Step into a world where the focus is keenly set on in my state meaning. Within the confines of this article, a tapestry of references to in my state meaning awaits your exploration. If your pursuit involves unraveling the depths of in my state meaning, you've arrived at the perfect destination.
Our narrative unfolds with a wealth of insights surrounding in my state meaning. This is not just a standard article; it's a curated journey into the facets and intricacies of in my state meaning. Whether you're thirsting for comprehensive knowledge or just a glimpse into the universe of in my state meaning, this promises to be an enriching experience.
The spotlight is firmly on in my state meaning, and as you navigate through the text on these digital pages, you'll discover an extensive array of information centered around in my state meaning. This is more than mere information; it's an invitation to immerse yourself in the enthralling world of in my state meaning.
So, if you're eager to satisfy your curiosity about in my state meaning, your journey commences here. Let's embark together on a captivating odyssey through the myriad dimensions of in my state meaning.
Tesla accused of falsely advertising autopilot and mindfulness tesla accused of falsely advertising autopilot definition tesla accused of falsely advertising autopilot central tesla accused of falsely advertising services tesla accused of falsely advertising on facebook tesla accused of falsely advertising campaign tesla accused of falsely synonym tesla accused of falsely meaning tesla accused of falsely accused tesla accused of falsely accusing
Tesla Accused of Falsely Advertising Autopilot and Self-Driving Features
Tesla Accused of Falsely Advertising Autopilot and Self-Driving Features
Tesla has been accused by California's Department of Motor Vehicles of false advertising in promoting its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving features as providing autonomous vehicle control.
The DMV alleges the electric-carmaker misled customers with advertising language that exaggerated the technologies' capabilities.
Tesla "made or disseminated statements that are untrue or misleading, and not based on facts," the DMV said in complaints filed with the state Office of Administrative Hearings on July 28 and made public on Friday.
The DMV pointed to Tesla's website for an example of the misleading language used by the carmaker.
"All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to go," the company promises. "If you don't say anything, your car will look at your calendar and take you there as the assumed destination. Your Tesla will figure out the optimal route, navigating urban streets, complex intersections and freeways."
Tesla cars "could not at the time of those advertisements, and cannot now, operate as autonomous vehicles," according to the DMV's complaint, which was reported earlier by the Los Angeles Times.
Read more: Why I'm More Excited About Self-Driving Trucks than Cars
The DMV's complaint noted that Tesla's website states that "the currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous." But the agency said the disclaimer "contradicts the original untrue or misleading labels and claims, which is misleading, and does not cure the violation."
The agency's proposed remedies include revoking Tesla's license to sell cars in the California and paying restitution to customers who suffered a financial loss due to the advertising.
There are currently no self-driving cars, as defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers, on sale.
In August 2021, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration opened an investigation into Tesla's Autopilot driver-assist system, focused on crashes involving emergency vehicles when Autopilot was active. In June, the agency announced it had expanded its inquiry into approximately 830,000 Tesla vehicles equipped with Autopilot.
Tesla, which disbanded its public relations department in 2020, didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Grocery store cost comparison grocery store price comparison compare prices between stores how much does an online store cost how much cheaper are things on black friday how much cheaper are foreclosures how much cheaper is fleet pricing how much protein in an egg how much sugar per day
How Much Cheaper Are Store-Brand Groceries Than Name Brands?
How Much Cheaper Are Store-Brand Groceries Than Name Brands?
This story is part of Home Tips, CNET's collection of practical advice for getting the most out of your home, inside and out.
Store-brand groceries might not have all the flashy packaging and advertising oomph of your favorite cereal, seltzer and snacks. If you can grin and bear a cheesy knockoff in place of those name-brand products, though, you can save a bunch on your monthly food spending.
In a summerlong series on saving money to combat inflation, we've calculated whether it's cheaper to buy groceries online or in person and laid out some strategies for saving at Whole Foods. But it turns out one of the most surefire ways to save at the supermarket is by letting some of that brand loyalty go by the wayside.
If you're curious about exactly how much you can save buying store-brand groceries, I've done the math and the final figures are pretty shocking. On average, it's about 40% in total savings across various grocery categories. I compared the cost difference for buying name brands versus store-brand products at two popular grocery stores. Read on for a full savings breakdown in case you decide to make the switch.
Read more:Is Grocery Shopping Online Cheaper Than at the Store? I Did the Math
Who makes store-brand products?
First things first, it's well documented that most major food manufacturers label their products under a number of different brands, including generic or store brands. According to recent statistics captured by the Private Label Manufacturing Association, one in five store-brand products is manufactured by a private label manufacturer. It makes sense: Those manufacturers can then appeal to people who are paying at either price. But they want you to go for the brand name price, rather than the store brand. That's why advertising exists; to make you believe that brand name products are somehow better, when the truth is that identical products are often going down parallel conveyor belts, getting two different labels at the end of the production line.
This store-brand toasted cereal retails for around $2. A box of General Mills Cheerios is more like $5.
David Watsky/CNET
Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that all store-brand, O-shaped, toasted oat cereals are actually General Mills Cheerios in disguise, but it stands to reason that for a lot of store-brand products, the quality or flavor is potentially equal to their name- counterpart. And considering the opportunity for savings, they're certainly worth a taste test. While some brand-name products are unlikely to have a generic equivalent, (like, is anyone really seeking off-brand Cool Ranch Doritos?) commodity items like canned beans or rice would seem especially safe bets in the store-brand category.
Trader Joe's beloved pepita salsa is just one example of a store-brand item that's gained fandom and loyalty all its own.
Trader Joe's
Here's how much you can save buying store brand: Wegmans vs. Stop & Shop
I chose both Wegmans and Stop & Shop to represent high-end and average grocery store chains, using Instacart to generate current prices.
