Child Privacy Laws Compared: Why Nordic Nations Lead and the U.S. Lags

Thursday, November 6, 2025

My childhood experience is already slightly different from that of others because I was homeschooled. But, as a kid, growing up in the 1990s, one thing I knew for sure was that any embarrassing anecdotes or photos were going to be shared only with my immediate and extended family. The baby bath pictures are in our family photo albums, not online. As are the awkward dance videos, preserved forevermore on VHS, not with an indelible digital footprint. Social media wasn't a thing in 1995 when I was 11-years-old! I never had to worry about my identity being shared with total strangers where my parents had no control over who viewed the information.

But today’s kids aren’t so lucky. From ultrasound announcements to viral TikTok dances, the lives of American children are broadcast, monetized, and archived before they can even tie their shoes. As debates over child privacy laws heat up, Nordic nations like Sweden and Norway are setting global standards with strict safeguards, while the U.S. scrambles to catch up. In this post, we’ll explore why Scandinavia’s proactive laws—rooted in collective responsibility—are shielding children in ways America’s reactive system still struggles to match, and what it means for parents navigating a world where childhood has become content.

Here are some key differences between Nordic (or EU in general) approach vs the U.S. approach to child privacy laws.

Scandinavia/EU Proactive Enforcement

  • Proactive Monitoring:
    • GDPR violations (e.g., collecting data on minors without consent) can trigger fines up to 4% of global revenue. National agencies actively investigate complaints (e.g., France’s CNIL fined a family blogger €20,000 in 2023 for failing to secure a child’s data).
    • Norway and Sweden audit high-earning family channels to ensure earnings from child-focused content are held in trust.
  • Public Accountability: Cultural norms discourage monetizing childhood, leading to social pressure and reduced viewership for violators.
  • Content Restrictions: Commercial use of minors under 12 in ads or sponsored content is often prohibited.
  • Right to Erasure: Children can petition to have content removed once they reach legal adulthood.
In Norway, a 2023 government study found that two-thirds of family content creators avoid showing children’s faces, reflecting both GDPR compliance and cultural discomfort with monetizing childhood.

U.S. Reactive Enforcement Challenges

  • Reactive and Limited:
    • COPPA fines (e.g., $170 million against YouTube in 2019) target platforms, not individual creators. Family vloggers rarely face penalties unless they directly violate data-collection rules.
    • State-level trust laws (e.g., Illinois’ 2024 Child Influencer Act) rely on self-reporting; enforcement is sparse due to limited resources.
  • Labor Law Gaps: Only extreme cases (e.g., 8-year-old “YouTube star” Ryan Kaji’s parents facing FTC scrutiny in 2025) draw attention, but most content falls into unregulated “family business” exemptions.
While Illinois and California have passed laws to protect child influencers’ earnings, experts estimate fewer than 15% of eligible families comply due to lax enforcement and low awareness.

Viewing Child Protection through a Biblical Lens

Scripture frames parenthood not as ownership but as sacred stewardship. “Start children off on the way they should go, and even when they are old they will not turn from it” (Proverbs 22:6) calls parents to guide with wisdom, ensuring a child’s path aligns with their God-given identity—not a parent’s agenda. Yet modern family vlogging often inverts this principle, treating children as content commodities rather than image-bearers of God (Genesis 1:27). The Apostle Paul sharpens this accountability: “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives… has denied the faith” (1 Timothy 5:8). To “provide” here transcends material needs; it includes safeguarding a child’s emotional, digital, and spiritual well-being. Exploiting a child’s likeness for profit—without regard for their consent or future—violates this mandate, trading stewardship for selfish gain.

The Nordic emphasis on societal safeguards mirrors Paul’s charge to “carry each other’s burdens” (Galatians 6:2). While Western individualism often isolates families, Nordic laws reflect a communal ethos—ensuring corporations, platforms, and neighbors share responsibility for protecting childhood. For example, Norway’s trust fund requirements for child influencers operationalize the biblical ideal of “storing up treasures” for the next generation (Matthew 6:20), not exploiting their labor. Similarly, GDPR’s restrictions on harvesting minors’ data align with Proverbs 31:8–9’s call to “speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.”

