Great from Mary to share a person with different views,we need to be able to have friends with different opinions today.The fact that people can disagree and still be friends is important for newer generation to habituate to
Keturah has a point, you know. We do need to see family life portrayed and celebrated. Perhaps a better principle than just 'keeping the kids out of it' is rather to be more mindful in general of how much we share on social media concerning the humdrum of our lives. A lot of that stuff is just plain narcissistic, in my view.
The best course of action, however, is not to post on social media at all. It pains me to see those who claim to be fighting against The Machine use video game apps like X, Facebook, and Instagram. Doing so sabotages the whole project and is hypocritical at best.
It's basically a group e-mail. Substack Notes is closer to social media - you can tell by the relative toxicity.
Snapchat is another video game that blurs the line. Used as a communication tool with people you know, it's probably fine. Used as a way to expose yourself to the world and chase clout? Not so much.
There are a couple of things that kind of nag at me here. The author writes, "We’re just a real family who are concerned about legal injustice, and it shows in our smiles." I don't see what smiles have to do with that. I mean, from a Christian perspective, smiley happy shiny has not always been associated with the history of the faithful. It's full of martyrdom and persecution, not some sort of modern PR success story image. And, well, people can also show concern with, well, concern in their faces. Perhaps she means the smiles just make them look "normal." (Or perhaps real.) Well, not sure about that, but not sure what she means either.
The second thing is related to the first, and that is that children aren't necessarily a testimony to their progenitors. We're individuals with free will, and the mystery of choice and sibling or family difference is with us as much as it ever was.
Aside from these things I'll say I'm squeamish about posting pictures of children purely from a safety perspective -- doesn't matter whether they are my children or others' children, or strangers to me. I just won't do it. I don't want people admiring with bad intent. I cherish my photos of adorable kids, but they don't go online. It's up to parents and relatives, of course, what they do with their own. Bad enough I get phishing spam on FB constantly using stolen photos of grown men.
A lot of stories I've read about martyrs actually describe them as joyful and smiling unto death. Paintings often depict them as morose. The point is that when we smile we show the true intentions of our soul, and when you're involved in controversial work that is extremely important. I respect one's decision to not post at all, I mostly don't approve of blurring faces -- it doesn't feel honest.
This was thought provoking and I appreciate your well developed arguments.
That said, I don't think you made a convincing case regarding the consent argument. Yes, parents have the authority to act without the child's consent in any number of ways, but they are obligated to be doing so as guardians of the child's best interests. People posting pics of their kids for clicks strike me as acting in their own best interests, not that of their children. In a sense, they're exploiting the likeness of another person without compensation. It's rather reminiscent to me of the parents who got rich off the labor of child stars. I'm inclined to agree with folks who insist on a digital Right to Privacy and extend that right (with certain exceptions regarding necessary parental supervision) to children.
You have argued that the threats to children are overstated (and perhaps you are right about that) and that there are benefits to the world in seeing smiling children (perhaps you are even right about that too), but I do not see anywhere in here an argument that it is genuinely positive for the children themselves (perhaps because it isn't). Shouldn't that have been the most important question? Not merely "Does this put my child at risk?", but "Does this benefit my child?". If the parent is benefitting, but the child isn't, doesn't that make it a selfish behavior?
It's a wonderful thing to have scrapbooks and photo albums to look back on later in life, but I don't believe those ought to be public. Life should not need to be lived constantly in the eyes of the unforgetting Internet. Childhood ought to be lived in the moment, in the real world, concerned about the good esteem of friends and family, not a multitude of faceless strangers on the other side of screens.
The question I actually asked wasn't "is it benefiting the child or the parent" but rather, "is it benefiting the world and God", which is the question many Christians might feel obligated to consider foremost. However, it is fair to say if it is actually outright harming the child it isn't benefiting the world or God. But I don't believe it causes any harm for most of them, and that most of them don't really even have thoughts about how their parents share pictures. A few do, but they seem to be in the minority from what I can tell.
Anyone wanting to seriously discuss this topic NEEDS to speak to children themselves, in particular to those who've been 'shared' to the point they are recognisable to 10s of 1000s of people.
