[Closed] Do you put your children on social media?

On my own Facebook with my privacy settings, yes. On somebody's commercial website, no.

Curious to hear what other peoples views are on this.

It's Saturday night, the best night of the week and this is a pants thread which will only bring out more arguments and the [i]occasional[/i] sensible view.

Christ, I'd rather see another political thread to dominate the top of the first page.

Seriously. Its been done. Many times, many places. It's not a happy topic and no right answer.

Make your own mind up.

Do you drive them from place to place with a bag over their heads?

Presumably the pics would be totally anonymous ?

As they're babies (and therefore essentially unrecognisable from loads of other babies) I'd allow it as long as my family promised NOT to do any of that facebook tag bullshit

Mines just on Gridnr. It's been a right nightmare.

bearnecessities - Member

Curious to hear what other peoples views are on this.

It's Saturday night, the best night of the week and this is a pants thread which will only bring out more arguments and the occasional sensible view.

Christ, I'd rather see another political thread to dominate the top of the first page.

Seriously. Its been done. Many times, many places. It's not a happy topic and no right answer.

Make your own mind up.

Oh, sorry. I appear to have posted something which has been posted before. I didn't realise, but I feel stupid now. I guess that's the first time it's happened on STW. Is there a punishment that'll now be meted out to me, or will I just have tossers spamming the thread telling me what they would and wouldn't like to read whilst simultaneously failing to realise that they could easily have ignored it.

We don't. MrsMC works in child protection, and we avoid faceache and twitter to keep our private life private. She has seen colleagues get in a right mess when a friend of a friend of a friend turns out to be a service user. She's also seen the chaos that ensues when adopted kids get found on the web by birth families, or vulnerable kids end up doing something inappropriate on line.

Other peoples views will vary, but we don't put ourselves or our kids on line, other than me on here. School and the other organisations we are involved with are also under instruction not to post our kids online.

When the kids are old enough, they can make their own decisions.

Depends how much the photographer is willing to pay for the images for commercial use. Make sure you get a receipt

yup we do.. locked down social media and our oldest is also in an internationally acclaimed photography book and is obvs featured on the photographers website

he's featured in one or two small scale local advertising campaigns too

I sort of understand the paranoia but then I also think it's totally batshit bonkers

My take on it was that ten (?) years ago we had no idea how big social media might become, ten years from now we can't imagine what it will become. Once something's out there it's out there.

They'll inevitably have their own social media whenever that time comes around, and it seems strange that a huge portion of their life will already be online, without them having the luxury of choosing what.

I don't.

Yes and have no issue of a photographer using the photos on their sight.

There is no issue to discuss but if parents choose not to then that's their option.

Oh, sorry. I appear to have posted something which has been posted before. I didn't realise, but I feel stupid now. I guess that's the first time it's happened on STW. Is there a punishment that'll now be meted out to me, or will I just have tossers spamming the thread telling me what they would and wouldn't like to read whilst simultaneously failing to realise that they could easily have ignored it.

Enjoy the attention.

My take on it was that ten (?) years ago we had no idea how big social media might become, ten years from now we can't imagine what it will become. Once something's out there it's out there.

I agree with that, however, what difference will a few pictures of babies make ?

What are you worried might happen.

There are already 178 billion pictures of babies on the Internet, and they all look basically the same to anyone but the parents and close family.

nealglover

I agree with that, however, what difference will a few pictures of babies make ?

What are you worried might happen.

I don't know Neal. It doesn't worry me as such but I don't know what might happen. So I am going to err on the side of caution.

No, none of our wee guy at all.

Curious to hear what other peoples views are on this.

Your kids

Your responsibility

Your choice

There are already 178 billion pictures of babies on the Internet, and they all look basically the same to anyone but the parents and close family

And even some of the parents acknowledge their babies are basically as fugly as everyone else's

If anyone is unfortunate enough to be friends with me they'll suffer an endless stream of pictures of my kids, unedited PoV vids of me riding and jokes only I find funny.

Where's the harm really?

Privately shared on Facebook, but not publicly.