Discount grocery stores such as Trader Joe's and Aldi keep their costs low because they deal primarily in their own brands. Wegmans is an interesting example since it has a lot of its own brand loyalty, not only as a grocery store chain, but also for its Wegmans label. (Seriously, I know people who would cross state lines to stock up on its flavored seltzers. Take that, LaCroix.) Stop & Shop is generally perceived as a midrange grocery chain, with good selection and good quality, and not considered expensive, but neither is it revered for its generic brand, which is simply called SB or Store Brand.
Despite perceptions, however, both Wegmans and Stop & Shop are relatively aligned on prices, for both national and store-brand products. Wegmans came out a little ahead in price for name-brand products, in fact: The whole order was about $2 less than Stop & Shop's. Store-brand prices were within 20 cents of each other for the full list at both stores.
*Indicates store-brand item whose quantity was greater for listed price
Buying store brand can mean huge savings
For both Wegmans and Stop & Shop, the huge savings in buying generic products can't be denied. The original shopping list of 20 staple items amounted to about $125 in both locations, with the store-brand version of the list coming to just under $75. That's an average of 40% savings over the whole list.
Granted, this doesn't represent a complete shopping list, since certain grocery categories were excluded intentionally. Some of these items, such as condiments, are products that you might shop for once in a while, rather than weekly. Regardless, the math is clear: Store-brand products are significant potential savings in your grocery shopping experience.
Certain grocery stores including Trader Joe's and Wegmans have managed to cultivate cult-like fandom for their own brands.
Wegmans
How I evaluated name brands vs. store brands
Using grocery shopping list templates available online, I generated a list of 20 common staple ingredients from the pantry, bakery, dairy, deli and freezer sections, covering a variety of prices. Items such as whole fruits and vegetables and butchered meats aren't typically subject to brand (or they're rarely revealed) and I discluded them for the purposes of this investigation. For each of the items I selected, I compared prices between national, well-known brands and the store brand of the same item, at roughly the same size, using Instacart. If there's a discrepancy in size, I've noted that with an asterisk, but did not adjust the price accordingly, since I wanted to reflect an accurate total of what you'd pay for a grocery list's worth of either name-brand or store-brand products.
In most cases, the store-brand model was the larger size of the two items anyway, meaning even more savings if you factor in its relative value. For example, at Wegmans, Bonne Maman Strawberry Preserves are $6.39 for 13 ounces, whereas Wegmans brand Strawberry Preserves are only $4.09 for a full 18 ounces, nearly 50% more product. The savings on your grocery receipt will amount to $2.30, but if you scale up the Bonne Maman price to match the same amount of store-brand product, its price would become $8.85, representing a savings of $4.76, or over 50%, for the Wegmans brand.
Read more: Hungryroot Review: Meal Kits and Grocery Delivery Together as One
Certain upscale and imported goods like Bonne Maman preserves will cost you significantly more than store brand.
Bonne Maman
Where are the biggest savings on store-brand items?
Between both Wegmans and Stop & Shop, the more the brand-name item cost, the more savings were typically available, not only in terms of pure dollars and cents but also as percentage savings between the brand name and store brand. Brand-name items above $5 tended to result in the largest percentage discount, with bigger-ticket items such as olive oil, coffee and spaghetti sauce pushing 50% off or more for their generic or store-brand counterparts.
Pricier items such as olive oil and marinara sauce are where you're likely to see bigger savings if you opt for store brand.
Colavita
Less expensive items, especially those under $2 to begin with, may offer only 10% to 30% savings overall. For example, approximately 17 ounces of Colavita Extra virgin olive oil costs $12.79 at Stop & Shop, whereas the equivalent store-brand olive oil costs only $5.79, which amounts to over 55% off the name-brand price.
On the other hand, 16 ounces of Goya chickpeas are only $1.19 to begin with. With the store brand being only 10 cents less, the savings only amount to 8%. Olive oil, however, is more likely to be subject to quality and flavor nuance, so while the savings can be much larger, it may be a matter of personal preference if the savings are worth it. Chickpeas are generally less subject to flavor or texture scrutiny.
Costco's Kirkland is another budget store brand that has garnered its own customer loyalty.
Costco
Does every grocery store have its own brand?
While store brands are growing, not every grocery store has its own brand, and many just carry no-name or generic brands in addition to name-brand products. Among store brands, there are those that carry the name of the store in its proprietary label, such as Wegmans, Publix, Kroger and others that have a separate label for store-brand products, such as Stop & Shop's SB, Walmart's Great Value and Costco's Kirkland Signature. Whichever the case, it's worth getting to know your local grocer's store-brand products, to see where you may be able to generate huge savings in your grocery bill.
Uber to courier xiaomi mi note phones directly to you uber to courier xiaomi mi note phones directly to wincalendar uber to courier xiaomi mi note phones directly to judy uber to courier xiaomi mi note phones directly meaning uber to courier xiaomi mix uber to courier xiaomi store uber courier services cost of uber to airport
Uber to courier Xiaomi Mi Note phones directly to customers in Asia
Uber to courier Xiaomi Mi Note phones directly to customers in Asia
The Xiaomi Mi Note will hit markets in Asia this month. Aloysius Low/CNET
For those who really can't wait for their latest new phone, they can now have it delivered by hand within the hour. One Internet-savvy company, the Chinese smartphone maker Xiaomi, has enlisted another, the ride-hailing service Uber, to convey its devices across the city state of Singapore as fast as traffic allows.
Drumming up publicity for the launch of its 5.7-inch Mi Note phone at an event in Singapore, Xiaomi said customers will be able to order the phablet from within the Uber app when the phone goes on sale.
