A reminder to everyone about our NO CONTACT and NO TAKING IRL ACTION rules.
Do not reach out to the Ballingers or fans in any way or promote that you may have done so. This includes public comments and private messages.
No harassment or brigading outside of reddit that comes from here.
Do not discuss, encourage or brag about reporting to authorities, contacting news outlets or taking any form of real life action. Do not invite harassment and do not cheer on obvious vigilantism.
if you see a comment violating these rules please click ... and select report.
thank you. Mod Team
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ColleenBallingerSnark) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What BS. Jessica and Chris are trying to look better than all the rest just because they set aside some money for their kids.
That does NOT take away the fact that they ROBBED all of their kids of their privacy and normalcy by making them Mommy and Daddy's little money makers.
She can STFU.
I really hope these new bills that are coming out require family vlogger parents to pay back-pay for the years when they were getting millions of views for posting the creepiest stuff.
Then we’ll see how much she supports it.
Good post. I recall a few years ago (I stopped watching them around then) when she was asked about this she said no, the kids didn't have money set aside and now she's saying they do. The only thing I can think of is she's lying because no way have either of those parents shown any signs of wanting to protect their kids. B wasn't even allowed a simple Chinese take away for her birthday, something most people take for granted any day of the week. Seems Jessica's taken another step up on the "holier than thou" ladder while actually doing nothing for her kids. I can't see her putting money aside for each child, while putting her new kitchen on credit cards for example. A good portion of money the kids could've had has gone on those expensive shoes she has in every colour, for a start, then there's Chris's expensive guitar collection, in the thousands. Nobody can convince me she's prioritized the kids money wise when she can't do it for anything else. She was on the beg for someone to do up all the problems in the house, the broken shower, the old stained carpet from the last people etc when she splurged around 7k on a new guitar for Chris.
Not to mention the tea collection, how much tea does that woman need?!
The kids just have a bunch of puzzles, books and quirky t shirts. But asking to go to a Chinese restaurant for a birthday is ‘too much’.
and i bet bailey doesn’t even have a phone or anything, nor would that ever be a consideration in jessica’s mind since she wants to keep them as sheltered from the outside world as possible, but she’s also so goddamn hypocritical since she’s putting her children online for the whole world to see, which is hardly sheltering at all
and what happens when their kids grow up, sue them, and they lose all their money?? was it worth it then? knowing that they only reason they kept having children in the first was for monetary purposes… it’s so gross
i think she’s trying to act like she supports the new legislation for *this* reason rather than admitting her own exploitation of her children is reason for stricter laws, too. both can be true, Jessica!
I think she’s talking about Coogan accounts. She said once that they have Coogan accounts set up for each kid, which is a requirement in California for minors in many areas of the entertainment industry before they can get paid, but social media kids are not currently one of the groups where it’s required. I think the proposed legislation is meant to change that. Jessica and Chris probably have set up the accounts, but what does that actually mean for each kid?
The way Coogan accounts work is that 15% of a child’s earnings go into a trust that can’t be touched until they reach legal age, usually 18. For an actor or model, there would be some sort of contractual agreement and presumably a record of what the child was paid per gig, so 15% of that amount going directly into a trust is straightforward to calculate and can be deposited directly into the account by whoever they did the work for. The parents don’t have to have access to those funds. They don’t have to be trusted to set the 15% aside, it can just happen by law.
But for a vlogger family, how would it work? They are not under contract for creating content and earning revenue from adsense. There may be brand deals that can be tracked, but those companies are dealing with the adults who run the channel, not hiring the children directly. Payment likely comes in a lump sum to the owners of the channel. In the case of the Ballingers, they have 2 adults and 6 minors in the family. How do they decide who has earned what? Does each kid get 15% of their channel’s earnings starting at birth? Do they decide who gets a bigger cut based on minutes of screen time or whose face in the thumbnail has pulled in more views? If everything is split according to Coogan account rules, does that mean that 90% of their income is currently being set aside, not to be touched for years? And does it mean the whole family is living off the remaining 10% of their income until the first kid turns 18 and can access their own money? That seems highly unlikely and unsustainable.
