I think you're misunderstanding me, they are obviously using making YouTube videos as a way of making money as a lot of other people do I just don't think they keep adopting kids to make money. They've both said they started making videos to have memories of their kids and that
It is possible that earning additional money from YouTube is helping them support more kids than they would be able to otherwise but both families have other sources of income. They are earning money in a lot of other ways as well (stock trading, real estate, app development) which are probably all a lot easier that fostering to adopt.
I did some double checking. They started doing foster care over a decade ago, their channel was created in August 2015 after already having adopted Ariana the year before in 2014 (which is when they were initially wanting to adopt Melinda) and they've only really been making regular content for the last 3 years. Their second video is the adoption video for Alex, Hannah and Brody.
The Middles also joined YouTube in 2015 and at that time they already had adopted Cody, Lacey, Lizzie, Jonathan, Destiny, Cynthia and were fostering Weston, Spencer and three others.
That's a lot of kids pre-YouTube if they are not genuinely interested in foster care and adoption.
Oh yeah, of course they have other income streams and started adopting before youtube. I do not judge their choice for initially starting adopting and fostering whatsoever. I think they are genuinely interested in adoption and love looking after children. That doesn't take away from the fact that they are using those adopted children to make money on youtube.
You wouldn't get videos of 'new adoption' of 'my new adopted name' in the voyeuristic tone that they do, without there being a draw with the money. If it was only about adoption, they wouldn't blast it out there for the world to see. This is genuine virtue signalling. Aren't we wonderful, we've adopted all these vulnerable children... only to put them on youtube, where people on tattle and in their comment sections judge and comment on the children's appearance or personality and their history, that is simply not protecting your children. They are aware of the mental health implications that social media brings, they are not stupid... yet they continue to film their vulnerable children... make it make sense? And that's without saying that the 'my adoption story' 'meeting bio siblings for the first time' is exploitative of their privacy, and never-mind the money that brings in. How could you say that earning 100.000s doesn't influence them on adopting more and more children. It is a money earner, whether thats what they were originally aiming for or not.
The idea of showing the children and 'teasing' the audience with shots of them BEFORE they are adopted is weird. There are full shots of those three newly adopted kids before they were legally adopted. That's breaking their fostering regulations.... so theyre risking their license for... clicks? For more money? Or are their editing skills not up to par? If their editing skills are not good enough to blur a child, then perhaps filming is too risky? You know, because theyre doing it for their love of children and adopting... but they dont, they clickbait these children and their injuries (don't get me started on the hospital videos and car wreck videos) within an inch of their lives. If they were doing it all and only for the kids welfare, they would't have them on camera at all, until adoption. They also have them reiterate traumatic stories and why they were adopted on youtube videos as well?? They're children, they need protecting. Especially the ones who had to go to court.
And they can make videos and memories, why does it need to be publicly posted to youtube? I have videos of my childhood, stored on disk and vhs, there is absolutely no need to have it publicly available. If theyre doing it for other adopted/adoptive parents....why does it have to be monetised if they're just giving advice to other people? Why does it all have to be branded? Why does it need to be a cliff hanger on some videos? Why are they buying newer camera equipment or asking their audience for ideas of what they want to see? That doesn't tell me that they're making memories. It tells me they've created a business.
Also, children cannot consent to having their image and story out there. So even if they are happy now, to tell all these deeply personal stories for millions to watch and judge, they physically and mentally cannot grasp the long term implications of this. University? Jobs? Future relationships?
Mukbangs = the people who do this, ate before. They enjoyed many a meal in their lives before they popped it on youtube. Does not mean that they aren't doing it for money now? I think not. I think you can do something for many years, doesn't mean you won't monetise it in the future. And then do more of said thing, to make more money. Think of nikocadoavocado. 1000000% monetised something he was already doing, did more of it to make more money. CP and CM, adopted before youtube, started making money, so they did it more.
