Sharenting, Digital Privacy, and Child Rights: Research on Deutsche Telekom’s “A Message from Ella” Campaign

Abstract

Aim: This study aims to examine Deutsche Telekom’s “A Message from Ella” campaign by exploring how sharenting, child privacy, and artificial intelligence ethics are framed and how audiences respond to these framings. Method: A qualitative mixed-method design was employed. First, the campaign video was analyzed using Entman’s four-stage framing model. Second, a thematic analysis was conducted on 1,413 YouTube comments posted under the German and English versions of the video using MAXQDA 2024 software. Results: The framing analysis indicates that sharenting is constructed as a form of non-consensual digital exposure shaped by parental responsibility and AI-related risks. The thematic analysis reveals five main themes: (1) digital privacy and AI anxiety, (2) empathy and emotional identification with the child, (3) parental responsibility, resistance, and justification, (4) praise for the campaign’s aesthetic and ethical message, and (5) the absence of explicit discourse on child agency. While the campaign effectively raises ethical awareness, children’s rights and consent remain marginal in public discourse. Conclusion: The findings demonstrate that emotionally charged narratives can mobilize ethical reflection while simultaneously reinforcing adult-centric perspectives. The positioning of children as active digital subjects remains limited. Originality: By integrating framing analysis with audience reception and focusing on the intersection of sharenting and AI-driven risks, this study provides an original contribution to research on digital childhoods and ethical communication.

Keywords

• Sharenting
• digital privacy
• artificial intelligence
• framing analysis
• thematic analysis

Paylaşanababalık, Dijital Gizlilik ve Çocuk Hakları: Deutsche Telekom’un “Ella’nın Mesajı” Kampanyası Özelinde Bir Araştırma

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, Deutsche Telekom’un “Ella’nın Mesajı” kampanyasını paylaşanababalık (sharenting), çocuk mahremiyeti ve yapay zekâ etiği bağlamında inceleyerek, kampanyanın bu meseleleri nasıl çerçevelendirdiğini ve izleyicilerin bu çerçeveye nasıl tepki verdiğini ortaya koymaktır. Yöntem: Araştırma, karma nitel bir tasarımla yürütülmüştür. İlk aşamada kampanya videosu, Entman’ın dört aşamalı çerçeveleme modeli doğrultusunda analiz edilmiştir. İkinci aşamada ise, videonun Almanca ve İngilizce versiyonlarına yapılan toplam 1.413 YouTube yorumu MAXQDA 2024 yazılımı kullanılarak tematik analize tabi tutulmuştur. Bulgular: İngilizce ve Almanca dilindeki iki videoya yapılan toplamda 1413 YouTube yorumunun MAXQDA 2024 nitel veri analizi programı kullanılarak gerçekleştirilen tematik analizi, beş ana temayı ortaya koymuştur: dijital gizlilik ve YZ endişesi; çocukla empati ve duygusal özdeşleşme; ebeveyn sorumluluğu, direnç ve meşrulaştırma; kampanyanın estetik ve etik mesajına övgü; çocuk öznesine ilişkin açık bir söylemin bulunmaması. Bulgular, duygusal anlatıların yetişkin merkezli çerçeveleri güçlendirirken etik yansımayı nasıl harekete geçirebileceğinin altını çizmiştir. Bulgular, kampanyanın güçlü bir etik farkındalık yarattığını ancak çocuk hakları ve rıza meselesinin kamusal söylemde sınırlı kaldığını göstermektedir. Sonuç: Çalışma, duygusal anlatıların yetişkin merkezli çerçeveleri güçlendirirken etik sorgulamayı tetikleyebildiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Bununla birlikte, çocukların dijital özne olarak konumlandırılmasına yönelik söylemsel bir boşluk dikkat çekmektedir. Özgünlük: Bu çalışma, paylaşanababalık olgusunu yapay zekâ, derin sahtecilik ve izlerkitle alımlaması ekseninde birlikte ele alarak; kampanya metni ile kullanıcı tepkilerini bütüncül biçimde analiz etmesi bakımından özgün bir katkı sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Paylaşanababalık
• dijital gizlilik
• yapay zekâ
• çerçeveleme analizi
• tematik analiz.

