“They’re not content”: What educators and others in ECEC think about children’s images on social media

When I wrote We’re not here for your feed: Reflecting on the ethics of sharing children’s images in early learning, I didn’t expect to be writing a follow-up just days later. But the response since Monday has made it clear. This conversation is not only necessary but is also gaining momentum.

 

What followed wasn’t just engagement. It was an outpouring. Stories, reflections and ethical questions came in from across the country. Educators, centre managers, family day care providers, marketers and sector leaders shared what this stirred up for them. People spoke about discomfort and regret, moments of pride, and the difficult grey areas they navigate every day.

 

While educators have led much of this conversation, it is one that belongs to everyone shaping how children are seen and represented in early learning.

 

Children are not content

 

That phrase came up again and again. Sometimes word for word, sometimes phrased differently, but always with the same feeling behind it.

 

Many described their unease at seeing children’s images used to build brand identity, drive enrolments or boost online engagement. There was a strong sense that children’s individuality and agency were being lost to the demands of digital marketing.

 

One person wrote simply, “Our job is to protect children, not market them.”

 

This wasn’t about rejecting communication or technology. It was about drawing a clear line between documentation that honours children’s learning and public content that serves a different agenda.

 

Not all documentation is the same

 

One of the most important distinctions to emerge was the difference between internal and external documentation.

 

Internal documentation, such as photos and observations shared with families, was described as valuable and necessary. It supports relationships, gives families insight into their children’s learning and helps educators track progress.

 

External documentation, by contrast, includes social media posts, promotional videos and other publicly shared content. It serves a different purpose and raises different questions.

 

As one contributor reflected, “Getting permission for an online post is different to sharing a story with a child’s family. One is about connection. The other is about exposure.”

 

Some shared that their learning environments had started to feel like sets, and children like performers. The focus began shifting from being with children to capturing the perfect image for a post.

 

Can children meaningfully consent?

 

Another recurring theme was consent and how complex it becomes in digital spaces.

 

While most services obtain parental permission, many questioned whether that is enough. If children don’t understand what it means to be online, can they truly consent to being filmed or photographed?

 

One person asked, “Can a four-year-old really understand what TikTok is? Can they meaningfully agree to be part of something that could be viewed, saved and shared by strangers?”

 

Another reflected, “Just because a parent says yes doesn’t mean it’s ethical. We’re the ones who need to protect children’s rights when they can’t fully understand the implications.”

 

Many referenced the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, especially Article 16 (privacy), Article 12 (voice) and Article 36 (protection from exploitation). Another highlighted France’s Children’s Image Rights Law, which gives children legal control over how their image is used.

 

One question summed up the feeling behind many responses: “Even if permission is given, is it the kind of consent we’d be comfortable with if it was our own child?”

 

Presence versus performance

 

Many people reflected on how the act of documenting affects everyday practice.

 

Some shared that reaching for the camera can interrupt the very moment they’re trying to preserve. Others described how presence can give way to performance when the day starts to revolve around capturing, rather than connecting.

 

One comment stood out. “We teach children not to talk to strangers, but then we film them and put them on the internet.”

 

Concerns were raised not just about what gets shared, but how constant documentation shapes educators’ focus and children’s sense of privacy. Even platforms used for family communication, such as Storypark, were described by some as reinforcing an always-on mindset.

 

The message was clear. This isn’t just about sharing. It’s about how the habit of sharing changes what we do.

 

What else is possible?

 

The reflections weren’t just critical. They were constructive and hopeful.

 

In some services, educators have stopped using children’s faces and now focus on learning environments, materials or children’s hands. Others capture children’s voices, ideas or artwork in place of images. A few said they’ve started asking children how they feel about being photographed, even for internal use, and have been surprised by how clearly children express their views.

 

One team that removed all facial imagery noted, “It actually brought the focus back to the learning.”

 

Another person wrote, “There are so many ways to showcase the magic of early learning without putting children on display.”

 

People working in marketing roles also contributed. Many acknowledged the tension between promoting their services and protecting children’s dignity. One contributor summed it up this way. “This is something that’s been on my heart for a long time.”

 

Several said they are actively exploring alternatives, looking for ways to represent their services in ways that are values-led and respectful.

 

Just the beginning

 

The response to Monday’s article was bigger than I expected. It tapped into something many have been sitting with for a long time, often quietly, sometimes alone.

 

This wasn’t meant to be a series. But it’s going to become one.

 

If this raised something for you, or if your service is exploring new approaches to documentation, marketing and content, get in touch. We want to keep sharing what thoughtful, rights-respecting practice can look like across all parts of the sector.

 

Because this isn’t about blame. It’s about protecting children’s dignity, strengthening our practice and building something better, together.