Let's not just go by the anecdotal idea that Keturah didn't mind therefore it must be a fine prescription. Interview 1000s of children of celebrities. See what kind of trend you pick up.
Personally, I'd bet everything in my apartment that you will learn that it is TRAUMATISING.
My father was a senior politician and I was in newspapers and on TV from aged 10 onwards. O can distinctly remember thinking "I didn't agree to this", so any talk about negating my consent would only add to the feeling I had that I was trapped by my father's identity.
I don't normally find myself sympathising with toffs, but while you're at it, speak with Harry Wales (as I have). Being in the public eye completely fucked up his life.
Now you may argue that I'm a rarity and it shouldn't matter if your picture is only seen by a few dozen or a few hundred people, say if your father appeared once in some local newspaper, or you're on his Facebook page.
Which is why I said: ask the children. See what they think about that.
I'll end my rant my stepping my polemic up a gear: what the f---- are you all still doing using social media AT ALL?
Instead of looking at pictures of people's families on the internet, go visit with them. That's actually social. If they live in Australia and you know them, wait until you visit and dig the albums out.
Some future Guy Debord is going to have a field day with you lot.
I agree with and practice the author's alternative suggestion of no faces but nothing else either. Going whole hog is the way. If you are on the internet that is either break time from mothering or it is thinking time to get ready to mother again.
Also, photo release forms exist and you can refuse photos used for schools.
The best protection for a child is to teach them how to be capable and moral. Im taking my 13 year old boy on a 2+ month trip trough communes in Europe - leaving monday.
I didn't know your dad is an Activist for Prison Reform. Thats a big area of my Ministry!
I think there is something sick in the obsession with "pedophiles." We may all agree it's wrong, but that's the same situation as any antisex campaign that exploits the horror-du-jour, which in the past has included many things that are considered either acceptable or mandatory today. But we may all agree it's necessary to be "anti pedophilia" because if you're not, you're subject to being "pro-pedophilia." But that's not the true nature or purpose of the campaign.
It is to terrify and horrify people about sex generally, in the form of this one most despicable thing. And then with that goes the family photo album, or worse, blocking your child's face on the assumption that they are personally the subject of prurient erotic interest. So what ends up happening is that by blocking the child's face they become the very thing that is supposedly being avoided. Then the penumbra spreads.
What has always concerned me is ultra feminists shaving their pubic hair, rendering themselves prepubescent — and then also arguing against relationships with allegedly inappropriate age differentials (also in the penumbra). All of this is nothing more than an antisex campaign. But it has to look good, so now that homosexuality is no longer a crime against the state and one is no longer automatically a pedophile because they are gay, we must raise the flag of the phantom offender and do nothing about any real problem such as it may exist.
Here is an old classic from the 20th Century by the good Prof Harris Mirkin
BTW, when I had my beloved dogs, I stopped posting their photos for the basic reason of psychic hygiene. Dogs are vulnerable to psychic attack directed at their person, which has happened to me enough times that I would rather take it directly than have it directed at them. Hence for many years I stopped posting photos and only resumed after they had both passed.
I like this - and as a mom with eight children, i did post a lot, not just on social media, but on a blog that i was using as a buffer to maintain relationship with family who lived far away.
I don't regret it - but i do find that as kids get older, they do want to choose how they are portrayed, which pictures you post (or if you post them at all). I've been asked why i no longer post about one of my children - but he is an adult now and does not want to have much of an online footprint.
My smaller children loved me taking and sharing photos of them - the stories i would write down have become a family album they can access online. My youngest is 12 now, and already likes to choose which first day of school pic i post (but she does want the picture posted!)...
Great from Mary to share a person with different views,we need to be able to have friends with different opinions today.The fact that people can disagree and still be friends is important for newer generation to habituate to
Keturah has a point, you know. We do need to see family life portrayed and celebrated. Perhaps a better principle than just 'keeping the kids out of it' is rather to be more mindful in general of how much we share on social media concerning the humdrum of our lives. A lot of that stuff is just plain narcissistic, in my view.
