Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 144 posts

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#81

Post by aroman »

blah32497 wrote: post #70
roc wrote: post #26

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 va…

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

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.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#82

Post by brunorsini »

Whatever happens to their daughter is going to happen to the entire world, pretty much, and thus is going to have to be addressed collectively by our future selves anyway. We just have to stand up to those who misuse the data in discriminatory ways, sure, but simply refusing to take part in the future of the collective human experience is hardly a real solution.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#83

Post by ceejayoz »

dylangs1030 wrote: post #78
sopooneo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Something about bridge jumping.

I hate it when people say this as a response. If I'm on a bridge, and people are jumping off en masse, then one of two things is happening: 1. They've all been mentally affected, in which case, I almost certainly am too, or; 2. They know something I don't. It's disingenuous to throw out a contrived example of a herd of people nonsensically jumping off a bridge. If that many people are jumping off a bridge, you probab…

There was a great Dilbert that had his mum asking him the "if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you?" question. His response was along the lines of "if they all came back and told me how awesome it was, yes".

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#84

Post by roc »

randallu wrote: post #42
roc wrote: post #26

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 va…

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...).

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.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#85

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

epoxyhockey wrote: post #17
rayiner wrote: post #11

I'm a new parent and my wife and I are not taking any measures to minimize our kid's Facebook exposure. As a general rule, it's pretty safe to "do what everybody else is doing." If Facebook albums parents made for kids when they were little come back to haunt this coming generation as a group, the ills will be remedied either by making or using certain sorts of analysis illegal (the college application hypothetical)…

As a general rule, it's pretty safe to do "what everybody else is doing." I noticed this rule after the housing crash. If one person was underwater on their mortgage, no one would blink. But, when hundreds of thousands of people become underwater, Congress started to get involved to (attempt to) provide relief. It seems impossible to limit someone's exposure on Facebook, especially when any 3rd party will happily pos…

>But, when hundreds of thousands of people become underwater, Congress started to get involved to (attempt to) provide relief.

Yeah, I was almost afraid that I had bought too small of a house, knowing that I would have to pay for my share of the mortgage bailout in extra taxes and value lost to inflation, I might as well buy the most ridiculous crib I could get financing for. Right? But then it came to pass that those bailout programs never really did much for underwater and overextended homeowners. Of course, none of that really makes me feel better, except that I can still afford my mortgage.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#86

Post by jlgreco »

enscr wrote: post #79

This article is written by a parent and being debated by pseudo-teenagers (~ 15-25 age group). Of course it'll be ripped apart just like my comment :) Who needs privacy until you are a parent yourself.

There is something like twice as many people using HN who are older than 25 than there are younger than 25, if the most recent age poll is to be believed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6058598

The old "you wouldn't understand if you aren't a yourself parent" line really is tiresome.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#89

Post by bobsy »

mbateman wrote: post #4

> We turned to KnowEm.com, a website I often rely on to search for usernames, even though the site is primarily intended as a brand registration service. We certainly had a front-runner for her name, but we would have chosen something different if the KnowEm results produced limited availability or if we found negative content associated with our selection. > With her name decided, we spent several hours registering…

I wonder how many of these sites will still exist in 10-16 years time. Will gmail still be running? Will it be the goto email provider?

The thing that is most bizarre is they care so much about protecting the kids online identity yet they registered real names. What if the kid wants to use an alias? I find it all a bit odd.

I completely get keeping pictures off of facebook. This setting up a virtual identity.. its weird.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#90

Post by j2d3 »

I don't post (much, though not nothing) about my son online, but for different reasons. The idea that you're going to realistically provide some kind of anonymity capability by not posting pics of your kid of FB is a fantasy. Facial recognition is going to be part of reality due to state, private, and personal facial recognition capabilities. At school, in public, at work, facial recognition technologies will track everyone - there will be no opting out and it won't matter what you did or didn't post on FB.

Resistance is futile.

Post reply on HN