Unlike Xiaomi's regular online sales, through which customers have to wait an excruciating five working days for their new devices, the Uber partnership will let customers get their hands on a unit on the same day. Within 4 minutes of them placing the order, Xiaomi says, an Uber driver will be on the way to deliver the phone.
The partnership will also be expanded to Malaysia, but only in the capital city of Kuala Lumpur. A limited number of Mi Note phones will be allocated for the Uber and Xiaomi event and will take place on July 27, a day before online sales begin.
While obviously a publicity stunt, this new approach also shows how two of the world's most valuable startups can work well together. Xiaomi, valued at $45 billion, is in a growth phase, expanding for the first time outside of Asia to Brazil, and selling 35 million handsets so far this year. The company sells its phones close to cost, forsaking traditional retailers in most of the markets in which it operates in order to keep costs as low as possible.
This allows Xiaomi to sell its high-end flagship phone, the Mi Note, at a killer price of S$569 in Singapore -- that's around $415, £270 or AU$560, much lower than comparable devices such as the HTC One M9 or the Samsung Galaxy S6. The low price also plays very much into Xiaomi's favor in an ultracompetitive smartphone market such as Singapore.
The 5.7-inch Mi Note is already available in Hong Kong and will go on sale on July 28 in Taiwan and Malaysia. Besides a 5.7-inch display, the glass-clad phablet boasts a Qualcomm Snapdragon 801 processor and 3GB of RAM. Other specs include a 13-megapixel rear camera and 64GB of onboard storage. It's powered by Google's Android software, with Xiaomi's own MIUI 6 user interface.
Facebook youtube to restrict some russian state duma facebook youtube to restrict some russian state map facebook youtube to restrict some russian revolution facebook youtube to restrict synonym facebook youtube to restrict a person s location facebook youtube to restrict meaning facebook youtube to restrict your google facebook youtube video facebook log in to facebook youtube fb login facebook youtube
Facebook, YouTube to Restrict Some Russian State-Controlled Media Across Europe
Facebook, YouTube to Restrict Some Russian State-Controlled Media Across Europe
Facebook, YouTube and other social networks are restricting access to Russian state-controlled media outlets RT and Sputnik across Europe, amid calls to crack down on disinformation. The move will likely heighten tensions between some of the world's most popular social networks and the Russian government.
Facebook's parent company, Meta, said Monday that it will limit the accessibility of Sputnik and RT across the European Union.
"We have received requests from a number of governments and the EU to take further steps in relation to Russian state-controlled media. Given the exceptional nature of the current situation, we will be restricting access to RT and Sputnik across the EU at this time," Nick Clegg, who oversees global affairs at Meta and is a former UK deputy prime minister, said in a tweet.
Clegg didn't respond to questions on Twitter about what the restrictions entail, how many requests Meta has received and from which governments or how many Facebook users will be impacted by these restrictions. Clegg also didn't say when these restrictions would start. RT's Facebook page has 7.4 million followers and Sputnik's Facebook page has 1.4 million followers. The media outlets are also on Facebook-owned Instagram, a photo and video service. RT has 839,000 followers on Instagram and Sputnik has 116,000 followers.
On Tuesday, Google said in a post on Twitter that it would block YouTube channels connected to RT and Sputnik across Europe.
"Due to the ongoing war in Ukraine, we're blocking YouTube channels connected to RT and Sputnik across Europe, effective immediately," reads a tweet from the official Google Europe account. "It'll take time for our systems to fully ramp up. Our teams continue to monitor the situation around the clock to take swift action."
Google, the video giant's parent company, didn't immediately respond to questions on how many YouTube channels would be blocked. RT's main channel on YouTube has more than 4.6 million subscribers, while Sputnik has over 300,000 subscribers.
Facebook's move came a day after Meta announced it had restricted access to several accounts, including from Russian state-controlled media, in Ukraine after a request from the government there. Meta has been facing more pressure to take action against these media outlets for spreading propaganda and false claims after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
On Sunday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in a tweet that the EU's executive branch is developing tools to ban "toxic and harmful disinformation" published by RT and Sputnik and their subsidiaries. The EU is an economic and political union of 27 countries, including France, Germany and Spain.
Following Facebook's move on Tuesday, RT took issue with unspecified comments from European government officials and actions by social media platforms, with its deputy editor-in-chief saying in a statement that no one had pointed to specific evidence of falsehoods appearing on its site during the Ukraine crisis. In its own statement, Sputnik's press arm characterized the restrictions as an "information war against the Russian media."
RT and Sputnik are on other social media sites, including Twitter and TikTok. A spokeswoman for TikTok said users in the EU won't see content from RT's and Sputnik's accounts. Twitter started labeling state-affiliated media, but a spokeswoman said the company had "nothing to share at this time" when asked if the company was also planning to restrict RT and Sputnik.
The rare move by Meta also raises questions about whether Russia will further restrict access to Facebook and Instagram. Ukrainians have put pressure on Facebook to remove access to the main social network and Instagram in Russia, but Clegg said Sunday those platforms are also being used by protesters and as a source of independent information. "The Russian Government is already throttling our platform to prevent these activities. We believe turning off our services would silence important expression at a crucial time," Clegg said in a tweet on Sunday.
Russia said last week that it's partly restricting access to Facebook after the social network refused to stop fact-checking and labeling content posted on Facebook by four Russian state-owned media organizations. Russia's telecommunications regulator, Roskomnadzor, alleges Facebook violated "fundamental human rights" by restricting the country's state-controlled media.
Facebook and YouTube have also been barring ads from Russia state media. Twitter also said last week that it's temporarily pausing ads in Ukraine and Russia.
