories about individuals with disabilities has the potential to bringing acceptance into the community, but the intent and framing of these stories are crucial. Posts and media narratives must balance showcasing achievements and struggles with ensuring that they respect the dignity of those they depict, avoiding the repercussions of objectification or pity.

Shaping Public Understanding

Social perceptions from the public are often shaped by the media content people consume. When parents use social media to depict hardships without context or to sensationalize their child’s condition, it influences how the public views disabilities and illnesses. This can lead to generalized or distorted beliefs about what life with a disability entails or how serious one’s illness can be.

Participant 4 provides a striking example, sharing, “A parent of a former student in my school recorded their child having a meltdown and posted it on YouTube. The recording lasted 12 minutes. The child was screaming, laughing, crying, biting herself, and hitting themselves and the other parent.” Sharing such raw footage without offering educational context makes people fear these individuals, rather than wanting to be by their side. Instead of promoting a nuanced scope of life with disabilities, this content reinforces negative stereotypes that can fully shape how the world treats and views them.

Participant 1 similarly said, “I knew sharenting was out there and I am seeing it more and more. People are calling 35-year-old individuals ‘cute’ instead of capable people because they are not being shown correctly.” By presenting them as “cute” rather than seeing them as equal, contributes to societal norms that they have low potential and are codependent.

Participant 2 expands on this issue, stating, “There is a big stigmatism in society that these vulnerable children and adults will be eternal babies.” This belief reflects the damaging impact that portray individuals with disabilities as “weak.” When media content focuses solely on their vulnerabilities, it diminishes public understanding of their diverse abilities and unique strengths, making the public see them in a poor light.

Participant 6 said, “Everyone thinks if you have autism, you are a ‘genius’ or ‘extremely smart’ when not every person with autism is going to be a doctor at age 14 like the show The Good Doctor portrays.” This brings up a common misconception created by the media. Stories often focus on individuals with autism who achieve remarkable things, fueling the stereotype that all people with autism are exceptionally intelligent. While these stories can be inspiring, they don’t reflect the reality for many individuals on the autism spectrum, who have a wide range of abilities and challenges. This stereotype can lead to unrealistic expectations and misguide efforts to properly educate the public about those with autism, making it harder for society to understand and support their needs.

These perspectives collectively emphasize the responsibility of parents and media creators to present balanced, respectful portrayals of individuals with disabilities. Content that educates and normalizes their experiences can help aid in more support and unity, rather than exploiting people without the full picture for self-interest.

V. Discussion

This research is vital because it sheds light on the ethical complexities surrounding the use of social media by parents of vulnerable groups of people. There is not a lot of current research on this topic and this study is intended to fill that gap of missing information as society needs to grow to ensure children’s rights and privacy are respected in the evolving era of technology. It explores the balance between potential exploitation and the positive impact social media can have on awareness, and support. These findings also intersect with Communication Privacy Management Theory (Petronio, 2002), which emphasizes the negotiation of privacy boundaries when sharing personal information. In the context of “sharenting,” however, the negotiation process is often absent, as children with special needs may be unable to participate in privacy decisions if the individual is unable to understand or communicate effectively. This research suggests that parental control over these boundaries can lead to ethical conflicts, particularly when motivations such as financial gain or social validation outweigh considerations of consent and dignity. By examining both the risks and benefits, the study provides a profound understanding of how digital platforms can be used responsibly and harmfully.

The implications for future research have many opportunities with a focus on further investigating how social media can be utilized properly and ethically, particularly in vulnerable communities. As Harrod explains, “parents may be in breach of their fiduciary duty to their children by engaging in influencer ‘sharenting,’ which prioritizes parental gain over the child’s best interests” (Harrod, 2024, p. 1215). To prevent this from continuing, future research could focus on the role of social media in creating positive social change, identifying best practices for ethical use. More specific to this research, future studies could focus on the other side, featuring the perspectives of children with special needs or illnesses who have had a platform on social media. This could offer a more well-rounded understanding of how these experiences affect their sense of identity, privacy, and well-being. Additionally, a longitudinal study could provide valuable findings into the long-term psychological and social impacts on these individuals. Expanding this research to include diverse cultural, socioeconomic, and regional contexts could also provide a broader understanding of how various factors influence parental motivations and ethical considerations in digital platforms.

In terms of unexpected findings, the research initially hypothesized that social media use by parents of children with special needs often leads to the exploitation of their children. While that still holds true, there were also positive impacts identified in the findings than originally anticipated. Some parents reported that sharing their child’s story fostered supportive online communities, raised awareness, and provided emotional support.

Limitations

This study did have some limitations to note. A limitation of this study is that it had a small population size. While interviews provide in-depth insights, the reliance on a limited number of participants reduce the overall generalizability of the findings to larger populations. While the participants offered valuable insights, their experiences do not reflect those of all families or professionals who engage with children with special needs and illnesses. Expanding the sample size to include a wider demographic, such as fathers or male guardians, non-cisgender parents, or individuals from different cultural backgrounds, could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the social phenomenon of “sharenting.”

