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

111–120 of 144 posts

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#111

Post by zhemao »

tbirdz wrote: post #98
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.

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".

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#112

Post by teekert »

We also don't post any pictures of our kid online. But for the simple reason that I know that it would be mostly for my own ego, I feel immense pride and have to hold back the pictures/videos on my phone frequently. Who genuinely likes to see hundreds of pics of their friends kids? I wonder...

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#113

Post by greenyoda »

gnaffle wrote: post #97
mturmon wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "fixe…

"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."

For that matter, parts of our government like the NSA and the DEA consider the over-sharing of personal data on Facebook to be a useful source of exploitable information. They'd probably quietly lobby against any legislation to scale it back.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#114

Post by wonderzombie »

roc wrote: post #84
randallu wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sa…

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.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#116

Post by pstack »

munificent wrote: post #100
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…

> 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?

Congratulations, but your exception does not disprove my observed generalization. People are, unfortunately, not usually as discreet as you state you are.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#117

Post by pstack »

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 think the emphasis on Facebook is simply because that is what readers are familiar with, currently. Of course they will have to be aware of and active in protecting identities on other future networks, platforms, and services, too.

At least, that is how I interpreted the references to "Facebook" every five words.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#118

Post by pstack »

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)…

Right, why give your child a leg-up on all those kids that have had every second of their life broadcast online, when you can milk it for the next dozen years and let it be their problem, in the future?

But son.... all the other parents are doing it!

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#119

Post by TausAmmer »

coldtea wrote: post #29
TausAmmer wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I gave my child a macbook without parental control in age of 3.

Well, tons of parents give their children unsupervised television watching for hours every day. Shutting kids up with technology and letting it take care of their upbringing is nothing new.

Beauty in this case was that she did not felt restricted with computer time, and she can do other things, and go back to computer whenever she wants. 1 hour computer time creates way more problems that solves.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#120

Post by pstack »

brador wrote: post #34

It's not you who uploads the pics, it's your friends and family, then they tag the faces. Then fb steals your friends address book info using the facebook app/email connections and builds out a network and ghost profile just for you. You might never use facebook but you're on there. All of us are. Because your friends don't give a damn about privacy and screwed the pooch. And Zuck knows. That's why he said on stage w…

No, because I'm aware of when my photo is taken and I am not friends with people who would splash up photos of myself and neither would my family (who I don't even know if are on facebook or other social networks, because I don't have friends or family on social networks, because I can just call or email or visit them in real life).

It is a bit challenging to fully control some aspects of information about you, but it's disheartening to see the attitude (especially among geeks and techies) that "well, gosh, there's nothing you can do about it, so let's jump right in!".

Post reply on HN