On Sunday, Meta also announced that it removed a network of about 40 fake accounts, Pages and Groups on Facebook and Instagram from Russia and Ukraine. Meta said some of these accounts pretended to be news editors and ran fake news websites and published stories that included "claims about the West betraying Ukraine and Ukraine being a failed state." Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram, Messenger and WhatsApp, created a special operations center with experts who speak Ukrainian and Russian to help monitor its platform.
CNET's Carrie Mihalcik contributed to this report.
Tinder parent match group sues google over play on stage tinder parent match group sues google overstock tinder parent match group sues google oversettelse tinder parent match group sues google overdrive app tinder parent match group sues google drive tinder parent match group sues google flights tinder parent match group sues trump tinder parent match group llc tinder parent match group ceo
Tinder-Parent Match Group Sues Google Over Play Store Billing
Tinder-Parent Match Group Sues Google Over Play Store Billing
Match Group, the company that operates dating apps such as Tinder, Hinge and OkCupid, has filed a lawsuit against Google, accusing the internet giant of forcing it to use the Google Play Store's billing system, paying royalties for subscription transactions. The lawsuit, which was filed Monday in federal court in California, accuses Google of violating federal and state antitrust laws.
"Ten years ago, Match Group was Google's partner. We are now its hostage," Match Group said in a press release.
Match Group said Google assured app developers that they would be able to choose alternative payment systems for their customers, only to do an about-face. The dating giant says that its users prefer Match's internal billing system and that Google's system is "lacking capabilities."
Google pushed back against the lawsuit.
"This is just a continuation of Match Group's self-interested campaign to avoid paying for the significant value they receive from the mobile platforms they've built their business on," a Google spokesperson said in a statement to CNET. "Like any business, we charge for our services, and like any responsible platform, we protect users against fraud and abuse in apps."
Google went on to point out that Match Group was sued by the Federal Trade Commission in 2019 for failing to filter out fake profiles that may have incentivized users into paying for subscriptions. The lawsuit was thrown out earlier this year. Last month, Match also won a lawsuit against Muslim dating app MuzMatch over trademark infringement.
App store fees have been at the center of a number of legal battles in recent months. In March, Google struck a deal that would allow Spotify to offer its own in-app payment option alongside Google's. This deal came after Epic Games, creators of Fortnite, sued both Apple and Google for not allowing its own in-app payment systems, meaning that every in-game costume purchase had Apple and Google taking a percentage off the top. Google and Epic Games have agreed to a trial in early 2023.
In this new lawsuit, Match says it attempted to resolve Google's concerns but was told that its apps would be removed from the Google Play Store by June 1 if it didn't comply. The dating app maker's lawsuit accuses Google of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, the California Cartwright Act, the California Unfair Competition Law and California tort law by demanding companies exclusively use Play Billing.
"They control app distribution on Android devices, and pretend that developers could successfully reach consumers on Android elsewhere," Match Group CEO Shar Dubey said in a statement. "It's like saying, 'you don't have to take the elevator to get to the 60th floor of a building, you can always scale the outside wall.'"
Given that 90% of app downloads on Android occur on the Google Play Store, Match says Google's marketplace is the only viable app platform. Google said if Match didn't like its terms, it could distribute its apps elsewhere.
Match says fees can be as high as 30%, which is 10 times more than those charged by payment processors such as Visa and Mastercard. Google says its high fees are necessary to protect Android users from fraud and abuse and that Match Group is eligible to pay 15% on Google Play for digital subscriptions.
"While Google has claimed that 99% of the developers subject to the Google tax will qualify for the lower rate, hidden by this statistic is the fact that not all in-app purchases qualify and some of the most popular are still subject to the 30% tax," according to an FAQ created by Match Group regarding the lawsuit.
When asked about the high percentage rate of its fees compared with payment processors, Google said the Play Store does more than process payments, adding that the fees help keep the Android operating system free and fund development of platforms such as Android Auto and TV, security, app distribution, developer tools, and billing systems around the world.
If Match is forced to stop using its internal payment system, the company says it will suffer "irreparable damage to its customer relationships, reputation, business performance, and goodwill and its users will be harmed by increased prices and Google's monetization of their data."
TikTok Parents Are Taking Advantage of Their Kids. It Needs to Stop
TikTok Parents Are Taking Advantage of Their Kids. It Needs to Stop
Rachel Barkman's son started accurately identifying different species of mushroom at the age of 2. Together they'd go out into the mossy woods near her home in Vancouver and forage. When it came to occasionally sharing in her TikTok videos her son's enthusiasm and skill for picking mushrooms, she didn't think twice about it -- they captured a few cute moments, and many of her 350,000-plus followers seemed to like it.
That was until last winter, when a female stranger approached them in the forest, bent down and addressed her son, then 3, by name and asked if he could show her some mushrooms.
"I immediately went cold at the realization that I had equipped complete strangers with knowledge of my son that puts him at risk," Barkman said in an interview this past June.
This incident, combined with research into the dangers of sharing too much, made her reevaluate her son's presence online. Starting at the beginning of this year, she vowed not to feature his face in future content.
"My decision was fueled by a desire to protect my son, but also to protect and respect his identity and privacy, because he has a right to choose the way he is shown to the world," she said.
These kinds of dangers have cropped up alongside the rise in child influencers, such as 10-year-old Ryan Kaji of Ryan's World, who has almost 33 million subscribers, with various estimates putting his net worth in the multiple tens of millions of dollars. Increasingly, brands are looking to use smaller, more niche, micro- and nano-influencers, developing popular accounts on Instagram, TikTok and YouTube to reach their audiences. And amid this influencer gold rush there's a strong incentive for parents, many of whom are sharing photos and videos of their kids online anyway, to get in on the action.
