3 ms·

I kind of see an argument here: kids can't consent, and once the pic of them doing something stupid gets online, it will never be deleted. There are notorious

I kind of see an argument here: kids can't consent, and once the pic of them doing something stupid gets online, it will never be deleted. There are notorious "Instagram parents" who post their kids doing embarrasing things and getting pranked. When the kids grow up, what if they don't like those pictures and the attention it gives them? Even if you're not one of those parents, and have perfectly good intentions, you never know what goes viral. Maybe the picture of your kid gets used as a stock photo by some shady company, it gets millions of views, and now random other kids and adults are harassing them. That being said, the blanket policy "no pictures, ever" is still ridiculous. They should at least mandate that no pictures should be posted publicly online (which may actually be legally mandated in some places). And even then, the days of viral videos like "charlie bit my finger" are over, the odds of your kid's photo posted in some random facebook group actually becoming viral are exceedingly small.

flycaliguy 4y ago
It would be funny if a social media company had the long term plan to become a legal service for the children of their users. They could sue their parents and the company would get a cut.
low_tech_love 4y ago
Not sure if I understood you correctly, but the idea of a policy that protects children from their own parents seems really far-fetched (?). From the other parents, sure; yeah, there is social media and sharing will happen. But when exactly do we go from “a person shared a photo with me in the background in a pose I didn’t like” to “let’s preemptively stop human beings from doing something stupid by prohibiting everything”? Should we really assume that it’s more likely for someone to be shamed by another human being (because of a photo they took) than not? Or, in other words, that the probability of shaming happening is so high it deserves preemptive prohibition? I think we should assume parents are responsible and that the pictures will be a positive memory (then deal with it when it doesn’t happen) than assuming that everyone is a pervert and thus making everyone pay for that.
- nyanpasu64 4y ago
  Many parents are irresponsible or even outright harmful to children.

flycaliguy 4y ago

It would be funny if a social media company had the long term plan to become a legal service for the children of their users. They could sue their parents and the company would get a cut.

low_tech_love 4y ago

Not sure if I understood you correctly, but the idea of a policy that protects children from their own parents seems really far-fetched (?). From the other parents, sure; yeah, there is social media and sharing will happen. But when exactly do we go from “a person shared a photo with me in the background in a pose I didn’t like” to “let’s preemptively stop human beings from doing something stupid by prohibiting everything”? Should we really assume that it’s more likely for someone to be shamed by another human being (because of a photo they took) than not? Or, in other words, that the probability of shaming happening is so high it deserves preemptive prohibition? I think we should assume parents are responsible and that the pictures will be a positive memory (then deal with it when it doesn’t happen) than assuming that everyone is a pervert and thus making everyone pay for that.

nyanpasu64 4y ago
Many parents are irresponsible or even outright harmful to children.