Interesting that I take photos of our rugby squad, have done since they were 9 - it's a policy that the uploaded photos are only allowed to be shared with the club and not publicly. I got a moany email from one of the club admins when I got the settings wrong too.
Damn silly, paranoid nonsense if you ask me.

Social media? - I'd put them on ****in eBay if I could!

Negative

[quote=Smudger666 ]Social media? - I'd put them on **** eBay if I could!
😆

Do you drive them from place to place with a bag over their heads?

Yes, along with the school website, school social media, club website, club facebook site, and local paper (print and social media) when we do well in the odd race.

If you turn up at an event - any event, then you and your kids are going to be photographed and the pics appear on a website/ facebook site for purchase, viewing etc. It's largely unavoidable.

When we were kids, if we got into the paper for sport, school stuff etc, it was a real highlight for our parents and grandparents. Anyone could buy those papers.

Yes and have no issue of a photographer using the photos on their [b]sight[/b].

Expects better.

You won't get better from me Kryton but thanks for your useful view on the topic.

Yes, because he's gorgeous. If he was as ugly as some kids I see on FB, I wouldn't, no.

I imagine there are pictures of my willy on the mobile phones of hundreds of men and women, so pictures of my boy are the least of my worries.

I [s]imagine[/s] [i]know [/i]there are pictures of my willy on the mobile phones of hundreds of men [s]and women[/s], so pictures of my boy are the least of my worries.

😀

Anyhow, in other news:

[img] [/img]

@bn, I'd have phrased it your way if a) I was confident that they'd liked the pics enough to keep them and b) I wasn't holding out the forlorn hope that some of them were actually wimminz. 🙂

Do you want to see some?

Yes I even put a pic of him on here once but not one of you had the good grace to acknowledge how handsome he is.

Do you want to see some?

You big tease!

I do, but I pixelate their faces.

Drat. I hadn't stopped to think that pictures of my kids may exist on a random server and in the future, could be used by an enemy of the state somehow.

Considering my natural state of paranoia, I've let myself down big time on this one.

Exactly. How can they become international super spies if they're already out there.

Anyway, after giving the pictures to my wife my sister in law got in touch to ask whether we would mind if the photographer put the pictures on her website and Facebook page, to which I instantly responded no

why would you say no? all the photographer wants to do is use them to show off his work and technically he can do it would your permission anyway what with him owning the copyright.

what with him owning the copyright.

Does he? Even if he was commissioned to take the photos?

er wants to do is use them to show off his work and technically he can do it would your permission anyway what

Not sure that's actually true. I can think of an example where a woman was photographed at a conference, the photo was then used without her permission on a website. She kicked off, had the photo removed and was quids in.

And that's before you get on to the subject of children.

I am not a lawyer, interested to see precedents or legislation on the matter.

How can they become international super spies if they're already out there.

Quite.

8)

Not sure that's actually true. I can think of an example where a woman was photographed at a conference, the photo was then used without her permission on a website. She kicked off, had the photo removed and was quids in

depends on how the image was used and where.

And that's before you get on to the subject of children.

age is utterly irrlevent

age is utterly irrlevent

I'm not sure a 1 year old is best placed to agree to their images use by a photographer

Careful PM, you're getting dragged in!

I think the point being made is that there are a squillion images of every human, fish and tree, at any age, available online.

The web is already at saturation point of everything!

We don't although I might mention their antics on here in broad terms.

I don't understand well enough what other people could do with pictures of/ information about my children from being posted on Facebook etc (tagging etc.) or I might set my security up wrong, so I go ultra cautious and Fb and twitter are for my use only and we share pics/updates through direct communication.

Probably more paranoid than many about this but that's my perogative as a parent.At their age it isn't cramping their style or social development so better safe than sorry.

I think you need to be a parent to understand how you feel about the situation,a bit like not voting and then whingeing.

Oh, sorry. I appear to have posted something which has been posted before. I didn't realise, but I feel stupid now. I guess that's the first time it's happened on STW. Is there a punishment that'll now be meted out to me, or will I just have tossers spamming the thread telling me what they would and wouldn't like to read whilst simultaneously failing to realise that they could easily have ignored it.

