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

91–100 of 144 posts

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#91

Post by roc »

pstack wrote: post #77
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…

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 ou…

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.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#92

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

agilord wrote: post #32
epoxyhockey wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It seems impossible to limit someone's exposure on Facebook, I don't think anyone is forced to use it. I know several families who have account, yet, they don't share on it or use it for anything that could be embarrassing in the later years. > especially when any 3rd party will happily post a photo of your family member online. You should always explain to your friends what your expectation of privacy is. If they…

>I don't think anyone is forced to use it.

Shadow profiles http://www.dailydot.com/news/facebook-shadow-profiles-privac...

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#93

Post by pmiller2 »

I think it's great that the parents are at least putting some thought into protecting their daughter's privacy online, even including the choice of her name. My name is so dirt common that unless you know something else about me, there's no way you're going to be able to zero in on articles about me, and I like that. One of my brother's children is named after one of our great grandparents, OTOH, and I'm reasonably sure there's nobody in that age group with that name. (Probably nobody under 70, even.) I'm not sure how I feel about that.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#94

Post by emiliobumachar »

ceejayoz wrote: post #83
dylangs1030 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Also, this:

http://xkcd.com/1170/

"Imagine reading this on CNN: 'Many fled their vehicles and jumped from the bridge. Those who stayed behind...'"

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#95

Post by jbigelow76 »

coldtea wrote: post #27
ef4 wrote: post #14

The author is wrong because she assumes social customs are immutable. They aren't. In 2028 there will be nothing embarrassing about appearing in thousands of online photos dating back to your birth. Because almost everyone will be in the same boat. In fact, it may be considered weird and suspicious if there's not much online content about you.

> In 2028 there will be nothing embarrassing about appearing in thousands of online photos dating back to your birth. Because almost everyone will be in the same boat. Or you know, those that aren't will have it as an advantage. Like how everybody is nearly overweight, but still those are aren't have a leg up.

    >Or you know, those that aren't will have it as an advantage.
This is assuming that what we perceive as beneficial now will continue to be perceived as beneficial in the future as well.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#96

Post by gnaffle »

roc wrote: post #91
pstack wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ou…

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.

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.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#97

Post by gnaffle »

mturmon wrote: post #68
nonchalance wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> do what everybody else is doing Obligatory Godwin law reference aside, this logic has led to many historical problems

Your allusion to the Holocaust demonstrates why this analogy is not helpful in this case, nor in most other cases. The comment specifically says "As a general rule, it's pretty safe...".

Yep, that's the problem. As a general rule, driving without a seatbelt is also pretty safe.. until it's not. The question is whether the advantage you get from something is bigger than the potential consequences.

I'd say, given the historical track record of governments during the last 100 years, that it's very gullible to believe that whatever future problems our current data sharing will cause will somehow be "fixed" and not have consequences just as long as it affects a critical mass of the population.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#98

Post by tbirdz »

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 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.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#99

Post by gnaffle »

pyre wrote: post #58
nonchalance wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> do what everybody else is doing Obligatory Godwin law reference aside, this logic has led to many historical problems

Doing what everyone else is doing lowers social friction. We're discussing the idea of doing something while a child is young (posting about them online) that could haunt them later in life. If everyone is doing this, the social friction in the future will be less about having your childhood online. In this case, the social friction itself is what would be possibly causing issues in the future, so lowering it would b…

If registering your religious affiliation in your identity papers was what everyone was doing, maybe it lowered social friction, but in the long run it caused huge problems for a certain group of people when the government suddenly started tracking them down, and had very good tools to do so.

Whether or not this is a good or valid comparison, I think the argument about "if everyone are sharing, nobody will care" is plain wrong. In the right circumstances, it will always be possible to find some nugget of information to paint you in a bad light or cause you problems.

Either way, it's going to be very interesting to watch our future politicians lives be completely exposed down to the smallest detail, as it may be 20-30 years from now.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#100

Post by munificent »

pstack wrote: post #77
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…

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 ou…

> 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

I don't know about you, but I use social networks to share photos with my real friends. Why would I want virtual friends?

Post reply on HN