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

131–140 of 144 posts

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#131

Post by dsizzle »

mcphage wrote: post #128
roc wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, thank you. That's an excellent way to put the same problem I had with this article. The first half is "we're protecting her privacy", and the second half is "we're building a brand identity which will deny her any anonymity".

From the article: "And to this day, we’ve never posted any content." They haven't built a brand (or denied her anonymity), just the empty space should she decide herself to build it.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#132

Post by gnaffle »

gnaffle wrote: post #103
ef4 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll grant that it's logically possible. But I don't really understand why people think it's disadvantageous if others can find out whether or not you were cute when you were two years old. I think it has more to do with fear of what's new than any logical argument. Putting my money where my mouth is, here is my son: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7402/9525304181_8da5d48e22_b.j... In what future dystopia will the pres…

Simple example: Your pretty child is also quite a bit overweight. Or fell and got a big bruise that you for some reason just treated yourself and failed to bring up in some health insurance form. Less trivial stuff (like having acne) has been used to deny people coverage when they've been diagnosed with cancer. This is just of the top off my head, which is the point: We simply don't _know_ what might happen in the fu…

To make it completely clear, I was providing an example completely unrelated to the picture.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#133

Post by scott_s »

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.

They want it to be her choice.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#134

Post by FireBeyond »

ratscabies wrote: post #126
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 thos…

That's my whole beef with the "underwater" thing. They seemed to think that house was worth the price they signed up to pay when they did it. Now those houses are not worth as much. Too bad, so sad. I think I should get congress to bail me out on buying a new car. It certainly is not worth as much as it was when I purchased it.

Right - just like those TV shows encouraging the whole thing.

"So, you put $10,000 of renovations into your kitchen. That increases the book value by $50,000."

Uh, what?

All sorts of people, for all sorts of reasons, were whole-heartedly drinking /that/ Kool Aid.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#135

Post by yuhong »

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…

Personally I do want to push them to be fixed if possible. I don't like real name policies, but I do consider anonymity only a workaround most of the time.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#136

Post by dgreensp »

gnaffle wrote: post #130
bad_user wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1) that kid is not overweight and (2) it's actually OK from a medical perspective for a child to be a little overweight, as children grow in bursts, have a much better metabolism and their day is filled with plenty of exercise. And in fact, if a kid doesn't have some meat on their bones, that's a reason for concern.

Agreed, but you're not making the argument that a potential health insurance company would (like the acne case I mentioned). And again, this is just off the top of my head. One specific case, one specific instance of "I didn't see that coming", while there may be lots and lots of other such cases. [Edit: To make it clear, I haven't even looked at the picture previously posted, I was providing an unrelated example.]

This level of fear and worry about what an insurance company might try to argue seems too high, and not because insurance companies don't deny people for silly reasons, but because it literally isn't worth the years of fear and worry next to how little it will probably help. There are better sources of reasons to deny people, anyway, than pictures of chubby kids.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#137

Post by smutticus »

MarkTee wrote: post #127
smutticus wrote: post #102

So just stop using FB. Problem solved.

Er, not really. Choosing not to actively use Facebook doesn't protect you from shadow profiles or the actions of people that you know.

You are correct, sir. I was being snarky and you called me on it. Thanks. I genuinely appreciate it.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#138

Post by clarky07 »

coldtea wrote: post #105
ef4 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll grant that it's logically possible. But I don't really understand why people think it's disadvantageous if others can find out whether or not you were cute when you were two years old. I think it has more to do with fear of what's new than any logical argument. Putting my money where my mouth is, here is my son: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7402/9525304181_8da5d48e22_b.j... In what future dystopia will the pres…

> But I don't really understand why people think it's disadvantageous if others can find out whether or not you were cute when you were two years old. Some examples: you child ends up in a viral video and millions of children all over the world and at his school mock it (e.g the Star Wars Kid, and lots of others). How will that affect his growing up? Or your kid is not really popular at high school, and some other ki…

You don't see any difference between cute baby pics and star wars kid? I wouldn't put naked baby pics or anything on the internet, but saying no pics at all seems a bit over-paranoid. (And I am about as paranoid as they come).

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#139

Post by joe5150 »

The biggest problem with this I see (beyond the general creepiness of it and the huge impression I get that this is less about privacy and more about wanting to preemptively micromanage your kid’s potential future “brand”) is the futility of it. I’m lost as to how squatting handles and URLs and profile names and domains on a dozen internet services somehow protects someone’s identity or anonymity or would actually prevent them from being impersonated, which are the stated goals according to the article.

I’m not inclined to believe that this is an effective long game, either. A small fraction of these services are going to be relevant in five, ten, fifteen years. If my parents had tried the same thing before I was born (not long after web browsers were invented), they would have been worried about reserving BBS login names for me. I have to expect that the broad majority of people my age now don’t even know what a BBS is.

Re: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

#140

Post by gnaffle »

dgreensp wrote: post #136
gnaffle wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, but you're not making the argument that a potential health insurance company would (like the acne case I mentioned). And again, this is just off the top of my head. One specific case, one specific instance of "I didn't see that coming", while there may be lots and lots of other such cases. [Edit: To make it clear, I haven't even looked at the picture previously posted, I was providing an unrelated example.]

This level of fear and worry about what an insurance company might try to argue seems too high, and not because insurance companies don't deny people for silly reasons, but because it literally isn't worth the years of fear and worry next to how little it will probably help. There are better sources of reasons to deny people, anyway, than pictures of chubby kids.

Again, this was just _one_ example of the top off my head. I could probably have come up with lots of others. My point being that we don't know how what we post today might be used in the future. Saying that it's not going to have consequences because everyone else will also do it is a very weak argument.
Post reply on HN