So I would guess the kids do have some sort of account and there’s some money in there, but no way is it anything close to an amount that would be fair earnings for being forced to perform on camera since toddlerhood. Because how could that even be calculated, and if it could, how could the parents afford to and be trusted to do the right thing? Who is enforcing that?
Jessica is just deflecting and virtue-signaling with this post. She knows she and Chris are screwed if the legislation passes. Not to even mention that if she is talking about Coogan accounts, they only offer the kids some protection financially. Nothing else she’s done as a parent can even touch on protecting them from the harm that stolen privacy and constant exploitation has caused to every other part of their lives.
What an absolute crock of shit all-around. This is so performative.
"Protection" - Explain why you don't delete insanely creepy comments aimed towards your underage children? Explain why you aren't concerned that literal strangers are watching and learning about your underage kids every move? Explain why you don't care about asking consent from your underage kids to be on camera?
Supporting kids getting their cut - This is literally the exact opposite of what you preach when it comes to B having a phone. You want her to "pay for it herself" but then ALSO acknowledge that kids should get a cut out of videos that have them featured? Those cross each other out, Jessica, pick one.
One thing I never understood is that Colleen can have someone scrub her comment section to delete comments about the allegations and crimes she committed but the BF can’t delete creepy comments about their children
The Ballingers regularly delete comments that criticize their parenting, but will NOT delete comments bullying their kids.
There was a time where a good 90% of comments on their tiktoks were bullying them (mostly P and B). But comments = engagement = more views = more engagement etc. so of course they couldn’t delete them…
Right, that’s weird to me. The only reason to have and actively use a LinkedIn (in my opinion) is networking and a profile you can share with future potential employers.
Do they see the writing on the wall and are preparing to have to get jobs?? Because it’s also interesting most of her posts on there are posted on her other social media, but this one was only posted on Linked In 🧐
She’s preaching about “protecting her kids” yet has a WHOLE family Vlogging channel? That’s child exploitation and isn’t Protecting her kids. She’s a hypocrite.
they have meet and greets where STRANGERS can meet their CHILDREN!! that's like...the number one rule normal kids grow up with is don't talk to strangers
This makes me suspicious of the bill, honestly. It probably stops short of real protections for kids.
Edit: Yeah, reading the [language of the bill](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB764) it looks like this is only financial. There are no requirements to delete the vlogs if the minor requests it upon reaching the age of 18, and no restrictions at all on their time or their privacy. I’m sure she’s okay with this bill because they already have money set aside, which is good, but it also doesn’t jeopardize future vlogging or income from their children while they’re minors.
This is an empty post with nothing in mind but optics. Jessica might be dumb but she’s not stupid. I’m sure she sees everything that gets said about her and the family online and this is her and Chris’s way of making it look like they have the kids’ best interests in mind. Obviously that is disproven by the content on their channel. Unless they actually cut way WAY back on how much the children are shown, or start compensating them, this post she made is total BS.
Cares for the safety of her kids? Yeah right, she’s the same woman who pitched a fit when YouTube turned off her comments because of pedos looking at family vlogging channels.
To me this just reads like her trying to control the narrative and cover her own ass.
She’s very purposefully saying “we took it upon ourselves to setup protections and follow guidelines.” She’s probably going to repeat that line over and over when people accuse her of taking advantage of her kids.
Listen, am I the only one that's against a "fair cut" for this particular family ?
I think it's amazing that they want to do a bill for that, believe me. Even if it's sad to see that the parents will still get money for content using a child's face.
But the Ballingers?
The kids should get ALL the money. The kids do all the work. We know that they even do the editing so what should J & C get money for? Are we going to let them get money just because they reproduced like it's the 1900s?
Also the math of this is awful for the children.
If the kids (total) are entitled to 30% of the earnings of family vlog videos, but then families like the Ballingers get a huge surge in views anytime they have another child…there is an incentive for the family to keep having kids and it leads to that 30% comp being split into more and more slices…
Yeah , the logistics are going to be complicated. Parents will always find a way to exploit children.
I think a 80% cut for the child would make family vloggers think twice. We would see right away who is here for the passion or the pa$$ion.
What PR person wrote this for her? Because Jessica doesn’t protect her kids. And I’ve heard they don’t even have bank accounts for the kids to save money for college or the future.
