"Why I won't post pictures of my children online"

In a world where there's a Facebook page for a fetus and moos like Julie Myerson and Heather Armstrong gain fame through exploiting their children online, it's refreshing to read about a parent who won't post pictures of her children (this is the link to the new article in the subject title).

Although the author is pretty enchanted with her children, she at least acknowledges that the world isn't: "It's not that I'm not enthusiastic about my children's activities or utterly convinced of their photogenic appeal -- even if I suspect that my followers and friends may not find them as fascinating as I do." I think she's being a little tongue-in-cheek when she refers to their "hilarious wisdom" because she then admits her mild bragging. If you get past the evidence of a light case of placenta-brain, her arguments boil down to the following:

1. Security concerns associated with having a public persona, and children not being able to choose to accept risks
2. Children have a right to choose how they will present themselves to the world when they are old enough to have an online identity
3. Children need to be comfortable with not sharing everything online "And I believe that would be more difficult if they'd already spent all their young lives as the stars of their parents' Facebook feeds."
4. Concern over negative comments* others may make about the children, and how this will affect them

It's an interesting contrast with the justification exercise Flotsam went through before reaching the conclusion that it was perfectly acceptable for her to post about her child despite the concerns she outlined.

Could it be that there are still a few parents out there who are concerned about their children's privacy and development of critical thought, and who want to protect them? Of course she steps away from suggesting that other parents ought to take her advice, perhaps because she knows how offended breeders get at someone trying to tell them how to raise their kids. However, they see making a different choice as a sign of a challenge, perhaps because either thinking about something that they put no thought into reveals their sloppy parhunting, or because they know in their hearts that they made the wrong decision.

So why be such a wuss and pretend you have no opinion on the matter, just as you have no opinion about the religion parents raise their children in? She'd be okay with raising children in a religion which involved sacrificing babies. Riiight. And she's likewise okay with parents who attention-whore about DD's first period, and blab about the measures undertaken to straighten DS's wonky penis?

I suppose I should be happy that at least she's thinking about the issue more than the parents she doesn't want to judge, because at least two kids in the world are getting some measure of parenting.



* I wonder if she knows us: "For many children, it's a short trip from the approving coos of grown-ups to the derisive mockery of schoolmates, and I am just fine with that trip not being today. Any time someone posts a photo or video, he or she is inviting an opinion of it. It doesn't seem like a big deal when it's a sweet image of a perfect baby. But it doesn't take long for images to wind up in different contexts, and to invite comparison and criticism." That's a lesson which hasn't been learned on the island.

I think it's dangerous for kid and moo safety to post everything from it's food-toy likes to where it attends school, it's schedule, what duddy does for a living, to where they live-eat-bank-shop, etc....... Many of these moo-cunts post SO MUCH info about their kids and themselves and the events relating to them that it would be very easy for anyone be aware of where that kid is at any given time, when it's alone and where, when moo is there by herself with brats, and how much money they could get their hands on as well as where the valuables are kept.

While duhs do it too, overwhelmingly it's the moos who indirectly disclose how much money their husband earns, how much they have in the bank, and practically give a list of their valuables too as they brag about themselves and their white picket fence lifestyles.:headbrick I am truly surprised there hasn't been a rash of home invasions or kidnappings for ransom that have been linked back to online disclosures such as the ones I have seen in recent years. Why not just send a personalized invitation to criminals?

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
If YOU are the "exception" to what I am saying, then why does my commentary bother you so much?
I don't hate your kids, I HATE YOU!

it is great to see parents who are not eager to turn their kids' lives into an exercise in voyeurism. i agree entirely that, not only do others not care about their kids' every little thing, but that exposing kids to an online presence opens them up to perverts and bullies. i think she is also trying to raise her kids in a healthy lifestyle where they know that they do not need to expose every aspect of their lives online. she is realistic-you cannot control everything-but she does the thing i do-if i post photos, i post older ones. or ones without my presence (such as my artwork).

as far as her being "placenta brained"-all parents are to a degree, even ones that seem not to be. the big thing is, though, that parents raise their kids to become healthy, functioning adults (even if the kids turn out to be something less desirable). this mother sounds concerned about many problems facing young kids and especially young girls and is addressing that. she is showing that parents, not culture and peer pressure, should have control over their kids' lives. i like that.

1. Security concerns associated with having a public persona, and children not being able to choose to accept risks
What kind of BS language is this? Why not just say if you put your kid's pic & info up, it's fodder for pedophiles. Plain and simple.

2. Children have a right to choose how they will present themselves to the world when they are old enough to have an online identity
Um, no they don't. They're children. They don't have any rights beyond what their parent(s) give them. Contrary to popular belief, the petulant desires of the chyyylldrennn do NOT run this world.

3. Children need to be comfortable with not sharing everything online "And I believe that would be more difficult if they'd already spent all their young lives as the stars of their parents' Facebook feeds."
Srsly, what does this really mean? It's more bullshit language. This person has spent too much time in touchy-feeling psych classes or counseling.

