6 ms·

This seems incredibly odd to me. On one hand, they indicate strongly valued privacy with the "no posts about the child" rule; seemingly recognizing the hidden

by roc 13y ago

This seems incredibly odd to me. On one hand, they indicate strongly valued privacy with the "no posts about the child" rule; seemingly recognizing the hidden costs of permissive 'oversharing'. But, on the other hand, they place a very high importance on reserving (vanity) domain and user names, securing the right for her to sharecrop out her personal information in as-accurate-a-means as possible; reinforcing the value and importance of being able to overshare? e.g. Reserving JaneAnnSmith.com at birth to ... what? Spare her the inconvenience/indirection of someone else buying that domain in the intervening years and her having to instead register jasmith.com or (heaven forbid) jane-ann-smith.com ? Securing facebook.com/janeannsmith to spare her facebook.com/123456789 or something? And does anyone even think for a moment that it's likely for today's real-name-based social networks will be relevant, years from now? Reserving a Facebook name today is akin to having reserved a geocities name, at birth, for a child who will graduate high school next year -- and that's for the earliest of early adopters. Were the name registered for a child born around geocities peak, that child may still be in junior high. The ephemeral nature of these networks (over such time frames) only further underscores the apparent importance the parents are placing on precisely identifying her online history. (getting that facebook username just in case it's still relevant...) It seems rather than teaching their child to value privacy, to understand the power/benefit dynamic of these networks, to hopefully avoid her growing up forever linked to juvenile mis-steps, they're instead raising her to be a narcissist. That is: Not to value her privacy and personal identity in and of themselves, but to value privacy and personal identity as a tool to 'spin' her public identity in the most-favorable fashion.

randallu 13y ago
I agree with you, but I suppose the point is to make it the child's decision to share or not when they become mature enough to make that choice. (Personally my wife and I have no information on our kids online, save a self-hosted blog with a password that only family know...).
- narcissus 13y ago
  The point may also be to make sure that someone else doesn't make that decision for their child. That is to say, to make sure that some kid in their class doesn't decide to grab the name so that they can set up a fake profile for their daughter...
- roc 13y ago
  Sure, the spoken lesson is: be careful what you share, there are risks. But the article isn't about privacy conscientiousness, it's about brand conscientiousness. The author isn't talking about how she might construct rules to effect a safe space for her daughter to grow and learn and internalize these values, separate from known pitfalls that might cause her harm. The author talks only about how she constructed a safe space for her daughter's brand, separate from whatever might befall her daughter while she's maturing. It's might seem like a minor distinction, but it doesn't feel that way to me. It makes the whole article feel essentially disingenuous.
  - wonderzombie 13y ago
    Disingenuous how? I genuinely don't understand. The idea is to get out ahead of all the social networking bits, and create a deliberately blank slate. All of that stuff is placeholder, neutral, for as long as the kid wants it to be so. The kid's free to fill all that in, or not, but the child won't start with a bunch of their personal data filled in. That last part is consistent with the stated beliefs/goals of the author, bearing in mind that over time data only accretes and there's no undo.
    - roc 13y ago
      'Desirable' usernames are, technically speaking, as close to irrelevant to privacy as you can get. Your behavior with an account is what matters for privacy, not the account name. [1] Yet the article is entirely about the account names and only somewhat in passing about the sorts of lessons the author hopes her daughter learns about "how (not) to conduct yourself online". And without those lessons... you can 'protect' facebook.com/janeannsmith all you want, but if your daughter makes privacy-eroding mistakes with reddit.com/u/sparklepony2031 -- those can be trivially connected to facebook.com/janeannsmith the second you hand over the 'keys' to that account. That's the whole point about the loss of privacy online. Once the accounts are associated to you, those associations last forever and follow you immediately and irrevocably anywhere else an account becomes associated to you. [1] sure, sure -- using your real name as a username is Bad For Privacy, but the author wasn't talking about janeannsmith vs sparklepony2031. They were talking about janeannsmith vs jane-ann-smith and janeannsmith vs janineannsmith -- should jane ann smith have turned out to be the name of a porn star or third world dictator or some such. Frankly, as far as privacy goes via name conflicts, you're better off being named Mike Johnson and having lots of collisions, even if some are negative, than having some unique name that doesn't have an online association yet. Some plausible deniability is better than none. However, for branding, the opposite is true. Which, again, underscores how the author's behavior seems to be much more about branding than privacy.
blah32497 13y ago
People keep saying facebook will disappear... but maybe it won't? Maybe it will become like email, less used but ever-present.
- enscr 13y ago
  That's a big 'Maybe' given the timeframe
- pstack 13y ago
  Unfortunately, I believe Facebook toed over that critical mass that has moved it into a long-term dominator of social networking. It has long since passed the point where it's going to just go away and be replaced by something else, like Myspace and other past social sites were. They may not be around forever, but it seems unlikely they'll be unseated any time soon. We are no longer in an age where a bunch of geeks moving on to something new changes the dynamic of the internet. We are now in a time when the average Joe Sixpack and his grandmother don't look for new things, don't try new things, and don't care about new things. They will stick with Facebook indefinitely, the same way a lot of people still stick with the big three over the air networks for their sole television entertainment.
  - ratscabies 13y ago
    AOL is still around, and my sister still has, and uses (infrequently)and aol.com address. Though she would prefer I communicated via facebook.
- aroman 13y ago
  Even if it doesn't disappear, it's guaranteed to change a lot in the future. As the top poster pointed out, this whole namestring-is-unique-token idea is not sustainable nor elegant. Surely in the future there will be a better way of differentiating ourselves than "john-doe.com", "johndoe.com", "jdoe.me", etc. And what happens when JohnDoe #1 and John Doe #2 are famous people? Who gets the "verified" badge on social networks? It isn't sustainable, and Facebook and others are bound to change this sooner or later.
pstack 13y ago
It isn't odd, at all. It's great to see someone treat their child's privacy with some value, instead of using them as a way to endear themselves to virtual friends or get laughs and votes on reddit, while putting photos and information out there about their kid, without the kid's permission, that will be there forever. The rest of us had the opportunity to come to the internet in a time when someone wasn't putting our information out there. Reserving accounts at places on their behalf, as well as domains, is also a smart choice. It isn't placing importance on anything. It is simply giving their child the option to have these things in the future. Hopefully, facebook won't exist when this kid grows up. But there's a chance it might. And if it does, then this kid doesn't have to compete with someone else taking the name. More importantly, it prevents someone else from pretending to be you. I have to do this with my name, too. I have an account on Facebook, though I despise it. Same with the other big social networks and other things I don't use. I have been on the receiving end of someone who was upset with me (one a user I banned from my site after defrauding other users) and did things like make an account under my name and put awful stuff out there as "me". That would be more difficult to do if I'd already staked my claim to that identity (even if I didn't use it). What these parents are doing is simply investing in retaining the tools with which their child will someday be able to safeguard their privacy and - if necessary - build their professional or other identity. It's worthwhile, today. It'll be even more worthwhile in the future. Really, I fail to see how anyone can have any problem with this.
- roc 13y ago
  I don't have a problem with an attempt at privacy. I grok that: I have no social networking accounts, nor does my wife, nor is an electronic record of any child of mine tagged, tracked and overshared online. What I don't get is the disconnect between their claim that oversharing is bad and privacy is good, but their actions that underscore a belief that Facebook is really, really important.
  - gnaffle 13y ago
    I don't really get the problem. While they have their priorities, Facebook IS important for many people, and might very well be in the future, so making sure to register the right usernames etc. in case is the right thing to do. Just like it's the right thing to do to register domain names if you start a company, regardless of whether you have an immediate intention of launching a website.
tbirdz 13y ago
I think the point is to give your child the right to choose what (if any) they want to share at an age when they are old enough to responsibly make that decision herself, and not forcibly thrust into it before she could even talk, or walk.
- zhemao 13y ago
  I think we all understand that part (the "no posting pictures of our kid" part). It's just that many of us (myself included), don't understand the purpose of creating a bunch of social networking accounts for her at birth. Wouldn't it be better to let her create her own accounts when she's older? I mean, maybe she would rather have a different email address or Twitter handle. I think she should be allowed to discover the internet on her own terms, with some guidance from Mom and Dad, instead of being handed the keys to an "internet trust fund".
frankblizzard 13y ago
the geocities / facebook comparision is pure gold. And yes, I really hope the whole real-name social network trend will be overcome again.