References

1. A Message from Ella | Without Consent. (2023). [YouTube]. Deutsche Telekom Archiv. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4WZ_k0vUDM
2. Akdağ, M., Yetimova, S. & Eser, H. (2022). Children’s Victimization in Turkish Cinema between the 1970s and the 1980s. Galactica Media: Journal of Media Studies, 4(4), 189-209. https://doi.org/10.46539/gmd.v4i4.290
3. Aruldoss, V. (2020). Participation, Protection, and Provision Rights (Three Ps), UNCRC. İçinde D. T. Cook, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood Studies (pp. 1201-1203). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529714388.n444
4. Autenrieth, U. (2018). Family photography in a networked age: Anti-sharenting as a reaction to risk assessment and behaviour adaption. İçinde G. Mascheroni, C. Ponte, & A. Jorge (Ed.), Digital Parenting: The Challenges for Families in the Digital Age (pp. 219-231). Nordicom.
5. Banterle, F. (2018). The Court of Rome orders a mother to stop publishing on social networks contents relating her underage son [Internet]. IPLens. https://iplens.org/2018/01/29/the-court-of-rome-orders-a-mother-to-stop-publishing-on-social-networks-contents-relating-her-underage-son/
6. Barassi, V. (2025). Amplified visibility: Critical reflections on children’s social media presence, sharenting and tech-abuse in the age of generative AI. İçinde T. Annabell, C. Fieseler, C. Goanta, & I. Wildhaber (Ed.), The Hashtag Hustle (pp. 13-31). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035332816.00007
7. Barnes, R. & Potter, A. (2021). Sharenting and parents’ digital literacy: An agenda for future research. Communication Research and Practice, 7(1), 6-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2020.1847819
8. Baştemur, Ş. & Kurşuncu, M. A. (2022). Sharenting: Ebeveynler Çocuklarının Fotoğraflarını Sosyal Medyada Neden Paylaşır? ODÜ Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi (ODÜSOBİAD), 12(3), 2911-2928. https://doi.org/10.48146/odusobiad.1137855