The increase in the number of parents who manage accounts for their kids -- child influencers' parents are often referred to as "sharents" -- opens the door to exploitation or other dangers. With almost no industry guardrails in place, these parents find themselves in an unregulated wild west. They're the only arbiters of how much exposure their children get, how much work their kids do, and what happens to money earned through any content they feature in.
Instagram didn't respond to multiple requests for comment about whether it takes any steps to safeguard child influencers. A representative for TikTok said the company has a zero-tolerance approach to sexual exploitation and pointed to policies to protect accounts of users under the age of 16. But these policies don't apply to parents posting with or on behalf of their children. YouTube didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
"When parents share about their children online, they act as both the gatekeeper -- the one tasked with protecting a child's personal information -- and as the gate opener," said Stacey Steinberg, a professor of law at the University of Florida and author of the book Growing Up Shared. As the gate opener, "they benefit, gaining both social and possibly financial capital by their online disclosures."
The reality is that some parents neglect the gatekeeping and leave the gate wide open for any internet stranger to walk through unchecked. And walk through they do.
Meet the sharents
Mollie is an aspiring dancer and model with an Instagram following of 122,000 people. Her age is ambiguous but she could be anywhere from 11-13, meaning it's unlikely she's old enough to meet the social media platform's minimum age requirement. Her account is managed by her father, Chris, whose own account is linked in her bio, bringing things in line with Instagram's policy. (Chris didn't respond to a request for comment.)
You don't have to travel far on Instagram to discover accounts such as Mollie's, where grown men openly leer at preteen girls. Public-facing, parent-run accounts dedicated to dancers and gymnasts -- who are under the age of 13 and too young to have accounts of their own -- number in the thousands. (To protect privacy, we've chosen not to identify Mollie, which isn't her real name, or any other minors who haven't already appeared in the media.)
Parents use these accounts, which can have tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of followers, to raise their daughters' profiles by posting photos of them posing and demonstrating their flexibility in bikinis and leotards. The comment sections are often flooded with sexualized remarks. A single, ugly word appeared under one group shot of several young girls in bikinis: "orgy."
Some parents try to contain the damage by limiting comments on posts that attract too much attention. The parent running one dancer account took a break from regular scheduling to post a pastel-hued graphic reminding other parents to review their followers regularly. "After seeing multiple stories and posts from dance photographers we admire about cleaning up followers, I decided to spend time cleaning," read the caption. "I was shocked at how many creeps got through as followers."
But "cleaning up" means engaging in a never-ending game of whack-a-mole to keep unwanted followers at bay, and it ignores the fact that you don't need to be following a public account to view the posts. Photos of children are regularly reposted on fan or aggregator accounts, over which parents have no control, and they can also be served up through hashtags or through Instagram's discovery algorithms.
The simple truth is that publicly posted content is anyone's for the taking. "Once public engagement happens, it is very hard, if not impossible, to really put meaningful boundaries around it," said Leah Plunkett, author of the book Sharenthood and a member of the faculty at Harvard Law School.
This concern is at the heart of the current drama concerning the TikTok account @wren.eleanor. Wren is an adorable blonde 3-year-old girl, and the account, which has 17.3 million followers, is managed by her mother, Jacquelyn, who posts videos almost exclusively of her child.
Concerned onlookers have pointed Jacquelyn toward comments that appear to be predatory, and have warned her that videos in which Wren is in a bathing suit, pretending to insert a tampon, or eating various foodstuffs have more watches, likes and saves than other content. They claim her reluctance to stop posting in spite of their warnings demonstrates she's prioritizing the income from her account over Wren's safety. Jacquelyn didn't respond to several requests for comment.
Last year, the FBI ran a campaign in which it estimated that there were 500,000 predators online every day -- and that's just in the US. Right now, across social platforms, we're seeing the growth of digital marketplaces that hinge on child exploitation, said Plunkett. She doesn't want to tell other parents what to do, she added, but she wants them to be aware that there's "a very real, very pressing threat that even innocent content that they put up about their children is very likely to be repurposed and find its way into those marketplaces."
Naivete vs. exploitation
When parent influencers started out in the world of blogging over a decade ago, the industry wasn't exploitative in the same way it is today, said Crystal Abidin, an academic from Curtin University who specializes in internet cultures. When you trace the child influencer industry back to its roots, what you find is parents, usually mothers, reaching out to one another to connect. "It first came from a place of care among these parent influencers," she said.
Over time, the industry shifted, centering on children more and more as advertising dollars flowed in and new marketplaces formed.
Education about the risks hasn't caught up, which is why people like Sarah Adams, a Vancouver mom who runs the TikTok account @mom.uncharted, have taken it upon themselves to raise the flag on those risks. "My ultimate goal is just have parents pause and reflect on the state of sharenting right now," she said.
But as Mom Uncharted, Adams is also part of a wider unofficial and informal watchdog group of internet moms and child safety experts shedding light on the often disturbing way in which some parents are, sometimes knowingly, exploiting their children online.
The troubling behavior uncovered by Adams and others suggests there's more than naivete at play -- specifically when parents sign up for and advertise services that let people buy "exclusive" or "VIP" access to content featuring their children.
Some parent-run social media accounts that Adams has found linked out to a site called SelectSets, which lets the parents sell photo sets of their children. One account offered sets with titles such as "2 little princesses." SelectSets has described the service as "a classy and professional" option for influencers to monetize content, allowing them to "avoid the stigma often associated with other platforms."
Over the last few weeks, SelectSets has gone offline and no owner could be traced for comment.
In addition to selling photos, many parent-run dancer accounts, Mollie's included, allow strangers to send the dancers swimwear and underwear from the dancers' Amazon wish lists, or money to "sponsor" them to "realize their dream" or support them on their "journeys."