She's correct, relatively speaking.
The best course of action, however, is not to post on social media at all. It pains me to see those who claim to be fighting against The Machine use video game apps like X, Facebook, and Instagram. Doing so sabotages the whole project and is hypocritical at best.
Isn’t substack social media?
It's basically a group e-mail. Substack Notes is closer to social media - you can tell by the relative toxicity.
Snapchat is another video game that blurs the line. Used as a communication tool with people you know, it's probably fine. Used as a way to expose yourself to the world and chase clout? Not so much.
There are a couple of things that kind of nag at me here. The author writes, "We’re just a real family who are concerned about legal injustice, and it shows in our smiles." I don't see what smiles have to do with that. I mean, from a Christian perspective, smiley happy shiny has not always been associated with the history of the faithful. It's full of martyrdom and persecution, not some sort of modern PR success story image. And, well, people can also show concern with, well, concern in their faces. Perhaps she means the smiles just make them look "normal." (Or perhaps real.) Well, not sure about that, but not sure what she means either.
The second thing is related to the first, and that is that children aren't necessarily a testimony to their progenitors. We're individuals with free will, and the mystery of choice and sibling or family difference is with us as much as it ever was.
Aside from these things I'll say I'm squeamish about posting pictures of children purely from a safety perspective -- doesn't matter whether they are my children or others' children, or strangers to me. I just won't do it. I don't want people admiring with bad intent. I cherish my photos of adorable kids, but they don't go online. It's up to parents and relatives, of course, what they do with their own. Bad enough I get phishing spam on FB constantly using stolen photos of grown men.
A lot of stories I've read about martyrs actually describe them as joyful and smiling unto death. Paintings often depict them as morose. The point is that when we smile we show the true intentions of our soul, and when you're involved in controversial work that is extremely important. I respect one's decision to not post at all, I mostly don't approve of blurring faces -- it doesn't feel honest.
I suppose the word sober comes to mind for me
PS I will say it's a very nice photo of her family though :-)
This was thought provoking and I appreciate your well developed arguments.
That said, I don't think you made a convincing case regarding the consent argument. Yes, parents have the authority to act without the child's consent in any number of ways, but they are obligated to be doing so as guardians of the child's best interests. People posting pics of their kids for clicks strike me as acting in their own best interests, not that of their children. In a sense, they're exploiting the likeness of another person without compensation. It's rather reminiscent to me of the parents who got rich off the labor of child stars. I'm inclined to agree with folks who insist on a digital Right to Privacy and extend that right (with certain exceptions regarding necessary parental supervision) to children.
You have argued that the threats to children are overstated (and perhaps you are right about that) and that there are benefits to the world in seeing smiling children (perhaps you are even right about that too), but I do not see anywhere in here an argument that it is genuinely positive for the children themselves (perhaps because it isn't). Shouldn't that have been the most important question? Not merely "Does this put my child at risk?", but "Does this benefit my child?". If the parent is benefitting, but the child isn't, doesn't that make it a selfish behavior?
It's a wonderful thing to have scrapbooks and photo albums to look back on later in life, but I don't believe those ought to be public. Life should not need to be lived constantly in the eyes of the unforgetting Internet. Childhood ought to be lived in the moment, in the real world, concerned about the good esteem of friends and family, not a multitude of faceless strangers on the other side of screens.
The question I actually asked wasn't "is it benefiting the child or the parent" but rather, "is it benefiting the world and God", which is the question many Christians might feel obligated to consider foremost. However, it is fair to say if it is actually outright harming the child it isn't benefiting the world or God. But I don't believe it causes any harm for most of them, and that most of them don't really even have thoughts about how their parents share pictures. A few do, but they seem to be in the minority from what I can tell.
Anyone wanting to seriously discuss this topic NEEDS to speak to children themselves, in particular to those who've been 'shared' to the point they are recognisable to 10s of 1000s of people.
Let's not just go by the anecdotal idea that Keturah didn't mind therefore it must be a fine prescription. Interview 1000s of children of celebrities. See what kind of trend you pick up.