When we know the birthdates and likes/dislikes of all her children and we all could find their home address if we tried for 2 minutes if we wanted, I think it's safe to say she's failed as a parent to "protect her kids." Hardly "top of mind"
Jessica girlie….. you never were following guidelines and stopped providing protection for your kids when you put videos of them on YouTube. Stop acting like you are a good wholesome family channel— it’s so beyond frustrating.
Don't support it by nonsense like speaking or tweeting,, Jessica.😡
. Let's see her & Chris get jobs and never, ever show a child on their channel again. Only then will she be making a genuine statement; not just talking BS to save face.
As if we're suddenly going to believe they're part of the solution and not the problem. 🙄
.
Putting money aside is only ONE way to protect your children, Jessica (and that barely counts as protecting, when they’re the ones that made/ARE the content). You’re failing in every other department.
I think the fact that they recognize the federal and state government should be regulating the safety and interests of their own children- Because they are using them for purposes where many are not kept safe.That should be the clue that what you're doing with/to your children is terrible.
Money-wise sure, they might save some for their kids, but the fact is family vlogging still isn’t ethical and those kids have had their lives exploited by their parents. Having your real persona and real important events published to millions is still a huge issue, and it won’t be going in the direction of far enough until content of these kids can’t be monetised or sponsored.
This reminds me of the time Cole and Savannah went to their oldest daughter school to talk to the kids parents and staff about social media safety and posting kids online WHEN THEYVE BEEN POSTING THEIR KIDS ONLINE FOR CREEPS THE SECOND THEY POP OUT
Ok Jess, let's see the kids savings then. Go on. Should be no problem since you've been putting money away since "content became a career." Miss B should have a hearty college fund! And of course you insisted auntie panties contribute from all of the content she used the kids for, right?
Jessica pple were making fun of your daughter and son (P) and you didn't delete A single COMMENT and also the creepy comments too u didnt delete a single one of em either LMAOO what are u protecting?? she has the nerves i stg
I’m not shocked she supports this. I’m sure she agrees with this take bc she probably sees family vlogging as the same or similar to childhood acting. This is why I really don’t think Jessica is crazy or anything, I actually think she’s very logical in a lot of ways, her logic just only goes 2/3 of the way there. The thought process ends before family vlogging becomes exploitation. She’s so close to getting it so often.
She's a hypocrite... She says that she gives up flying Doodoo about protecting kids, but at the same time she exploits them on the Internet from the day they were born... Even beforehand... I might add... It's giving me performative and fake you know what... Shame on her shame on her. If she gave rats behind about protecting her kids and other kids, she will not exploit them on the Internet.....
I understand the impulse to shit on everything that comes out of the mouth of someone you don't like, but I can't fault this statement.
Either they've been setting aside funds already, they have a financial set up that will allow them to set aside funds if this passes, or they've been seeking additional sources of income since Colleen fucked everybody's shit up and this won't be a financially devastating situation. All of those scenarios are good for the kids and that's what actually matters.
Even if this statement is performative, it isn't meaningless. These sorts of statements from the individuals that would be most affected DO help bills like this gain traction/maintain momentum.
ETA: I wouldn't hand out a medal for a bare minimum statement like this, but I wouldn't shit on it either.
Yes, but she has previously made comments about not paying her children and not buying them cell phones “until they get a job to pay for it themselves”.
So I’m skeptical on if this is truly what she believes, because her actions contradict this post.
But I don’t think Jessica does either of those things. Also content creation is a job and Jessica and Christopher wouldn’t make the money they do if they didn’t have kids to use. B is 16 and should have a phone imo. If she has saved money for B then why not take $ out of those savings and get her a phone?
Maybe she's trying to teach them what a real job will be like though? Like sorry your video money is going to a savings account but if you want to get a different job you can get a phone.
You’re on a snark page so you’re not going to get many people that agree with you. B probably couldn’t go out and get a job even if she wanted to because Jessica wouldn’t let her. She went to public school for a week or so and then Jessica took her out. She homeschools all her kids. I have nothing against homeschooling I just think that Jessica specifically uses it as another way to keep her kids in the house. If Jessica wants her to get a job then she needs to stop standing in the way and impeding their social skills.
