5 ms·

That that would also be a generation who had their baby and childhood pictures unwittingly shared and now owned by social media companies. This is something I f

That that would also be a generation who had their baby and childhood pictures unwittingly shared and now owned by social media companies. This is something I find really strange and unsettling.

TuringTest 8y ago
I don't know why you've been downvoted, when you make a good point. I do think that for young people, "the people who is around" will not be necessarily people near in the physical world. Teenagers mainly communicate through chat groups, and work trends don't seem to go towards encouraging more physical presence. Thus a reaction against current social networks would take the form of using more private, ephemeral channels (think Snapchat), and reduced, more controlled usage of public-facing ones (Tweeter, Facebook, Instagram).
TaupeRanger 8y ago
Yes it's so unsettling that their parents privately shared photos and videos of then with family members and friends. They will be horrified of this, I'm sure.
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  I've seen how some of my family members share photos of their kids and grandkids. It ain't private - most of them are set to "Public", and are going to stay that way. Even if it's just shared with "Friends", most people will Facebook-friend a much wider range of people than who they would consider friends in real life. It's not just the close friends and family members who, a couple decades back, might have got a chance to thumb through the family photo album. It's also often your co-workers, friends-of-friends, and that person you got drunk with in a hotel bar 6 years ago and sporadically chatted up on Facebook Messenger for a few months after that. Even if nothing practical comes of it, I wouldn't at all blame kids who grew up in the Facebook era for being pissed about it. The harm isn't in what people who are seeing it are doing, the harm is the over-sharing itself.
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    When you post something to the Internet, you should assume it is or eventually will be public. You’re sending it to a for-profit company, not privately to someone you know, and hoping they do the right thing with it forever. What are the chances? It doesn’t really matter whether you asked the company to pretty please make it private. I think best case is there will be a generation whose only “online presence” are the stuff about them from ages 0-10 that their social media obsessed parents posted before the kid could acquire any agency in their own online life.
PascLeRasc 8y ago
I really admire what a family friend did after she had a baby. She isn't posting any photos of him on social media, and says it's because he can't consent to have his photos shared publicly. Lots of her friends keep pestering her saying "I want to see the baby!" and she says they're welcome to come over, and suddenly they don't want to see him that much. They just want something they can click like on.
- giobox 8y ago
  This logic is bizarre to me. He can’t consent to being fed, clothed or having his diaper changed either. I imagine she likely still does all three. For a parent, making choices on your child’s behalf is kinda part of the deal.
  - saghm 8y ago
    Not feeding, clothing, or changing your baby's diaper is objectively bad for their health; not sharing their pictures on Facebook is not anywhere close to that. I don't see how it's bizarre to want to keep your baby healthy but otherwise let them decide things for themselves once they're old enough.
  - bogomipz 8y ago
    >"For a parent, making choices on your child’s behalf is kinda part of the deal" And this person has made the decision for their child that whatever social media company is not going to own their child's image. What is is "bizarre" about that. I hardly think caring for a child and letting a corporation own their image are even remotely the same thing.
    - giobox 8y ago
      I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said, it’s perfectly fair, but what you’ve said is not the logic she is using. If she had said this I see no logical discrepancy, but to couch your logic in terms of a child’s lack of consent is the point that makes little sense.

That that would also be a generation who had their baby and childhood pictures unwittingly shared and now owned by social media companies. This is something I find really strange and unsettling.

TuringTest 8y ago

I don't know why you've been downvoted, when you make a good point. I do think that for young people, "the people who is around" will not be necessarily people near in the physical world. Teenagers mainly communicate through chat groups, and work trends don't seem to go towards encouraging more physical presence. Thus a reaction against current social networks would take the form of using more private, ephemeral channels (think Snapchat), and reduced, more controlled usage of public-facing ones (Tweeter, Facebook, Instagram).

TaupeRanger 8y ago

Yes it's so unsettling that their parents privately shared photos and videos of then with family members and friends. They will be horrified of this, I'm sure.

bunderbunder 8y ago
I've seen how some of my family members share photos of their kids and grandkids. It ain't private - most of them are set to "Public", and are going to stay that way. Even if it's just shared with "Friends", most people will Facebook-friend a much wider range of people than who they would consider friends in real life. It's not just the close friends and family members who, a couple decades back, might have got a chance to thumb through the family photo album. It's also often your co-workers, friends-of-friends, and that person you got drunk with in a hotel bar 6 years ago and sporadically chatted up on Facebook Messenger for a few months after that. Even if nothing practical comes of it, I wouldn't at all blame kids who grew up in the Facebook era for being pissed about it. The harm isn't in what people who are seeing it are doing, the harm is the over-sharing itself.
- ryandrake 8y ago
  When you post something to the Internet, you should assume it is or eventually will be public. You’re sending it to a for-profit company, not privately to someone you know, and hoping they do the right thing with it forever. What are the chances? It doesn’t really matter whether you asked the company to pretty please make it private. I think best case is there will be a generation whose only “online presence” are the stuff about them from ages 0-10 that their social media obsessed parents posted before the kid could acquire any agency in their own online life.

PascLeRasc 8y ago

I really admire what a family friend did after she had a baby. She isn't posting any photos of him on social media, and says it's because he can't consent to have his photos shared publicly. Lots of her friends keep pestering her saying "I want to see the baby!" and she says they're welcome to come over, and suddenly they don't want to see him that much. They just want something they can click like on.

giobox 8y ago
This logic is bizarre to me. He can’t consent to being fed, clothed or having his diaper changed either. I imagine she likely still does all three. For a parent, making choices on your child’s behalf is kinda part of the deal.
- saghm 8y ago
  Not feeding, clothing, or changing your baby's diaper is objectively bad for their health; not sharing their pictures on Facebook is not anywhere close to that. I don't see how it's bizarre to want to keep your baby healthy but otherwise let them decide things for themselves once they're old enough.
- bogomipz 8y ago
  >"For a parent, making choices on your child’s behalf is kinda part of the deal" And this person has made the decision for their child that whatever social media company is not going to own their child's image. What is is "bizarre" about that. I hardly think caring for a child and letting a corporation own their image are even remotely the same thing.
  - giobox 8y ago
    I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said, it’s perfectly fair, but what you’ve said is not the logic she is using. If she had said this I see no logical discrepancy, but to couch your logic in terms of a child’s lack of consent is the point that makes little sense.