Nordic policies, though secular in origin, inadvertently reflect a theology of collective care—one that challenges America’s idolization of parental autonomy. Scripture never grants parents absolute rights but instead charges them with temporary guardianship (Psalm 127:3). By legally prioritizing a child’s privacy and economic future, Nordic nations model a practical outworking of “love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31)—treating all children as a shared trust. For Christians, this invites a sobering question: Does our defense of parental freedom serve the child’s flourishing, or our own comfort? True stewardship, as modeled in the Gospels, sacrifices control for the sake of another’s wholeness.

This biblical framework doesn’t demand mimicry of Nordic secularism but calls believers to lead the charge in crafting systems—and family habits—that honor the sacred weight of shepherding the next generation.

My Personal Takeaway

As a kid in the 90s, the mistakes I made were in private and could fade away into grace. Strangers didn't know me, didn't harangue on my "failings," and didn't have any clue about my fluctuating weight or acne problems. I was free to be awkward and grow up organically, without fear of a phone being pointed in my direction, broadcasting my image for all the world to see, and worse, to comment on. The idea of a child enduring the reality of digital permanence in American culture breaks my heart. That's not how childhood should be. 

While I doubt that America would ever allow itself to go to the level of Nordic restrictions, however healthy I consider them, I do hope that, as a society, we eventually realize that children should not only be allowed to be children, but socially required to have a childhood free of the digital footprint. American parents today need to take into consideration the right to privacy that their children should have, just as we did when we were kids. And one of the biggest steps we can take is to stop engaging with child influencer or family vlogger content.

Disclaimer: This post is part one in a multi-part series of thoughts regarding Child Privacy in a Digital Age. All thoughts are my personal opinions and I encourage readers to do their own research into failures and successes on child privacy laws in the United States.
Read More

The Agatha Christie Project Update

Thursday, October 16, 2025

I know, I know, it's been forever since I've added anything to The Agatha Christie Project page!

The truth is that I just haven't been very motivated to put my bookish thoughts online for quite a few years now. But I am going to try and get the ball rolling on this project again, this time, without an end date. I hate deadlines in all aspects of my life, so we'll just not have one for this project and I'll get books reviewed as I get around to them.

One thing is for sure, though, I am saving up to add to my Christie collection of hardbacks. I've realized that I only want to collect books that I love so the bookcases need to be weeded. But for those beloved authors, I will go out of my way to buy special copies of their books. With designs that I love and that I feel add to the mystique and adventure promised within the pages. Christie is one of those authors, and I am enjoying the experience of adding pretty editions to my sadly lacking bookshelf bearing her name.

When do you read Agatha Christie? Do you have a season when you want to just reach for her books, or is it an all-year-round thing?

Read More

No, fans have not turned on Keira Knightley

 

Photo Credit: Keira Knightley at Netflix The Woman in Cabin 10 London News Photo 
 
First of all, can we just admire how beautiful Keira Knightley still is at 40. There is such grace and poise in how she is aging, so much sparkle, and I hope and pray that other actresses feel like they can follow suit. That it is okay to enter different seasons of your life and to allow your body and your face to change. If Helen Mirren can do it (here's an interview with Helen on Allure), so can every other actress out there, and it would be such a healthy thing for society rather than having so many women absolutely run from natural aging.

Back to the topic at hand. 

In case you haven't heard, Keira Knightley was hijacked during an interview about her latest film, where the interviewer grilled her about her knowledge of JK Rowling's pro-woman views and if she knew about them before agreeing to be cast as Professor Umbridge in the full-cast audiobook series of Harry Potter that's about to be released. Yes, that's a long sentence. But it completely changes the perspective of the reader by phrasing it as Rowling having a "pro-woman" stance instead of "anti-trans." 

Keira, bless her, responded with a laugh showing the absurdity and misplacement of the question, and graciously called people to figure out how to get along with one another because we are a diverse group of beliefs and opinions and mutual respect is important. I'm paraphrasing.

She's right. We will never move forward as a society if we cannot agree to disagree and move on from topics of contention.