While there's nothing technically illegal about anything these parents are doing, they're placing their children in a gray area that's not explicitly sexual but that many people would consider to be sexualized. The business model of using an Amazon wish list is one commonly embraced by online sugar babies who accept money and gifts from older men.
"Our Conditions of Use and Sale make clear that users of Amazon Services must be 18 or older or accompanied by a parent or guardian," said an Amazon spokesperson in a statement. "In rare cases where we are made aware that an account has been opened by a minor without permission, we close the account."
Adams says it's unlikely to be other 11-year-olds sending their pocket money to these girls so they attend their next bikini modeling shoot. "Who the fuck do you think is tipping these kids?" she said. "It's predators who are liking the way you exploit your child and giving them all the content they need."
Turning points
Plunkett distinguishes between parents who are casually sharing content that features their kids and parents who are sharing for profit, an activity she describes as "commercial sharenting."
"You are taking your child, or in some cases, your broader family's private or intimate moments, and sharing them digitally, in the hope of having some kind of current or future financial benefit," she said.
No matter the parent's hopes or intentions, any time children appear in public-facing social media content, that content has the potential to go viral, and when it does, parents have a choice to either lean in and monetize it or try to rein it in.
During Abidin's research -- in which she follows the changing activities of the same influencers over time -- she's found that many influencer parents reach a turning point. It can be triggered by something as simple as other children at school being aware of their child's celebrity or their child not enjoying it anymore, or as serious as being involved in a car chase while trying to escape fans (an occurrence recounted to Abidin by one of her research subjects).
One influencer, Katy Rose Pritchard, who has almost 92,000 Instagram followers, decided to stop showing her children's faces on social media this year after she discovered they were being used to create role-playing accounts. People had taken photos of her children that she'd posted and used them to create fictional profiles of children for personal gratification, which she said in a post made her feel "violated."
All these examples highlight the different kinds of threats sharents are exposing their children to. Plunkett describes three "buckets" of risk tied to publicly sharing content online. The first and perhaps most obvious are risks involving criminal and/or dangerous behavior, posing a direct threat to the child.
The second are indirect risks, where content posted featuring children can be taken, reused, analyzed or repurposed by people with nefarious motives. Consequences include anything from bullying to harming future job prospects to millions of people having access to children's medical information -- a common trope on YouTube is a video with a melodramatic title and thumbnail involving a child's trip to the hospital, in which influencer parents with sick kids will document their health journeys in blow-by-blow detail.
The third set of risks are probably the least talked about, but they involve potential harm to a child's sense of self. If you're a child influencer, how you see yourself as a person and your ability to develop into an adult is "going to be shaped and in some instances impeded by the fact that your parents are creating this public performance persona for you," said Plunkett.
Often children won't be aware of what this public persona looks like to the audience and how it's being interpreted. They may not even be aware it exists. But at some point, as happened with Barkman, the private world in which content is created and the public world in which it's consumed will inevitably collide. At that point, the child will be thrust into the position of confronting the persona that's been created for them.
"As kids get older, they naturally want to define themselves on their own terms, and if parents have overshared about them in public spaces, that can be difficult, as many will already have notions about who that child is or what that child may like," said Steinberg. "These notions, of course, may be incorrect. And some children may value privacy and wish their life stories were theirs -- not their parents -- to tell."
Savannah and Cole LaBrant have documented nearly everything about their children's lives.
Jim Spellman/WireImage
This aspect of having their real-life stories made public is a key factor distinguishing children working in social media from children working in the professional entertainment industry, who usually play fictional roles. Many children who will become teens and adults in the next couple of decades will have to reckon with the fact that their parents put their most vulnerable moments on the internet for the world to see -- their meltdowns, their humiliation, their most personal moments.
One influencer family, the LaBrants, were forced to issue a public apology in 2019 after they played an April Fools' Day Joke on their 6-year-old daughter Everleigh. The family pretended they were giving her dog away, eliciting tears throughout the video. As a result, many viewers felt that her parents, Sav and Cole, had inflicted unnecessary distress on her.
In the past few months, parents who film their children during meltdowns to demonstrate how to calm them down have found themselves the subject of ire on parenting Subreddits. Their critics argue that it's unfair to post content of children when they're at their most vulnerable, as it shows a lack of respect for a child's right to privacy.
Privacy-centric parenting
Even the staunchest advocates of child privacy know and understand the parental instinct of wanting to share their children's cuteness and talent with the world. "Our kids are the things usually we're the most proud of, the most excited about," said Adams. "It is normal to want to show them off and be proud of them."
When Adams started her account two years ago, she said her views were seen as more polarizing. But increasingly people seem to relate and share her concerns. Most of these are "average parents," naive to the risks they're exposing their kids to, but some are "commercial sharents" too.
Even though they don't always see eye to eye, the private conversations she's had with parents of children (she doesn't publicly call out anyone) with massive social media presences have been civil and productive. "I hope it opens more parents' eyes to the reality of the situation, because frankly this is all just a large social experiment," she said. "And it's being done on our kids. And that just doesn't seem like a good idea."
For Barkman, it's been "surprisingly easy, and hugely beneficial" to stop sharing content about her son. She's more present, and focuses only on capturing memories she wants to keep for herself.
"When motherhood is all consuming, it sometimes feels like that's all you have to offer, so I completely understand how we have slid into oversharing our children," she said. "It's a huge chunk of our identity and our hearts."
But Barkman recognizes the reality of the situation, which is that she doesn't know who's viewing her content and that she can't rely on tech platforms to protect her son. "We are raising a generation of children who have their entire lives broadcast online, and the newness of social media means we don't have much data on the impacts of that reality on children," she said. "I feel better acting with caution and letting my son have his privacy so that he can decide how he wants to be perceived by the world when he's ready and able."