4. Concern over negative comments* others may make about the children, and how this will affect them
So if someone says your kid is ugly in the pic that YOU posted on YOUR facebook page, you're going to tell the kid so that he/she can feel bad about it. How is the kid going to know otherwise? Jesus fucking christ.

The bottom line is, pedophiles troll the internet looking for kids, even if it's for pics of kids in bathing suits to jack off to. If that's not enough of a reason to keep your kid's pic off the internet, then you are hopeless. Having to couch your "reasons" in psychobabble newage bullshit-speak is ludicrous.

Quote
Sorceress
1. Security concerns associated with having a public persona, and children not being able to choose to accept risks
What kind of BS language is this? Why not just say if you put your kid's pic & info up, it's fodder for pedophiles. Plain and simple.

2. Children have a right to choose how they will present themselves to the world when they are old enough to have an online identity
Um, no they don't. They're children. They don't have any rights beyond what their parent(s) give them. Contrary to popular belief, the petulant desires of the chyyylldrennn do NOT run this world.

3. Children need to be comfortable with not sharing everything online "And I believe that would be more difficult if they'd already spent all their young lives as the stars of their parents' Facebook feeds."
Srsly, what does this really mean? It's more bullshit language. This person has spent too much time in touchy-feeling psych classes or counseling.

4. Concern over negative comments* others may make about the children, and how this will affect them
So if someone says your kid is ugly in the pic that YOU posted on YOUR facebook page, you're going to tell the kid so that he/she can feel bad about it. How is the kid going to know otherwise? Jesus fucking christ.

The bottom line is, pedophiles troll the internet looking for kids, even if it's for pics of kids in bathing suits to jack off to. If that's not enough of a reason to keep your kid's pic off the internet, then you are hopeless. Having to couch your "reasons" in psychobabble newage bullshit-speak is ludicrous.

i think the overall message is she does not want her kids to be a part of a voyeuristic/exhibitionist culture at a young age and is instilling them with this idea. the article says each of these points in detail.

Even dumber than posting pics of their kids online are people who post information about the great vacation that they are about to take! I've seen more than a few friends update with exact dates of when they are leaving to go to some faraway destination. I've posted about my great vacation, as well, AFTER I've safely returned home! It seems so common sense to me that you wouldn't want it out there that you were going to be gone, far away, for a WEEK! But idiots post it all the time.

Quote
gymrat
Even dumber than posting pics of their kids online are people who post information about the great vacation that they are about to take! I've seen more than a few friends update with exact dates of when they are leaving to go to some faraway destination. I've posted about my great vacation, as well, AFTER I've safely returned home! It seems so common sense to me that you wouldn't want it out there that you were going to be gone, far away, for a WEEK! But idiots post it all the time.

me, too.

Quote
Sorceress
1. Security concerns associated with having a public persona, and children not being able to choose to accept risks
What kind of BS language is this? Why not just say if you put your kid's pic & info up, it's fodder for pedophiles. Plain and simple.

2. Children have a right to choose how they will present themselves to the world when they are old enough to have an online identity
Um, no they don't. They're children. They don't have any rights beyond what their parent(s) give them. Contrary to popular belief, the petulant desires of the chyyylldrennn do NOT run this world.

3. Children need to be comfortable with not sharing everything online "And I believe that would be more difficult if they'd already spent all their young lives as the stars of their parents' Facebook feeds."
Srsly, what does this really mean? It's more bullshit language. This person has spent too much time in touchy-feeling psych classes or counseling.

4. Concern over negative comments* others may make about the children, and how this will affect them
So if someone says your kid is ugly in the pic that YOU posted on YOUR facebook page, you're going to tell the kid so that he/she can feel bad about it. How is the kid going to know otherwise? Jesus fucking christ.

The bottom line is, pedophiles troll the internet looking for kids, even if it's for pics of kids in bathing suits to jack off to. If that's not enough of a reason to keep your kid's pic off the internet, then you are hopeless. Having to couch your "reasons" in psychobabble newage bullshit-speak is ludicrous.

Those were my summaries of what she said. She used a couple of paragraphs on each reason, so I summed it up for people who didn't want to read the article. I'll try to clarify what she meant on those points:

The first one had more rational grounds than a fear of pedophiles. She gets hate mail and death threats, and has been stalked. She doesn't want to expose her family to these people.

The second argument was that she felt that her children--when they are older--should have the opportunity to decide what makes up their online identities. That way her 20-year-old daughter won't be stuck with having the top hit for her name be a photo of her, age 5, sitting on the potty, as posted by moo 15 years before. (Note: Society does grant children some rights, such as the right not to be murdered or abused by their parents. I would argue that privacy is another right every person should have, regardless of age.)

The third is as zatoth said: she wants her children to learn to think before they act, and be aware that material which is posted online takes on a life of its own, so you should think before you post something, instead of making your entire life public. She thinks that it would be harder to teach this lesson if she, as the parent, posted every tidbit about her daughters' lives online.