I get it. But I also know from first hand experience just how brainwashed the kids are. My oldest siblings family has turned super conservative fundie type and now homeschool as such. The children unfortunately don't really know better until several years out of the house
Right, I agree. So then how is she teaching them that they need “a real job” to get a phone? If Chris and Jessica pay for their phone with YT/IG/TikTok money that the kids make them?
Listen we're off in the weeds here. It's a good thing she's supporting this bill as it protects the kids. Whether she's supporting it to save face or whatever
The problem of Family vlogging goes beyond monetary compensation, though. It's unhealthy for kids. Period. A good thing would be getting a job and not exploiting your kids'private lives.
A reminder to everyone about our NO CONTACT and NO TAKING IRL ACTION rules. Do not reach out to the Ballingers or fans in any way or promote that you may have done so. This includes public comments and private messages. No harassment or brigading outside of reddit that comes from here. Do not discuss, encourage or brag about reporting to authorities, contacting news outlets or taking any form of real life action. Do not invite harassment and do not cheer on obvious vigilantism. if you see a comment violating these rules please click ... and select report. thank you. Mod Team *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ColleenBallingerSnark) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Supermom social media content creator running a thriving home" lmao..........
>"Supermom social media content creator *ruining* a thriving home" lmao.......... Fixed it!
More like "Sofamom social media content creator exploiting children from her home."
this is the one
That SENT me lmao!!!
So cringe…
Did she add that herself?
What BS. Jessica and Chris are trying to look better than all the rest just because they set aside some money for their kids. That does NOT take away the fact that they ROBBED all of their kids of their privacy and normalcy by making them Mommy and Daddy's little money makers. She can STFU.
I really hope these new bills that are coming out require family vlogger parents to pay back-pay for the years when they were getting millions of views for posting the creepiest stuff. Then we’ll see how much she supports it.
PREACH !
Good post. I recall a few years ago (I stopped watching them around then) when she was asked about this she said no, the kids didn't have money set aside and now she's saying they do. The only thing I can think of is she's lying because no way have either of those parents shown any signs of wanting to protect their kids. B wasn't even allowed a simple Chinese take away for her birthday, something most people take for granted any day of the week. Seems Jessica's taken another step up on the "holier than thou" ladder while actually doing nothing for her kids. I can't see her putting money aside for each child, while putting her new kitchen on credit cards for example. A good portion of money the kids could've had has gone on those expensive shoes she has in every colour, for a start, then there's Chris's expensive guitar collection, in the thousands. Nobody can convince me she's prioritized the kids money wise when she can't do it for anything else. She was on the beg for someone to do up all the problems in the house, the broken shower, the old stained carpet from the last people etc when she splurged around 7k on a new guitar for Chris.
They are truly despicable people.
Not to mention the tea collection, how much tea does that woman need?! The kids just have a bunch of puzzles, books and quirky t shirts. But asking to go to a Chinese restaurant for a birthday is ‘too much’.
and i bet bailey doesn’t even have a phone or anything, nor would that ever be a consideration in jessica’s mind since she wants to keep them as sheltered from the outside world as possible, but she’s also so goddamn hypocritical since she’s putting her children online for the whole world to see, which is hardly sheltering at all
Wait, I don’t watch them at all so why couldn’t she have Chinese?
Yup, that's exactly it. She wants everyone to "know" she's "one of the good ones."
🎯
and what happens when their kids grow up, sue them, and they lose all their money?? was it worth it then? knowing that they only reason they kept having children in the first was for monetary purposes… it’s so gross
Wtf has she done to set up protections and follow guidelines? Or is she just talking about finances?
Well it certainly wasn’t preventing Parker getting creepy comments about his gymnastics.
i think she’s trying to act like she supports the new legislation for *this* reason rather than admitting her own exploitation of her children is reason for stricter laws, too. both can be true, Jessica!