by roc 13y ago

randallu 13y ago

I agree with you, but I suppose the point is to make it the child's decision to share or not when they become mature enough to make that choice. (Personally my wife and I have no information on our kids online, save a self-hosted blog with a password that only family know...).

narcissus 13y ago
The point may also be to make sure that someone else doesn't make that decision for their child. That is to say, to make sure that some kid in their class doesn't decide to grab the name so that they can set up a fake profile for their daughter...
roc 13y ago
Sure, the spoken lesson is: be careful what you share, there are risks. But the article isn't about privacy conscientiousness, it's about brand conscientiousness. The author isn't talking about how she might construct rules to effect a safe space for her daughter to grow and learn and internalize these values, separate from known pitfalls that might cause her harm. The author talks only about how she constructed a safe space for her daughter's brand, separate from whatever might befall her daughter while she's maturing. It's might seem like a minor distinction, but it doesn't feel that way to me. It makes the whole article feel essentially disingenuous.
- wonderzombie 13y ago
  Disingenuous how? I genuinely don't understand. The idea is to get out ahead of all the social networking bits, and create a deliberately blank slate. All of that stuff is placeholder, neutral, for as long as the kid wants it to be so. The kid's free to fill all that in, or not, but the child won't start with a bunch of their personal data filled in. That last part is consistent with the stated beliefs/goals of the author, bearing in mind that over time data only accretes and there's no undo.
  - roc 13y ago
    'Desirable' usernames are, technically speaking, as close to irrelevant to privacy as you can get. Your behavior with an account is what matters for privacy, not the account name. [1] Yet the article is entirely about the account names and only somewhat in passing about the sorts of lessons the author hopes her daughter learns about "how (not) to conduct yourself online". And without those lessons... you can 'protect' facebook.com/janeannsmith all you want, but if your daughter makes privacy-eroding mistakes with reddit.com/u/sparklepony2031 -- those can be trivially connected to facebook.com/janeannsmith the second you hand over the 'keys' to that account. That's the whole point about the loss of privacy online. Once the accounts are associated to you, those associations last forever and follow you immediately and irrevocably anywhere else an account becomes associated to you. [1] sure, sure -- using your real name as a username is Bad For Privacy, but the author wasn't talking about janeannsmith vs sparklepony2031. They were talking about janeannsmith vs jane-ann-smith and janeannsmith vs janineannsmith -- should jane ann smith have turned out to be the name of a porn star or third world dictator or some such. Frankly, as far as privacy goes via name conflicts, you're better off being named Mike Johnson and having lots of collisions, even if some are negative, than having some unique name that doesn't have an online association yet. Some plausible deniability is better than none. However, for branding, the opposite is true. Which, again, underscores how the author's behavior seems to be much more about branding than privacy.

