good.
This is no different than regulations around child actors, which are widely considered good and necessary protections of vulnerable children.
The point is that there are some things so risky for kids that parents shouldn't be able to "consent for them". One of those things is child labor.
> This argument is weirdly circular.
Circular doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
Parents have control over their children, but society has put boundaries on what they can do to them because parents are capable of great harm. There's nothing circular about that.
Especially the cases where the children are obvious victims of abuse. Some people literally use (and treat) their children as props, for internet points.
It's regularly exploitative and should be under at least the same laws as child actors are under, with all the protections in place that child actors have for the money they earn, etc.
And while we're at it, we should probably re-evaluate child actor laws to make sure they're sufficiently protected from the bad actor and actor strategies that have evolved since the original child actor laws have gone through.
Tell that to Brooke Shields and many other children who were sexualized on camera with the consent of their parents and still have psychological damage.
There have also been parents who literally tortured their children on YouTube for laughs[1].
1. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/child-abuse-charges-aga...
Certainly working in a coal mine is worse, but they are both child labor.