What States Can and Can't Do When Banning Abortion
What States Can and Can't Do When Banning Abortion
For more information about your reproductive health rights and related federal resources, you can visit the US government's
Reproductive Rights
site.
Whether someone can get an abortion or related medical procedure mostly hinges on which state they live in after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last month and ended the constitutional right to abortion. But the switch from federal protection to state law isn't straightforward and has led to confusion and misinformation on what pregnant patients and physicians can do.
In this still developing landscape, how confident can people be that their treatment is still legal?
"The answer to all your questions is 'Who the heck knows,'" said Dr. Louise Perkins King, a surgeon and bioethicist at Harvard Medical School. "And that's the problem."
The US Department of Health and Human Services issued guidance on July 11 reminding physicians of their responsibilities under the existing Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTLA, which supports the need to treat and stabilize patients in an emergency, including pregnant patients who may require an abortion. Days later, Texas sued the Biden administration over the law, which allows for medical assistance to save the life of the mother, because, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said, it "seeks to transform every emergency room in the country into a walk-in abortion clinic."
On Tuesday, a judge in Texas blocked the EMTLA guidance, so physicians in that state may no longer be protected by federal law if they perform an abortion when they deem it medically necessary but it falls outside of Texas' interpretation of a life-endangering pregnancy. Physicians nationwide who are members of the American Association of Pro-Life Gynecologists and Obstetricians or the Christian Medical and Dental Association are also exempt -- a total of about 18,000 health care providers, according to the court document.
Texas' new trigger law -- which will be in effect on Aug. 25 -- bans all abortions except when the pregnancy puts the mother "at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function." Physicians who perform an illegal abortion will be committing a felony. It doesn't make exceptions for rape, incest or fetal abnormalities, and it also doesn't make an exception for when the pregnant person's risk of death would come from a "claim or diagnosis" that they'll be hurt or might die in the future. (This could be interpreted to mean a doctor can't provide an abortion if a woman threatens to die by suicide because she has depression.) All abortions are currently banned in Texas after the state's Supreme Court ruled that a law from the 1920s could stand.
Legal battles within some states will continue to shape post-Roe America, with the landscape changing by the day. And lawsuits like the one in Texas clarify the country's stance on whether state law preempts federal rule on abortion or reproductive health care. Basically, can federal regulations trump state law?
"There's going to be cases that are going to have to determine this question," I. Glenn Cohen, a professor and bioethicist at Harvard Law School, said.
The argument over medication abortion access -- which is banned or restricted in many states but still available to people if they order it (not without risk) online -- will likely also be one of the first big court cases post-Roe, Cohen said. Questions of whether federal regulations on medication abortion conflict directly enough with state restrictions will continue to be center stage.
Medication abortion, for use in early pregnancy, accounts for more than half of abortions in the US. Restricting the pills is the new frontier of abortion bans.
Robyn Beck/Getty Images
Other federal guidance issued by the Biden administration includes a reminder to pharmacists that they are required to fill medication and birth control prescriptions for patients. Failing to do so is discrimination based on pregnancy status. This was in response to the many reports of women having treatment delayed or prescriptions denied while health care workers try to navigate around new state laws.
Here's what we know today.
Can states ban abortion pills? Not completely, but some are trying.
Any state with a current total ban on abortion -- including Texas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri and Wisconsin -- also bans medication abortion. Heavy restrictions in other states, including Tennessee and South Carolina, which ban abortion after about six weeks, also extend to medication abortion. This means providers can't prescribe the medication in those states and patients can't fill prescriptions at pharmacies.
"If a state law bans abortion broadly, that includes medication abortions," Elisabeth Smith, director of state policy and advocacy at the Center for Reproductive Rights, told MedPage Today.
But abortion bans and state laws seek to punish abortion providers or people who assist them, not the person seeking the abortion (there's reason to believe this might change in the future). For now, people living in the most restrictive states can still order pills from an overseas pharmacy, including Aid Access. However, the pills could take awhile to arrive and potentially put the person past the point of pregnancy for which the medication is safe and effective (about 10 weeks).
Peter Dazeley/Getty Images
The fate of medication abortion pills in Republican-leaning states centers on mifepristone, the first pill given in the two-dose regimen of medication abortion. Because the US Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone as a safe and effective way to end a pregnancy over 20 years ago, states shouldn't be able to restrict it, the US attorney general's office argued the same day Roe was overturned. (Misoprostol, the second pill, is used off-label for abortion and miscarriage treatment. It's also used to treat health conditions such as stomach ulcers.)
Whether this federal regulation (and the FDA's stamp of approval) supersedes state laws will need to be decided. Cohen said this is likely to be determined by the Supreme Court as "one of the first post-Dobbs cases."
"It's unclear whether that's going to be a winner of an argument, to be perfectly honest," Cohen said.
Last year, the FDA extended a pandemic-era rule that allowed patients to get medication abortion pills through the mail, instead of requiring them to be prescribed in person. This was seen as a victory for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other medical groups, which viewed the in-person requirement as unnecessary for a medication that's safe and effective in early pregnancy.
But states have their own requirements for medication abortion, and providers licensed in Montana can't prescribe pills to patients who travel over from a restrictive state like South Dakota, NPR reported.
Read more: Worries About Post-Roe Data Privacy Put Spotlight on Period Apps
Ectopic pregnancies can't result in a delivery and require medical treatment. Symptoms can start with typical pregnancy signs, including a missed period, but can progress to abdominal or pelvic pain, vaginal bleeding, weakness and more.