But that reasonable response has resulted in a bit of a Keira Knightley witch-hunt and reinvigoration of the "boycott Rowling" crowd. Both of which are completely uncalled for and extremely dramatic, something that frustrates me as I grow older because drama is just so absurd.

But I did just think of something else that is bothering me.

Why Keira? Is it just because she was "to hand" in an interview? Or is it because she's the most well-known female in the audio cast (from my perspective)? Or . . . what? Because I see famous male names like Hugh Laurie, Matthew Macfadyen (now that's kind of funny that they're in the same audiobook series!), Kit Harrington, Simon Pegg, James McAvoy, and Riz Ahmed (maybe not everybody knows his work, but I do) in the cast but it doesn't seem that they were pressured the same way as Keira.

How is that okay? Now that I'm really thinking about it, I am quite upset that she was jumped like that, out of the blue, when it seems none of her male costars have had to put up with the same absurdity or endure the same online witchhunt. She was simply being diplomatic in her response! Or are these people only upset if someone doesn't voice their disdain for Rowling, not if they are acting in a Harry Potter production? I wouldn't be surprised if that was it. They're fine so long as the actor hates Rowling.

TikTokers and Redditors are not the majority of people. They're just not. Are they the most vocal, oh yes, but do they reflect the beliefs of every single person, absolutely not. So they really should just be viewed as the vocal 1% and treated as such. A flash-in-the-pan knee-jerk response of online rage isn't going to impact my love and admiration for Keira Knightley and her varying roles in the slightest. And I can guarantee you that she has a ton of fans IRL who will never know about this "controversy" and wouldn't care even if they did because they are not chronically online. What next? A call to boycott the PotC franchise? I don't think so. The rage echo chamber is getting old and it's showing how little the 1% actually spend amongst the rest of us.

Now, back to the actual reason for the Rowling question in the first place, the Harry Potter full-cast audio book series! It sounds amazing!

I look forward to intense pangs of hatred and loathing for Professor Umbridge that I know Keira's voice acting will deliver. And, wow, give me my Hugh Laurie as Dumbledore! He's an absolute fav of mine from waaaaaaay back in the 90s, yes, I am that old! I truly hope the full-cast audiobooks of Harry Potter live up to the hype!

Read More

The Social Media Paradox: How Critiquing TikTok Trends Fuels the Fire

Wednesday, October 8, 2025

Created using Canva

"It’s ironic: The louder we shout about toxic trends, the more oxygen we give them. In our quest to critique, we risk becoming unwitting megaphones for the very content we claim to oppose."



1. The Algorithm’s Unforgiving Math

Social media platforms thrive on engagement—any engagement. When YouTube commentary channels dissect TikTok trends (overconsumption, rage bait, exploitative family content), they inadvertently amplify the reach of those trends. Even disapproval signals relevance to algorithms, boosting visibility for creators and their controversial content. In my opinion: “The best way to stop the fire is to cut off the oxygen supply.”


  • The Attention Economy: Every view, comment, or critique feeds the machine. Creators profit from outrage, and platforms profit from division.

  • The “Critique Trap”: Well-intentioned criticism often introduces niche trends to broader audiences, sparking curiosity in viewers who’d never have encountered them otherwise.



2. The Rise of Meta-Commentary

YouTube’s “commentary on content” culture creates a self-perpetuating cycle. Creators analyze trends to condemn them, yet their videos become the trend—a hall of mirrors where outrage drives clicks. This mirrors broader cultural dynamics:


  • Vicarious Stress: Watching critiques of platforms you don’t use (for example, I don't have TikTok) can create “secondhand anxiety,” wasting emotional energy on distant dramas.

  • Moral Licensing Trap: Viewers may feel virtuous for “resisting” trends by watching critiques, yet still contribute to the ecosystem.



3. Breaking the Cycle: Practical Steps

A. Starve the Algorithms

  • Silence = Impact: Ignoring trends and their critics denies both the oxygen they crave. Mute keywords, block channels, and curate feeds to exclude meta-commentary.
  • Redirect Attention: Follow creators who focus on solutions (e.g., mindful consumption, creativity) rather than dissecting problems.