blah32497 13y ago

People keep saying facebook will disappear... but maybe it won't? Maybe it will become like email, less used but ever-present.

enscr 13y ago
That's a big 'Maybe' given the timeframe
pstack 13y ago
Unfortunately, I believe Facebook toed over that critical mass that has moved it into a long-term dominator of social networking. It has long since passed the point where it's going to just go away and be replaced by something else, like Myspace and other past social sites were. They may not be around forever, but it seems unlikely they'll be unseated any time soon. We are no longer in an age where a bunch of geeks moving on to something new changes the dynamic of the internet. We are now in a time when the average Joe Sixpack and his grandmother don't look for new things, don't try new things, and don't care about new things. They will stick with Facebook indefinitely, the same way a lot of people still stick with the big three over the air networks for their sole television entertainment.
- ratscabies 13y ago
  AOL is still around, and my sister still has, and uses (infrequently)and aol.com address. Though she would prefer I communicated via facebook.
aroman 13y ago
Even if it doesn't disappear, it's guaranteed to change a lot in the future. As the top poster pointed out, this whole namestring-is-unique-token idea is not sustainable nor elegant. Surely in the future there will be a better way of differentiating ourselves than "john-doe.com", "johndoe.com", "jdoe.me", etc. And what happens when JohnDoe #1 and John Doe #2 are famous people? Who gets the "verified" badge on social networks? It isn't sustainable, and Facebook and others are bound to change this sooner or later.

pstack 13y ago

It isn't odd, at all. It's great to see someone treat their child's privacy with some value, instead of using them as a way to endear themselves to virtual friends or get laughs and votes on reddit, while putting photos and information out there about their kid, without the kid's permission, that will be there forever. The rest of us had the opportunity to come to the internet in a time when someone wasn't putting our information out there. Reserving accounts at places on their behalf, as well as domains, is also a smart choice. It isn't placing importance on anything. It is simply giving their child the option to have these things in the future. Hopefully, facebook won't exist when this kid grows up. But there's a chance it might. And if it does, then this kid doesn't have to compete with someone else taking the name. More importantly, it prevents someone else from pretending to be you. I have to do this with my name, too. I have an account on Facebook, though I despise it. Same with the other big social networks and other things I don't use. I have been on the receiving end of someone who was upset with me (one a user I banned from my site after defrauding other users) and did things like make an account under my name and put awful stuff out there as "me". That would be more difficult to do if I'd already staked my claim to that identity (even if I didn't use it). What these parents are doing is simply investing in retaining the tools with which their child will someday be able to safeguard their privacy and - if necessary - build their professional or other identity. It's worthwhile, today. It'll be even more worthwhile in the future. Really, I fail to see how anyone can have any problem with this.

roc 13y ago
I don't have a problem with an attempt at privacy. I grok that: I have no social networking accounts, nor does my wife, nor is an electronic record of any child of mine tagged, tracked and overshared online. What I don't get is the disconnect between their claim that oversharing is bad and privacy is good, but their actions that underscore a belief that Facebook is really, really important.
- gnaffle 13y ago
  I don't really get the problem. While they have their priorities, Facebook IS important for many people, and might very well be in the future, so making sure to register the right usernames etc. in case is the right thing to do. Just like it's the right thing to do to register domain names if you start a company, regardless of whether you have an immediate intention of launching a website.

tbirdz 13y ago

I think the point is to give your child the right to choose what (if any) they want to share at an age when they are old enough to responsibly make that decision herself, and not forcibly thrust into it before she could even talk, or walk.

zhemao 13y ago
I think we all understand that part (the "no posting pictures of our kid" part). It's just that many of us (myself included), don't understand the purpose of creating a bunch of social networking accounts for her at birth. Wouldn't it be better to let her create her own accounts when she's older? I mean, maybe she would rather have a different email address or Twitter handle. I think she should be allowed to discover the internet on her own terms, with some guidance from Mom and Dad, instead of being handed the keys to an "internet trust fund".

frankblizzard 13y ago

the geocities / facebook comparision is pure gold. And yes, I really hope the whole real-name social network trend will be overcome again.