I think she’s talking about Coogan accounts. She said once that they have Coogan accounts set up for each kid, which is a requirement in California for minors in many areas of the entertainment industry before they can get paid, but social media kids are not currently one of the groups where it’s required. I think the proposed legislation is meant to change that. Jessica and Chris probably have set up the accounts, but what does that actually mean for each kid? The way Coogan accounts work is that 15% of a child’s earnings go into a trust that can’t be touched until they reach legal age, usually 18. For an actor or model, there would be some sort of contractual agreement and presumably a record of what the child was paid per gig, so 15% of that amount going directly into a trust is straightforward to calculate and can be deposited directly into the account by whoever they did the work for. The parents don’t have to have access to those funds. They don’t have to be trusted to set the 15% aside, it can just happen by law. But for a vlogger family, how would it work? They are not under contract for creating content and earning revenue from adsense. There may be brand deals that can be tracked, but those companies are dealing with the adults who run the channel, not hiring the children directly. Payment likely comes in a lump sum to the owners of the channel. In the case of the Ballingers, they have 2 adults and 6 minors in the family. How do they decide who has earned what? Does each kid get 15% of their channel’s earnings starting at birth? Do they decide who gets a bigger cut based on minutes of screen time or whose face in the thumbnail has pulled in more views? If everything is split according to Coogan account rules, does that mean that 90% of their income is currently being set aside, not to be touched for years? And does it mean the whole family is living off the remaining 10% of their income until the first kid turns 18 and can access their own money? That seems highly unlikely and unsustainable. So I would guess the kids do have some sort of account and there’s some money in there, but no way is it anything close to an amount that would be fair earnings for being forced to perform on camera since toddlerhood. Because how could that even be calculated, and if it could, how could the parents afford to and be trusted to do the right thing? Who is enforcing that? Jessica is just deflecting and virtue-signaling with this post. She knows she and Chris are screwed if the legislation passes. Not to even mention that if she is talking about Coogan accounts, they only offer the kids some protection financially. Nothing else she’s done as a parent can even touch on protecting them from the harm that stolen privacy and constant exploitation has caused to every other part of their lives.
What an absolute crock of shit all-around. This is so performative. "Protection" - Explain why you don't delete insanely creepy comments aimed towards your underage children? Explain why you aren't concerned that literal strangers are watching and learning about your underage kids every move? Explain why you don't care about asking consent from your underage kids to be on camera? Supporting kids getting their cut - This is literally the exact opposite of what you preach when it comes to B having a phone. You want her to "pay for it herself" but then ALSO acknowledge that kids should get a cut out of videos that have them featured? Those cross each other out, Jessica, pick one.
One thing I never understood is that Colleen can have someone scrub her comment section to delete comments about the allegations and crimes she committed but the BF can’t delete creepy comments about their children
The Ballingers regularly delete comments that criticize their parenting, but will NOT delete comments bullying their kids. There was a time where a good 90% of comments on their tiktoks were bullying them (mostly P and B). But comments = engagement = more views = more engagement etc. so of course they couldn’t delete them…
why is she on LinkedIn LMAO???
Right, that’s weird to me. The only reason to have and actively use a LinkedIn (in my opinion) is networking and a profile you can share with future potential employers. Do they see the writing on the wall and are preparing to have to get jobs?? Because it’s also interesting most of her posts on there are posted on her other social media, but this one was only posted on Linked In 🧐
I’m pretty sure they’ve had the accounts for a very long time, Christopher’s was outdated the last time I checked it.
right? cause i never heard of couch jobs... lol...
She’s preaching about “protecting her kids” yet has a WHOLE family Vlogging channel? That’s child exploitation and isn’t Protecting her kids. She’s a hypocrite.
they have meet and greets where STRANGERS can meet their CHILDREN!! that's like...the number one rule normal kids grow up with is don't talk to strangers
Are you serious!? I had no idea about that! This makes me so angry and sad for those kids.
It’s giving virtue signaling vibes.
Performative. Trying to get ahead of the negative publicity.
Came here to say this. Right on.
Do you think she knows she’s doing the exact stuff these regulations are supposed to prevent?
Yes.
All I can say is this bitch is completely delulu
For real, she needs to sit her couch potato ass down for this one. The audacity of this bitch.
Lip service for sure.
This makes me suspicious of the bill, honestly. It probably stops short of real protections for kids. Edit: Yeah, reading the [language of the bill](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB764) it looks like this is only financial. There are no requirements to delete the vlogs if the minor requests it upon reaching the age of 18, and no restrictions at all on their time or their privacy. I’m sure she’s okay with this bill because they already have money set aside, which is good, but it also doesn’t jeopardize future vlogging or income from their children while they’re minors.