Svetlana Gustova/Getty Images
Can states ban treatment for high risk pregnancies? The HHS says no, but doctors say state laws are restricting care.
Even though the most restrictive states banning abortions leave room for some degree of medical emergency, practicing physicians need to decide where the medical emergency line is – and risk prosecution if a state sees it differently.
This month, the story of a 10-year-old girl who was raped and pregnant and who traveled to Indiana from Ohio, where abortion is banned around six weeks without exception for rape or incest, made headlines. Not only was the physician publicly questioned by Indiana's attorney general on whether she followed state law, but Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said in the aftermath that the girl should've been able to legally get an abortion under the state law's medical emergency exemption. Ohio's OB-GYNs disagreed.
"It states specifically 'medically diagnosed condition,' and as far as I can tell, adolescent pregnancy is not a medically diagnosed condition that's listed," Dr. Jason Sayat, a Columbus OB-GYN, told the Ohio Capital Journal.
The Department of Health and Human Services reminded physicians and hospitals that if they want to keep their Medicare agreement and avoid "civil penalties," they must treat pregnant patients and provide abortions if necessary as required under the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. The EMTLA, now blocked in Texas, outlines certain life-endangering pregnancies that doctors must treat regardless of state law, including ectopic pregnancies, preeclampsia and complications of pregnancy loss.
But that narrow line of abortion exceptions for medical emergencies given by states like Wisconsin is what's troubling Dr. Jennifer McIntosh, a maternal-fetal medicine physician practicing in the state. While Wisconsin's attorney general said he wouldn't enforce a ban, physicians there stopped performing abortions because the state has a pre-Roe criminal statute that prohibits most abortions. The "save the life of the mother" abortion exception language in that law can leave out health conditions which may not be an immediate emergency but can become one down the line.
"Some of what we do is to prevent emergencies from happening," McIntosh said. "To have to wait for an emergency to actually appear puts your patient's life at risk."
The treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is termination, because terminating the pregnancy is the only safe outcome when an embryo grows outside of the uterus, typically in a fallopian tube. Without treatment, the fallopian tube is likely to rupture, which can lead to internal bleeding and death. But some laws, like one in Texas, specifically restrict medications including methotrexate, which has led to access problems for people who are pregnant as well as people who are taking methotrexate for another health reason.
Complicating confusion and risk over how abortion bans will affect treatments for ectopic pregnancies is the fact that more rare types of ectopic pregnancies exist, including ones where the pregnancy is growing inside a C-section scar or other area outside the safety of the main cavity of the uterus -- but still technically in the uterus. These rarer kinds of ectopic pregnancies are also life-threatening, and may be more difficult to diagnose and treat as such in a state that bans abortions with an emphasis on the pregnancy being in the uterus.
Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
States are not prosecuting people who have abortions (yet)
Current state laws -- both those in effect and those in limbo in court -- prosecute other people involved in an abortion, not the person who's pregnant.
But the health impact may be already felt when a doctor is hesitant to treat patients, or pharmacists are reluctant to fill a prescription for mifepristone before interviewing a woman to ascertain whether her pregnancy is already ended and her situation is in line with state law.
"Even in these straightforward cases of basic OB/GYN practice, the laws leave providers questioning and afraid," Dr. Carley Zeal, an OB-GYN in Wisconsin, told The New York Times. "These laws are already hurting my patients."
Aside from hesitancy among health care providers, physicians also fear that worries people have about being prosecuted for having an abortion or miscarriage will stop patients experiencing complications from any kind of pregnancy loss from seeking care.
That's because it was already happening, before Roe was overturned. According to the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, there were over 1,700 arrests or prosecutions of women from 1973 (when Roe became law) to 2020 where their pregnancies were the focus of the case against them.
So will doctors report you if they suspect you had an abortion?
"The vast majority of health care professionals will not do that, because that's not caring for their patients," King said. But, she added, "I'm sure there's a very small, but unfortunately detrimental, minority who might."
Your current access to birth control shouldn't be impacted by the overturn of Roe v. Wade. However, there's reason to believe that could change in the future.
Carol Yepes/Getty Images
Birth control is still protected under the Affordable Care Act
Right now, IUDs, birth control pills and other birth control methods are legal in all 50 states. And they should also be covered at no out-of-pocket cost for those covered under the Affordable Care Act. The right to birth control is protected under two Supreme Court rulings: Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Eisenstadt v. Baird. (Another Supreme Court Case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, chipped away a little of that protection, however, finding that some corporations are exempt for religious reasons.)
Plan B or "morning after pill" brands are also not included in abortion bans, because they will not end an existing pregnancy. Most health plans should also cover them.
Legislators in Missouri last year voted to block taxpayer funding for IUDs and emergency contraception, casting doubt that all birth control devices will be protected indefinitely, at least in some states. The claims of legislators like Paul Wieland, a Republican state senator in Missouri, are that anything that has the potential to disrupt a fertilized egg's implantation into the uterus is an abortifacient.
The medical community has been clear that IUDs and emergency contraception do not cause abortions and will not end an existing pregnancy. Copper IUDs work mostly by causing a chemical change in the sperm and egg before they meet, according to the World Health Organization. Hormonal IUDs like Mirena work mostly by thickening cervical mucus so sperm can't reach the egg, and can also prevent ovulation. Plan B and similar pills likely won't work if a person has already ovulated, meaning the chances of it stopping implantation are currently understood to be slim.
Nevertheless, unlikely occurrences or instances where a fertilized egg may be prevented from implanting into a uterus could be called into question in future court cases.
Read more: Could a Post Roe v. Wade World Impact Your Access to Birth Control?
The information contained in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as health or medical advice. Always consult a physician or other qualified health provider regarding any questions you may have about a medical condition or health objectives.
