Photo: Instagram/Viih Tube / Pipoca Moderna
A speech by former BBB Eliezer Netto about “making money as Lua’s father”, his daughter with influencer Viih Tube, had repercussions on social media and has been causing controversy since Friday (26/4). The statement was interpreted by many internet users as an admission that he exploited his daughter’s image to make a commercial profit.
Conversation was about post-reality from ex-BBBs
It all started when Eliezer commented on the difficulties that former participants of “Big Brother Brasil” face in boosting their careers after the reality show. In response to a comment that questioned his success, he stated that “not all anonymous people who join BBB guarantee money with advertising in the post-program”.
“This expectation of making a lot of money with post-publicity was created after ‘Big Brother 21’, where all the participants made money very quickly. But the truth is that it’s too difficult and this thing about ‘after BBB, I’m rich ‘ is pure illusion”, highlighted Eliezer.
When a follower pointed out that he was known to have married Viih Tube, he shot back. “I don’t agree. Being the husband of someone famous is not enough to stay in the media or close publications. If that were the case, all the husbands of someone famous would be in the media booming. I didn’t fall into oblivion because I had a strategy and found myself in a niche.”
He then added: “In other words, for brands, this is construction and discourse. I made money as Lua’s father, not as Viih Tube’s husband.”
The phrase “I made money as the father of the Moon” was the one that generated most of the criticism. Many internet users interpreted it as an admission of exploiting a minor.
“And can we now question the commercialization of a child’s image on the internet?” asked a user on X, formerly Twitter. “I can’t believe he had the gall to write shit like that and thought it was good form to post it,” criticized another. “He really said that? Courage”, joked a third.
Eliezer has not yet commented on the criticism. But some internet users took up his defense, stating that he just meant that his life as a father made him more attractive to brands, and that he doesn’t exploit his daughter’s image inappropriately.
However, most criticism focuses on the phrase’s lack of clarity and the possibility that it normalizes the commercialization of children’s images on social media.