B. Reclaim Your Mental Space

  • Audit Your Consumption: Ask, “Does this content enrich me or drain me?” If it’s the latter, click “Not Interested.”
  • Channel Curiosity Productively: Replace trend-watching with hobbies, faith-based content, or skill-building (e.g., cooking, DIY projects).

C. Advocate Quietly

  • Model Alternatives: Share positive, life-giving content—art, family moments, service projects—to counterbalance cultural noise.
  • Teach Critical Thinking: For parents, discuss social media’s pitfalls proactively (e.g., “Why do you think this trend went viral?”) without directing kids to specific toxic content.


A Personal Reflection:
“I’ve deleted my ‘trend critique’ playlists. It’s freeing to realize I don’t need to be a cultural watchdog. My time is better spent creating, connecting, and cultivating peace than shouting into the void.”


Closing Challenge:
What if we treated toxic trends like a passing storm—acknowledging their existence but refusing to stand in the rain? The quieter we become, the less power they hold.

    Read More

    “How to Murder Your Wife” (1965): A Mixed Bag of Laughs and Cringe

    Wednesday, October 1, 2025

    Jack Lemmon shines as Stanley Ford, a lifelong bachelor cartoonist whose drunken antics and reluctant plunge into marriage drive this dark comedy. The film’s humor hinges on his physical comedy—think expanding waistlines from Italian cooking and lightbulb-electrocution mishaps. His habit of acting out comic strip scenes before drawing them adds genuine laughs, showcasing Lemmon’s genius.


    The Good: Vintage Lemmon

    • Physical comedy gold: Slapstick moments (like the infamous lightbulb scene) highlight Lemmon’s talent.
    • Creative flair: Reenacting comic strip scenarios blurs fiction and reality in clever, absurd ways.
    • Charming chemistry: Virna Lisi’s character softens Stanley’s edges, offering glimmers of genuine connection.

    The Dated: 1960s Gender Dynamics
    The film’s “battle of the sexes” premise hasn’t aged well:

    • Misogyny as punchlines: Women are reduced to objects (bachelor parties turn wakes for “lost freedom”) or manipulators.
    • Marriage as imprisonment: The mustache-growing rebellion feels tragic, not funny, in today’s context.
    • Scantily clad stereotypes: Lisi’s wardrobe choices prioritize male gaze over character depth.

    The Uncomfortable: Mutual Manipulation
    Both genders weaponize distrust:

    • Stanley’s friends celebrate freedom when weddings collapse.
    • Wives use emotional blackmail (no motorcycles, no mustache, no independence).
    • The title’s dark premise—fantasizing spousal murder—feels jarringly mean-spirited.

    Verdict: A Time Capsule, Not a Blueprint
    While How to Murder Your Wife offers laughs through Lemmon’s brilliance, its gender politics clash with modern values. It’s best viewed as a cultural artifact—a reminder of how far we’ve come (and how far we still need to go) in portraying mutual respect in relationships.

    Rating: ⭐️⭐️⭐️ (for Lemmon) / ⭐️ (for messaging) 

    Read More

    The Christmas Tree Farm by Melody Carlson (2024)

    Monday, September 29, 2025

    As a longtime reader of Melody Carlson’s Christmas novels and YA works like her Secrets series, I approached The Christmas Tree Farm with high hopes. While Carlson’s signature storytelling charm shines in moments, this 2024 release ultimately left me wanting more.

    What Didn’t Click

    Character Development: The sisters’ constant bickering felt more juvenile than sibling-rivalry authentic, making their 30-something ages hard to reconcile.

    Plot Pacing: The story’s abrupt shifts between the tree farm’s challenges and the neighboring dirt bike park subplot created a disjointed rhythm.

    Relatability: Though the noisy neighbor premise holds potential for cozy conflict, the execution leaned heavily on situational tension over heartfelt connection.

    Silver Linings

    Carlson’s knack for creating festive small-town atmospheres remains intact, and the Christmas tree farm setting itself brims with untapped hygge potential. Longtime fans of her quick-read holiday style may still find moments to enjoy.

    Final Thoughts

    While this novella didn’t resonate with me personally—I’ll be passing my copy to a local Christian bookstore for others to discover—it reinforces how even beloved authors occasionally miss the mark. Here’s hoping Carlson’s next Christmas tale recaptures the warmth of her earlier works!