Personally, I'd bet everything in my apartment that you will learn that it is TRAUMATISING.
My father was a senior politician and I was in newspapers and on TV from aged 10 onwards. O can distinctly remember thinking "I didn't agree to this", so any talk about negating my consent would only add to the feeling I had that I was trapped by my father's identity.
I don't normally find myself sympathising with toffs, but while you're at it, speak with Harry Wales (as I have). Being in the public eye completely fucked up his life.
Now you may argue that I'm a rarity and it shouldn't matter if your picture is only seen by a few dozen or a few hundred people, say if your father appeared once in some local newspaper, or you're on his Facebook page.
Which is why I said: ask the children. See what they think about that.
I'll end my rant my stepping my polemic up a gear: what the f---- are you all still doing using social media AT ALL?
Instead of looking at pictures of people's families on the internet, go visit with them. That's actually social. If they live in Australia and you know them, wait until you visit and dig the albums out.
Some future Guy Debord is going to have a field day with you lot.
I agree with and practice the author's alternative suggestion of no faces but nothing else either. Going whole hog is the way. If you are on the internet that is either break time from mothering or it is thinking time to get ready to mother again.
Also, photo release forms exist and you can refuse photos used for schools.
That was awesome :) ! Thanks
The best protection for a child is to teach them how to be capable and moral. Im taking my 13 year old boy on a 2+ month trip trough communes in Europe - leaving monday.
I didn't know your dad is an Activist for Prison Reform. Thats a big area of my Ministry!
I work with Criminon.
I have over 100 students.
https://www.criminon.org/
I think there is something sick in the obsession with "pedophiles." We may all agree it's wrong, but that's the same situation as any antisex campaign that exploits the horror-du-jour, which in the past has included many things that are considered either acceptable or mandatory today. But we may all agree it's necessary to be "anti pedophilia" because if you're not, you're subject to being "pro-pedophilia." But that's not the true nature or purpose of the campaign.
It is to terrify and horrify people about sex generally, in the form of this one most despicable thing. And then with that goes the family photo album, or worse, blocking your child's face on the assumption that they are personally the subject of prurient erotic interest. So what ends up happening is that by blocking the child's face they become the very thing that is supposedly being avoided. Then the penumbra spreads.
What has always concerned me is ultra feminists shaving their pubic hair, rendering themselves prepubescent — and then also arguing against relationships with allegedly inappropriate age differentials (also in the penumbra). All of this is nothing more than an antisex campaign. But it has to look good, so now that homosexuality is no longer a crime against the state and one is no longer automatically a pedophile because they are gay, we must raise the flag of the phantom offender and do nothing about any real problem such as it may exist.
Here is an old classic from the 20th Century by the good Prof Harris Mirkin
https://planetwaves.net/astrologynews/mirkin.html
BTW, when I had my beloved dogs, I stopped posting their photos for the basic reason of psychic hygiene. Dogs are vulnerable to psychic attack directed at their person, which has happened to me enough times that I would rather take it directly than have it directed at them. Hence for many years I stopped posting photos and only resumed after they had both passed.
https://planetwaves.substack.com/p/of-jonah-and-henrietta
Some interesting points, reminded me of Malcom and Simone Collins’ views.
Someone FINALLY said what I’ve been thinking for years.
I like this - and as a mom with eight children, i did post a lot, not just on social media, but on a blog that i was using as a buffer to maintain relationship with family who lived far away.
I don't regret it - but i do find that as kids get older, they do want to choose how they are portrayed, which pictures you post (or if you post them at all). I've been asked why i no longer post about one of my children - but he is an adult now and does not want to have much of an online footprint.
My smaller children loved me taking and sharing photos of them - the stories i would write down have become a family album they can access online. My youngest is 12 now, and already likes to choose which first day of school pic i post (but she does want the picture posted!)...
Interesting perspective, thanks.
Some impressive belt buckles in that photo.
And top-notch western attire across the board.
wow, what an interesting perspective! very well done!
Lovely read, unique perspective