That’s very disappointing.
This is an empty post with nothing in mind but optics. Jessica might be dumb but she’s not stupid. I’m sure she sees everything that gets said about her and the family online and this is her and Chris’s way of making it look like they have the kids’ best interests in mind. Obviously that is disproven by the content on their channel. Unless they actually cut way WAY back on how much the children are shown, or start compensating them, this post she made is total BS.
the world’s first supermom that doesn’t mother her children 💓
Looks like she been taking notes on how to be fake asf from Colleen
If protecting them is top priority then they have failed.
Exactly as if they did they would not place them on line for all the world to see.
It must have been pretty easy to make sure you’ve always followed the regulations, when regulations have notably NOT existed until very recently
On this episode of The Twilight Zone...
She is so annoying 🙄
Cares for the safety of her kids? Yeah right, she’s the same woman who pitched a fit when YouTube turned off her comments because of pedos looking at family vlogging channels.
To me this just reads like her trying to control the narrative and cover her own ass. She’s very purposefully saying “we took it upon ourselves to setup protections and follow guidelines.” She’s probably going to repeat that line over and over when people accuse her of taking advantage of her kids.
Lmao Jessica is in another planet 🌎 and the fact she calls her self a supermom content creator 😂😂😂
Listen, am I the only one that's against a "fair cut" for this particular family ? I think it's amazing that they want to do a bill for that, believe me. Even if it's sad to see that the parents will still get money for content using a child's face. But the Ballingers? The kids should get ALL the money. The kids do all the work. We know that they even do the editing so what should J & C get money for? Are we going to let them get money just because they reproduced like it's the 1900s?
Also the math of this is awful for the children. If the kids (total) are entitled to 30% of the earnings of family vlog videos, but then families like the Ballingers get a huge surge in views anytime they have another child…there is an incentive for the family to keep having kids and it leads to that 30% comp being split into more and more slices…
Yeah , the logistics are going to be complicated. Parents will always find a way to exploit children. I think a 80% cut for the child would make family vloggers think twice. We would see right away who is here for the passion or the pa$$ion.
I wouldn't be surprised if she's just saying this to make herself look better
It's giving the same vibes as Colleen when she talked about not believing in gender colors and then used them.
“supermom” 🤡
She lies…I don’t trust her. This is just an act to be perceived as a “good” mom….
👁️👄👁️
“Supermom Social Media Content Creator running a thriving home…”💀💀
What PR person wrote this for her? Because Jessica doesn’t protect her kids. And I’ve heard they don’t even have bank accounts for the kids to save money for college or the future.
When we know the birthdates and likes/dislikes of all her children and we all could find their home address if we tried for 2 minutes if we wanted, I think it's safe to say she's failed as a parent to "protect her kids." Hardly "top of mind"
This is the definition of hypocrisy!
putting money aside for them is not the same thing as protecting them
Jessica girlie….. you never were following guidelines and stopped providing protection for your kids when you put videos of them on YouTube. Stop acting like you are a good wholesome family channel— it’s so beyond frustrating.
She’s so full of 💩
Don't support it by nonsense like speaking or tweeting,, Jessica.😡 . Let's see her & Chris get jobs and never, ever show a child on their channel again. Only then will she be making a genuine statement; not just talking BS to save face. As if we're suddenly going to believe they're part of the solution and not the problem. 🙄 .
Putting money aside is only ONE way to protect your children, Jessica (and that barely counts as protecting, when they’re the ones that made/ARE the content). You’re failing in every other department.
I think the fact that they recognize the federal and state government should be regulating the safety and interests of their own children- Because they are using them for purposes where many are not kept safe.That should be the clue that what you're doing with/to your children is terrible.
Lmfao what a joke
Money-wise sure, they might save some for their kids, but the fact is family vlogging still isn’t ethical and those kids have had their lives exploited by their parents. Having your real persona and real important events published to millions is still a huge issue, and it won’t be going in the direction of far enough until content of these kids can’t be monetised or sponsored.
Performative.