With the fourth, I think her concern is about the children finding this material. I'm sure she wouldn't tell them, but it's not that hard for them to encounter it, if it exists.

Personally, I thought they were good arguments, but I'm also of the opinion that privacy is important (and that part of the parent's role involves protecting a child's privacy rather than attention-whoring via the child), and that over-sharing is a modern plague.

I've posted about going on vacation, but only the people on my friends list can see my status and I know everyone on my friends list except one person in another country who has the same name I do. I don't post my address or even my city in my Facebook profile. My phone number's unlisted, so while it's not impossible to get my address from internet searches for my name, it's not easy either.

I don't get the check in application. Aside from the stalking part, I wouldn't want to bore my friends with a recounting of my every single move throughout the day.

I don't have the tracking device. My friends and family don't need to know I am stuck in gridlock or taking a shit.

As for the home invasion theory....we have a rash of them here and they are all in the "famblee friendly" neighborhoods. I live in the city and you almost never hear of them happening here. They are all in suburbia. Go figure.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From a bottle cap message on a Magic Hat #9 beer: Condoms Prevent Minivans
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I want to pick up a bus full of unruly kids and feed them gummi bears and crack, then turn them loose in Hobby Lobby to ransack the place. They will all be wearing T shirts that say "You Could Have Prevented This."

Quote
yurble

Quote
Sorceress
1. Security concerns associated with having a public persona, and children not being able to choose to accept risks
What kind of BS language is this? Why not just say if you put your kid's pic & info up, it's fodder for pedophiles. Plain and simple.

2. Children have a right to choose how they will present themselves to the world when they are old enough to have an online identity
Um, no they don't. They're children. They don't have any rights beyond what their parent(s) give them. Contrary to popular belief, the petulant desires of the chyyylldrennn do NOT run this world.

3. Children need to be comfortable with not sharing everything online "And I believe that would be more difficult if they'd already spent all their young lives as the stars of their parents' Facebook feeds."
Srsly, what does this really mean? It's more bullshit language. This person has spent too much time in touchy-feeling psych classes or counseling.

4. Concern over negative comments* others may make about the children, and how this will affect them
So if someone says your kid is ugly in the pic that YOU posted on YOUR facebook page, you're going to tell the kid so that he/she can feel bad about it. How is the kid going to know otherwise? Jesus fucking christ.

The bottom line is, pedophiles troll the internet looking for kids, even if it's for pics of kids in bathing suits to jack off to. If that's not enough of a reason to keep your kid's pic off the internet, then you are hopeless. Having to couch your "reasons" in psychobabble newage bullshit-speak is ludicrous.

Those were my summaries of what she said. She used a couple of paragraphs on each reason, so I summed it up for people who didn't want to read the article. I'll try to clarify what she meant on those points:

The first one had more rational grounds than a fear of pedophiles. She gets hate mail and death threats, and has been stalked. She doesn't want to expose her family to these people.

The second argument was that she felt that her children--when they are older--should have the opportunity to decide what makes up their online identities. That way her 20-year-old daughter won't be stuck with having the top hit for her name be a photo of her, age 5, sitting on the potty, as posted by moo 15 years before. (Note: Society does grant children some rights, such as the right not to be murdered or abused by their parents. I would argue that privacy is another right every person should have, regardless of age.)

The third is as zatoth said: she wants her children to learn to think before they act, and be aware that material which is posted online takes on a life of its own, so you should think before you post something, instead of making your entire life public. She thinks that it would be harder to teach this lesson if she, as the parent, posted every tidbit about her daughters' lives online.

With the fourth, I think her concern is about the children finding this material. I'm sure she wouldn't tell them, but it's not that hard for them to encounter it, if it exists.

Personally, I thought they were good arguments, but I'm also of the opinion that privacy is important (and that part of the parent's role involves protecting a child's privacy rather than attention-whoring via the child), and that over-sharing is a modern plague.

the mother keeps in mind: what is seen is not unseen. i think she wants a healthy approach to the internet-you put up certain accomplishments, such as her daughters in a play-and you use discretion. she is also correct in wanting to allow her daughters to decide what they need to present as themselves when the time comes-it is far easier to instill proper, healthy approaches to a media when you teach by example rather than "do as i say, not as i do". it is further an acknowledgement, unlike many of the mothers we complain of, that kids see their parents as role models. there is going to come a time when her children are going to want to present a certain image that will affect how others see and react to them. one day, these kids are going to want to get into college, look for jobs and work with others and a lot of kids are hurting themselves by posting up every detail of their lives. who wants to hire a college graduate into a business making decisions that could cost the company thousand, millions or even billions of dollars when the person has a video on youtube of him and his high, drunk friends engaging in a fart lighting contest? i'm certain, when her daughters are ready, she will be telling them that posting a video up on youtube or posting information on twitter, facebook and other social networking sites is telling the world your business.