While this approach allowed for an in-depth exploration of individual experiences and ethical concerns, quantitative research, such as surveys sent to male caretakers who were not available to interview, could provide more insights into the prevalence and patterns of “sharenting” behaviors. More content-based analysis would also be helpful to expand the knowledge on visual learning of “sharenting.”

Finally, the study is limited by its focus on specific platforms like TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube. While these platforms dominate social media usage, emerging or less mainstream platforms may also contribute to “sharenting” practices and deserve future attention.

VI. Conclusion

This study examines the complex and often conflicting dynamics of parents sharing content about their children with special needs and illnesses on social media. While some parents use these platforms to raise awareness, build communities, and advocate for inclusivity, others blur the line between advocacy and exploitation by prioritizing personal gain, specifically seeking sympathy, or validation, and profiting financially over protecting the well-being of the individual. The findings explicitly show the ethical responsibility of parents to carefully consider the motivations behind their posts, the potential impacts on their children’s privacy and dignity, and the broader societal implications of their content.

Central to this discussion is the issue of consent, particularly for children who cannot fully understand or agree to their portrayal online. Without safeguards, the practice of “sharenting” risk creating permanent digital footprints that can lead to embarrassment, emotional distress, negative societal perceptions, or false representation of the individual. These risks call for increased awareness and education around ethical sharing practices, including the use of person-first language, consent-based decisions, and the respectful portrayal of children with special needs and illnesses. Preserving the individual’s dignity and privacy helps keep the respect of society intact.

The study also emphasizes the need to shift societal narratives about disability and illness from pity-based or objectifying frameworks to ones that celebrate individuality and capability. Encouraging ethical storytelling and empowering children to participate in their own narratives can help foster a more inclusive and respectful digital culture and limit the amount of false or misleading portrayal on the media and news outlets.

While this research provides valuable insights, it also calls for the need for continued exploration into the long-term effects of “sharenting,” the voices of individuals featured in social media posts, and the development of ethical guidelines to protect vulnerable populations. As social media continues to evolve, fostering ethical practices will be essential to ensuring that these platforms empower rather than exploit, creating a safer and more respectful digital environment for all.

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Professor Daniel Marshall Haygood for his guidance, support, and insightful feedback throughout this research. I am also grateful to the participants who shared their experiences and to the School of Communications at Elon University for providing the opportunity and resources that made this study possible. Finally, I extend my appreciation to my family and friends for their encouragement, thoughtful critiques, and feedback throughout this process.

References

Ahmad, N., Abdullah, R., & Damit, N. (2018). The impact of social media on children: An overview. International Journal of Contemporary Education and World Development, 5(28), 1-16. https://ijcwed.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/IJCWED5_28.pdf

Borgos-Rodriguez, K., Ringland, K. E., & Piper, A. M. (2019). MyAutsomeFamilyLife: Analyzing parents of children with developmental disabilities on YouTube. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359196

Doğan Keskin, A., Kaytez, N., Damar, M., Elibol, F., & Aral, N. (2023). Sharenting syndrome: An appropriate use of social media? Healthcare, 11(10), 1359. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11101359

Harrod, C. (2024). No child left online: influencer “sharenting” as breach of fiduciary duty. Cardozo Law Review, 45(4), 1213-1246. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/cdozo45&i=1258

Iskul, Anna-Maria, & Joamets, Kristi. (2021). Child right to privacy and social media personal information oversharing parents. Baltic Journal of Law and Politics, 14(2), 101-122. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/bjlp14&i=281

Kusuma, A.A. (2024). Exploitation of children through social media in a legal perspective of child protection. Proceeding of The International Conference of Innovation, Science, Technology, Education, Children, and Health, 1(1), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.62951/icistech.v1i1.25

Mills, T. (2022, August 5). Day 5: Disability inspiration (“Inspiration porn”). United Way of South Central Michigan. https://unitedforscmi.org/day-5-objectification/

Pacht-Friedman, J. (2022). The monetization of childhood: how child social media stars are unprotected from exploitation in the United States. Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights and Social Justice, 28(2), 361-388. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/cardw28&i=379

Stephenson, S., Page, C. N., Wei, M., Kapadia, A., & Roesner, F. (2024). Sharenting on TikTok: Exploring parental sharing behaviors and the discourse around children’s online privacy. Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 4, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642447

Stormer, B., Chandler-Ofuya, N., Baker, A. J., Balin, T., Brassard, M. R., Kagan, J., & Rosenzweig, J. F. (2023). Caregiver psychological maltreatment behaviors toward children on TikTok. Child Maltreatment, 29(4), 587–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/10775595231211616