    Here's my page of Christmas Reads reviews.

    Read More

    Anxiety is a major player in Halloween Baking Championship Season 11

    Thursday, September 18, 2025


    We wait all year for the new season of Halloween Baking Championship, mostly to see what new theme they come up with and how John Henson plays into the story as the "killer." We also love watching these incredibly gifted bakers work their craft and create magic!

    Part of what makes the show work is the continuity. The placement of the set is the same, the baking stations are the same, the judging location is the same, how the judges enter is the same . . . you get what I'm saying. Yes, the set changes with the theme, but the "skeleton" of the show is always the same, so it feels warm and cozy and familiar, like you walked into Grandma's house, albeit a creepy version that's been given a makeover as a hotel, or a carnival, or a laboratory, or (my personal favorite) a summer camp.

    Oh my goodness, gracious, the 11th season is going to be a fail. I can tell because it is already filmed and Food Network cannot fix what has been done after the fact.

    Food Network, here's where you went wrong:
    • You chose mediocre bakers who don't know how to save a warm cake or bake a pie crust that won't melt, for I'm assuming dramatic purposes.
    • You chose to downsize the set so it feels like we're in a cracker box.
    • You chose to set up the baking stations in one long uniform line where literally nobody has any elbow room or personal baking space to speak of.
    • You chose to bring in bakers with major Main Character energy.
    • You chose, for whatever reason, to not have an actual story for the Haunted House, one that would bring out John Henson's magnificent talent for the macabre and creepy by casting him as the "villain."
    • You chose to shop at Spirit Halloween for the judge's costumes.
    • You chose to have all the bakers present in their little balcony for the judging of one another so we can hear their whispering and conversation about how the judging went.
    • And above all, you chose to have only 13 bakes, 6 of which were baked by the 3 worst bakers of the episode, so no more The Thriller and The Killer challenges.
    I'm sorry, what?

    Here are some positives that haven't changed:
    • John Henson is still John Henson, albeit with nothing to do, but at least he's there.
    • It's still the same 3 judges, so that's also something because I'm super used to them.
    • The set dressing is cool as a Haunted House.
    • I do think there are a few talented bakers like Camille and Nina, but I can't say for sure because we weren't allowed to focus on the good bakes.
    I'm sad to say, that's it for the positives.

    Everything was fine until Melanie laid down by her oven to "take a moment" clutching her "emotional support stirring spoon." Girl, you forgot the sugar in your cake! You have literally 90 minutes left! Bake it again and throw it in the blast chiller! Don't lay down with a panic attack!

    I say everything was fine, but several of these contestants were literally unnerved by John Henson in ways I haven't seen before and that was prior to Melanie's little meltdown. John's fun and hilarious and a prankster! He's not actually scary, and being too nervous to even talk to him about what you're making is just absolutely ridiculous.

    One other major issue is the judges are being swayed by the presence of all the contestants and by the "personal" stories of the bakers, i.e. Melanie. She should not be there. She is not a competent baker in a competition setting. She was saved solely on account of her personal story. If she'd had to bake in the bottom 3, she would have been gone.

    I'm sorry, no. I get that you care, judges. But please, Zac, Carla, and Stephanie, do your jobs properly and judge based on the quality of the bakes, not on the personal trauma of the bakers.

    And let's not even talk about Justin "saving" whoever was going to be eliminated by "volunteering as tribute." That's not how this works, bro. People have chosen to leave in previous seasons and they will still have an elimination in that episode. Justin choosing to die on his sword and leave should not have actually saved one of the 3 worst bakers. And, wait, did you actually interrupt John Henson!? I say again, I'm sorry, what?

    This is, by far, the worst batch of bakers I have seen in the now 11 seasons of the show that I have watched. This includes the pre-Henson seasons! I'm disappointed because I love Halloween Baking Championship. I love the format, the judges, the host, just everything. And in previous years, I have really loved the bakers. But I did not sign on for a season of high-level anxiety and tears and drama and meltdowns. Guys, it's a baking show! It's not that serious! I cannot believe HBC has devolved to this extent.

    Welcome to the 11th season of Halloween Baking Championship!


    Read More