9. Bax, T. (2026). Rise of the algopticon: the algoptic gaze in the age of algorithmic governance and surveillance capitalism. AI & Society, 41, 415-427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02473-w
10. Beauchere, J. (2019). Teens say parents share too much about them online - Microsoft study [Internet]. Microsoft. https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2019/10/09/teens-say-parents-share-too-much-about-them-online-microsoft-study/
11. Beer, D. (2017). The social power of algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1216147
12. Blum-Ross, A. & Livingstone, S. (2017). “Sharenting,” parent blogging, and the boundaries of the digital self. Popular Communication, 15(2), 110-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2016.1223300
13. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
14. Campbell-Barr, V. (2021). The Provision, Protection and Participation of Children’s Rights in Professional Practice. İçinde A. Višnjić-Jevtić, A. R. Sadownik, & I. Engdahl (Ed.), Young Children in the World and Their Rights (C. 35, pp. 221-233). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68241-5_16
15. Chesney, R. & Citron, D. K. (2018). Deep Fakes: A Looming Challenge for Privacy, Democracy, and National Security. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3213954
16. Children’s Commissioner. (2018). Who knows what about me?: A Children’s Commissioner report into the collection and sharing of children’s data. Children’s Commissioner. https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/cco-who-knows-what-about- me.pdf
17. Choi, G. Y. & Lewallen, J. (2018). “Say Instagram, Kids!”: Examining Sharenting and Children’s Digital Representations on Instagram. Howard Journal of Communications, 29(2), 144-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2017.1327380
18. Chouliaraki, L. (2017). Suffering and the Ethics of Solidarity. İçinde R. E. Anderson (Ed.), Alleviating World Suffering (C. 67, pp. 49-60). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51391-1_3
19. Coughlan, S. (2018). “Sharenting” puts young at risk of online fraud [E-news]. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/education-44153754
20. Cucchiara, M. (2021). “Sometimes you have to pop them”: Conflict and Meaning-Making in a Parenting Class. Social Problems, 68(4), 1010-1025. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spaa045
21. Danaher, J., Hogan, M. J., Noone, C., Kennedy, R., Behan, A., De Paor, A., Felzmann, H., Haklay, M., Khoo, S.-M., Morison, J., Murphy, M. H., O’Brolchain, N., Schafer, B. & Shankar, K. (2017). Algorithmic governance: Developing a research agenda through the power of collective intelligence. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717726554
22. Darling, N. & Steinberg, L. (2017). Parenting Style as Context: An Integrative Model. İçinde R. Žukauskienė (Ed.), Interpersonal Development (1. bs, pp. 161-170). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351153683
23. Dobson, M. & Jay, J. (2020). “Instagram has well and truly got a hold of me”: Exploring a parent’s representation of her children. Issues in Educational Research, 30(1), 58-78. https://doi.org/10.3316/INFORMIT.085767585327947
24. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
25. Erişir, R. M. & Erişir, D. (2018). Yeni Medya ve Çocuk: Instagram Özelinde “Sharenting” “Paylaşanababalık” Örneği. Yeni Medya, 4, 50-64.
26. Frew, P. & Petrino, G. (2025). Parents’ Social Media Habits: 2021 [Internet]. security.org. https://www.security.org/digital-safety/parenting-social-media-report/#:~:text=The%20vast%20majority%20of%20parents,media%2C%20according%20to%20our%20research
27. Hanna, R. & Kazim, E. (2021). Philosophical foundations for digital ethics and AI Ethics: A dignitarian approach. AI and Ethics, 1(4), 405-423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00040-9
28. Izyumenko, E. & Senftleben, M. (2025). Online Behavioural Advertising, Consumer Empowerment and Fair Competition: Are the DSA Transparency Obligations the Right Answer?. Journal of European Consumer and Market Law, 14(2), 46-59.
29. Jørgensen, K. M. & Boje, D. M. (2010). Resituating narrative and story in business ethics. Business Ethics: A European Review, 19(3), 253-264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2010.01593.x
30. Kindelan, K. (2023). Illinois becomes 1st state to regulate kid influencers: What to know about the law [Internet]. abcnews. https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/illinois-1st-state-regulate-kid-influencers-law/story?id=102259218
31. Klimecka, N. & Vo Hoang Hoai, P. (2023). How does algorithmic literacy challenge the utilisation of TikTok for global marketers, taking into account ethical concerns? A qualitative study on the TikTok algorithms, personalisation & ethics. (Master’s Thesis). Lund University.
32. Kumar, P. & Schoenebeck, S. (2015). The Modern Day Baby Book: Enacting Good Mothering and Stewarding Privacy on Facebook. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 1302-1312. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675149
33. Lanning, K. V. (2010). Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis—For Professionals Investigating the Sexual Exploitation of Children. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) & NCMEC. https://www.missingkids.org/content/dam/missingkids/pdfs/publications/nc70.pdf
34. Larsson, S. (2018). Algorithmic governance and the need for consumer empowerment in data-driven markets. Internet Policy Review, 7(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.14763/2018.2.791
35. Latzer, M. & Festic, N. (2019). A guideline for understanding and measuring algorithmic governance in everyday life. Internet Policy Review, 8(2), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.2.1415
36. Lavorgna, A., Ugwudike, P. & Tartari, M. (2023). Online sharenting: Identifying existing vulnerabilities and demystifying media reported crime risks. Crime, Media, Culture: An International Journal, 19(4), 472-490. https://doi.org/10.1177/17416590221148448
37. Leaver, T. (2017). Intimate Surveillance: Normalizing Parental Monitoring and Mediation of Infants Online. Social Media + Society, 3(2), 2056305117707192. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117707192
38. Lewis, I., Watson, B., Tay, R. & White, K. M. (2007). The role of fear appeals in improving driver safety: A review of the effectiveness of fear-arousing (threat) appeals in road safety advertising. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 3(2), 203-222. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100799
39. Livingstone, S. (2004). Media Literacy and the Challenge of New Information and Communication Technologies. The Communication Review, 7(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714420490280152
40. Livingstone, S. & Helsper, E. (2010). Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the internet: The role of online skills and internet self-efficacy. New Media & Society, 12(2), 309-329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342697
41. Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G. & Staksrud, E. (2018). European research on children’s internet use: Assessing the past and anticipating the future. New Media & Society, 20(3), 1103-1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816685930
42. Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G. & Stoilova, M. (2023). The outcomes of gaining digital skills for young people’s lives and wellbeing: A systematic evidence review. New Media & Society, 25(5), 1176-1202. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211043189
43. Livingstone, S. & Third, A. (2017). Children and young people’s rights in the digital age: An emerging agenda. New Media & Society, 19(5), 657-670. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816686318
44. Lupton, D. & Williamson, B. (2017). The datafied child: The dataveillance of children and implications for their rights. New Media & Society, 19(5), 780-794. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816686328
45. Mascheroni, G. & Siibak, A. (2021). Datafied Childhoods. Peter Lang US. https://doi.org/10.3726/b17460
46. May, A. (2016). 18-year-old sues parents for posting baby pictures on Facebook [Internet]. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/09/16/18-year-old-sues-parents-posting-baby-pictures-facebook/90479402/
47. McInroy, L. B. (2016). Innovative ethics: Using animated videos when soliciting informed consent of young people for online surveys. Social Work Research, 41(2), 121-128.
48. Nabi, R. L. (2003). Exploring the Framing Effects of Emotion: Do Discrete Emotions Differentially Influence Information Accessibility, Information Seeking, and Policy Preference? Communication Research, 30(2), 224-247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202250881
49. Nabi, R. L., Biely, E. N., Morgan, S. J. & Stitt, C. R. (2003). Reality-Based Television Programming and the Psychology of Its Appeal. Media Psychology, 5(4), 303-330. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0504_01
50. Nachricht von Ella | Without Consent. (2023). [YouTube]. Deutsche Telekom Archiv. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu-fR8nrwjs
51. Nottingham, E. (2019). ‘Dad! Cut that part out!’ Içinde J. Murray, B. Blue Swadener, & K. Smith (Ed.), The Routledge International Handbook of Young Children’s Rights (1. bs, pp. 183-191). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367142025-16
52. Peltz, J. & Street, A. C. (2020). Artificial Intelligence and Ethical Dilemmas Involving Privacy. İçinde Y. R. Masakowski (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence and Global Security (pp. 95-120). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78973-811-720201006
53. Ross Arguedas, A., Robertson, C., Fletcher, R. & Nielsen, R. (2022). Echo chambers, filter bubbles, and polarisation: a literature review. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://doi.org/10.60625/risj-etxj-7k60
54. Plunkett, L. A. (2019). Sharenthood: Why We Should Think before We Talk about Our Kids Online (1. bs). The MIT Press.
55. Reynolds, C. & Hallinan, B. (2024). User-generated accountability: Public participation in algorithmic governance on YouTube. New Media & Society, 26(9), 5107-5129. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241251791
56. Saliba, E. (2023). Sharing photos of your kids? Maybe not after you watch this deepfake ad [E-news]. abcnews. https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/sharing-photos-kids-after-watch-deepfake-ad/story?id=101730561#:~:text=While%20the%20video%20is%20fake%2C,cautionary%20message%20is%20very%20real
57. Shin, S., Ki, E.-J. & Griffin, W. G. (2017). The effectiveness of fear appeals in ‘green’ advertising: An analysis of creative, consumer, and source variables. Journal of Marketing Communications, 23(5), 473-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2017.1290671
58. Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Içinde K. M. Beaver (Ed.), Biosocial Theories of Crime (1. bs, pp. 435-463). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315096278-19
59. Steinberg, S. B. (2017). Sharenting: Children’s Privacy in the Age of Social Media. Emory Law Journal, 66(4), 839-884.
60. Stoilova, M., Livingstone, S. & Nandagiri, R. (2020). Digital by Default: Children’s Capacity to Understand and Manage Online Data and Privacy. Media and Communication, 8(4), 197-207. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i4.3407
61. Taskin, E. & Yigit, S. (2024). France tightens social media rules with children under 15 requiring parental consent to create accounts [E-news]. Anadolu Ajansı. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/france-tightens-social-media-rules-with-children-under-15-requiring-parental-consent-to-create-accounts/3435446
62. Taylor, M. J., Dove, E. S., Laurie, G. & Townend, D. (2018). When can the child speak for herself? The limits of parental consent in data protection law for health research. Medical Law Review, 26(3), 369-391. https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwx052
63. Tosuntaş, Ş. B. & Griffiths, M. D. (2024). Sharenting: A systematic review of the empirical literature. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 16(3), 525-562. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12566
64. Ugwudike, P., Lavorgna, A. & Tartari, M. (2024). Sharenting in Digital Society: Exploring the Prospects of an Emerging Moral Panic. Deviant Behavior, 45(4), 503-520. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2023.2254446
65. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2021). General comment No. 25 (2021) on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/general-comment-no-25-2021-childrens-rights-relation
66. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child-UNCRC Article 3, 44/25 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child - UNCRC § Article Child-Adults must do what’s best for me (1989). 20.11.1989 https://www.cypcs.org.uk/rights/uncrc/articles/article-12/
67. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child-UNCRC Article 12, 44/25 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child-UNCRC § Article 12-I have the right to be listened to and taken seriously (1989). 20.11.1989 https://www.cypcs.org.uk/rights/uncrc/articles/article-12/
68. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child-UNCRC Article 16, 44/25 UNCRC § UNCRC Article 16: I have the right to keep some things private (1989). 20.11.1989 https://www.cypcs.org.uk/rights/uncrc/articles/article-16/
69. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child-UNCRC Article 19, 44/25 UNCRC § UNCRC Article 19 I have the right to be protected from being hurt or badly treated (1989). 20.11.1989 https://www.cypcs.org.uk/rights/uncrc/articles/article-19/
70. UNICEF. (2025). Our mandate [Internet]. https://www.unicef.org/innocenti/our-mandate Wehmeier, S. & Schultz, F. (2011). Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility: A Storytelling Perspective. İçinde Ø. Ihlen, J. L. Bartlett, & S. May (Ed.), The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility (1. bs, pp. 467-488). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118083246.ch23
71. Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59(4), 329-349. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276
72. Zuboff, S. (2019). Surveillance Capitalism and the Challenge of Collective Action. New Labor Forum, 28(1), 10-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1095796018819461
73. Zwierlein, C. & Graf, R. (2010). Die Produktion von Human Security in Vormoderne und Zeitgeschichte/The Production of Human Security in Premodern and Contemporary History. Historical Social Research, 35, 721. https://doi.org/10.12759/HSR.35.2010.4.7-21.