The Perils Of Sharenting Summary

In the article “The Perils of ‘Sharenting’’ by Adrienne Lafrance
Throughout Lafrance’s article, she uses sources to help voice her argument and to fortify her credibility and appeal to ethos. For instance, Lafrance starts by drawing attention to a count of highly educated professions in which according to her are “in early stage of designing a public-health campaign to draw attention to what they say is an inherent conflict between a parent’s freedom to publish and a child’s right to privacy.” By doing so, Lafrance establishes that the issue she is trying to argue is relevant to begin with. Lafrance continues by citing a professor at the University of Florida’s Levin College of Law and also mentions he is the associate director of the school’s Center on Children and Families. By doing so, she establishes that she has an expert source to back her up on her issue; further enhancing her credibility. Furthermore, Lafrance’s piece

is from the Atlantic meaning she has some credibility to voice her opinion.

Along with establishing her credibility, Lafrance effectively appeals to the reader’s emotions. Her introduction is full of provoking words that creates a sympathetic feeling; Lafrance claims “Many children make their internet debut as grainy gray blobs on Facebook posted ultrasound images before they’re even born.” The thought that a life that has not even been introduced to the real world is already being posted to virtual world, establishes a feeling of sympathy to these kids and anger towards these parents that rush to post their kids online. Lafrance further tries to expand these feelings when she tells that a child who was posted potty training was posted on website ‘commonly used by pedophiles’. The word “pedophile” itself may stir awareness in parents, so

Lafrance pushes the thought of a child being posted on a website used by pedophiles to stir feelings of anger and to inflict guilt at parents posting their children. Lafrance continues to inflict feelings of awareness when she cites that “[even those posts that are private] can reach a larger audience.’ By citing this, Lafrance picks at the sensitive side of parents which would be the safety of their children, and debunks the idea that photos of their kids are not being only shared with friends and family, but in reality it is in danger of reaching way larger audiences than they intended; thus leaving room for their child to be in danger. Furthermore, Lafrance appeals to these emotions by poking at parent’s parenting; Lafrance states that “that new model can also pose a threat to a child’s sense of autonomy over her developing identity. By stating this, Lafrance establishes that there would be issues with the child’s identity and who they are as a person and that emerges a feeling of worryness for parents
Lafrance appeals to the readers reasoning by revealing the cause and effect of posting photos of their children online; Lafrance states “It’s typical for adults to mention a child’s name and birthdate in birth announcements and other posts...which puts kids at risk of identity theft and digital kidnapping.” By stating this, Lafrance reasons that those who post photos of their children with their kids personal information can put them in risk of getting their identity stolen. Lafrance also reasons that “...kids have a moral right to control their own digital footprint, and perhaps even a legal right.” Lafrance reasons that children should be in control of their digital footprint because it goes to an extent of it being a moral question and can essentially have a legal side to it.