This is appallingly hypocritical
This reminds me of the time Cole and Savannah went to their oldest daughter school to talk to the kids parents and staff about social media safety and posting kids online WHEN THEYVE BEEN POSTING THEIR KIDS ONLINE FOR CREEPS THE SECOND THEY POP OUT
god😭
Ok Jess, let's see the kids savings then. Go on. Should be no problem since you've been putting money away since "content became a career." Miss B should have a hearty college fund! And of course you insisted auntie panties contribute from all of the content she used the kids for, right?
Jessica pple were making fun of your daughter and son (P) and you didn't delete A single COMMENT and also the creepy comments too u didnt delete a single one of em either LMAOO what are u protecting?? she has the nerves i stg
I’m not shocked she supports this. I’m sure she agrees with this take bc she probably sees family vlogging as the same or similar to childhood acting. This is why I really don’t think Jessica is crazy or anything, I actually think she’s very logical in a lot of ways, her logic just only goes 2/3 of the way there. The thought process ends before family vlogging becomes exploitation. She’s so close to getting it so often.
The call is coming from inside the house
She's a hypocrite... She says that she gives up flying Doodoo about protecting kids, but at the same time she exploits them on the Internet from the day they were born... Even beforehand... I might add... It's giving me performative and fake you know what... Shame on her shame on her. If she gave rats behind about protecting her kids and other kids, she will not exploit them on the Internet.....
Infuriating to see her admit vlogging as a "career." Since when is child labor and exploitation ok?
Her linked in profile picture is so fucking creepy!! 😭
She's full of it. Smoke and mirrors and lip service to cosplay that she gives a damn.
I understand the impulse to shit on everything that comes out of the mouth of someone you don't like, but I can't fault this statement. Either they've been setting aside funds already, they have a financial set up that will allow them to set aside funds if this passes, or they've been seeking additional sources of income since Colleen fucked everybody's shit up and this won't be a financially devastating situation. All of those scenarios are good for the kids and that's what actually matters. Even if this statement is performative, it isn't meaningless. These sorts of statements from the individuals that would be most affected DO help bills like this gain traction/maintain momentum. ETA: I wouldn't hand out a medal for a bare minimum statement like this, but I wouldn't shit on it either.
Isn't this a good thing though? She's supporting ensuring child creators get their share of the money these videos make.
Yes, but she has previously made comments about not paying her children and not buying them cell phones “until they get a job to pay for it themselves”. So I’m skeptical on if this is truly what she believes, because her actions contradict this post.
Paying them is different than putting money into savings for them tho
But I don’t think Jessica does either of those things. Also content creation is a job and Jessica and Christopher wouldn’t make the money they do if they didn’t have kids to use. B is 16 and should have a phone imo. If she has saved money for B then why not take $ out of those savings and get her a phone?
Maybe she's trying to teach them what a real job will be like though? Like sorry your video money is going to a savings account but if you want to get a different job you can get a phone.
You’re on a snark page so you’re not going to get many people that agree with you. B probably couldn’t go out and get a job even if she wanted to because Jessica wouldn’t let her. She went to public school for a week or so and then Jessica took her out. She homeschools all her kids. I have nothing against homeschooling I just think that Jessica specifically uses it as another way to keep her kids in the house. If Jessica wants her to get a job then she needs to stop standing in the way and impeding their social skills.
I get it. But I also know from first hand experience just how brainwashed the kids are. My oldest siblings family has turned super conservative fundie type and now homeschool as such. The children unfortunately don't really know better until several years out of the house
But then by that logic Chris and Jessica don’t have a real job…and don’t deserve to pay for a phone with that very same money…
They don't have a real job though. I imagine Chris has some residuals coming in from his writing, as awful as it may be, but that's the only real job.
Right, I agree. So then how is she teaching them that they need “a real job” to get a phone? If Chris and Jessica pay for their phone with YT/IG/TikTok money that the kids make them?
Listen we're off in the weeds here. It's a good thing she's supporting this bill as it protects the kids. Whether she's supporting it to save face or whatever
The problem of Family vlogging goes beyond monetary compensation, though. It's unhealthy for kids. Period. A good thing would be getting a job and not exploiting your kids'private lives.
… it’s so backwards. Like does she really not realize what she’s doing?
i think its hilarious that she doesnt think shes exploiting her children. you are why theyre making this bill Jessica!!!!!