I like this post and would vote for it, if it was a cute baby I'd post it on FB. If I was offended by such behaviour, I wouldn't look at it.

I'm not sure a 1 year old is best placed to agree to their images use by a photographer

Thats not what I ment. it doesn't matter if the person is 1, 10 or 18 the law regarding using photographs is the same.

I think you need to be a parent to understand how you feel about the situation

I am a parent and used to be a photographer

here are my kids

[img] [/img]

I think you need to be a parent to understand how you feel about the situation.

In my case, and many others, being a parent doesn't mean that you understand or agree.

And I'm not sure not being a parent would preclude someone from understanding of agreeing.

So in conclusion, no. 🙂

used to be a photographer

[i]>Presents picture with one subjects face obscured and blown highlights.[/i]

😉

At least you cleaned the EXIF

the thing is you might decide that it's silly paranoia for your kids but you don't know other kids' positions. they could be kids of abusive or stalker parents, kids under local authority care, kids in the UK whose parents are being threatened or harassed by overseas governments, kids whose parents are dealing with organized crime groups... You might think these are unusual but in my network (inc FOF or FOFOF) I know such people, and they are out there. and I'm not even a teacher or social worker that would really come into contact with such kids often

and if you say that all our sports team is going to be photographed and put on Facebook, you're sort of saying you don't want those kids playing, or at least that if they want to play, they have to accept the risk

Sorry,didnt come across quite as intended, I have 3 kids and I think we have been quite restrictive in the use of there images online ,mainly out of respect for them, there is a big difference between F.B and a family album.How many of us have had our pics put in the public domain to the extent of which the current generation find acceptable? It seems to be the norm now but how many will get bitten in the arse? What does it take to remove yourself from the net if you wanted?

here are my kids

/hides under table and waits for world to end

Why does anyone go to the trouble and expense of getting their baby photographed? They all look the bloody same! Just download a stock photo from the internet and put that in a frame - no one will be any the wiser.

It seems to be the norm now but how many will get bitten in the arse?

There is a big difference between having a photo of yourself with your head down the bog, ravishing some young strumpet or kicking off at a protest march plastered across the internet prejudicing job interviews etc and a random anonymous baby photo against a generic background. What do all the worriers think might happen to a photo like that published without identity on a photographer's site that will in some way affect the baby in question? Where do you think the abuse will come from? Refusing the photographer permission in that context puts you in the bedwetter camp imo.

How many realise that they are posting without removing the data,does Nanna know what to/not to post? I do not know how to safely post pics so choose not to.

What data is that then?

The one telling you what it was taken on and the ISO?

Are we not in the era of GPS tagging,time,date?

How many realise that they are posting without removing the data

Well if it's facebook we are talking about all EXIF/META data is stripped automatically on upload. Yes, that includes GPS etc.

Are we not in the era of GPS tagging,time,date?

Only if you use a camera that tags it and really what is the concern there anyway. The software receiving the pic also has to be setup to store the data, not all are.

Thats a good thing,in the context that was given by the OP, I would probably allow the pics to be shown on the photographers site,they are only trying to promote their handywork and are complimenting your kids at the same time.To be fair,we dont all have the knowledge or time to keep up with the features of tech and therefore a lot of people shy away from it,or go for it,blissfully unaware.

You did the right thing.

The only people who want to see baby photos are people related to said baby, the rest of the Internet will go "oh FFS" and scroll on past to a picture of a rabbit with a pancake on its head.

(In seriousness, I'm not really seeing the problem. If you go out with them, dozens of complete strangers will see the kids and know exactly what they look like, what they're wearing, who they're with and where they are. The only difference with a photo is that they're not there any more.)

right, but we are living in a world in which facial recognition software and the vast aggregation of data are not just possible but integral to the operation of social media.

there's a limit to how many faces I (or a Stasi agent) can remember and for how long and what other data I can cross refer it to, but Facebook's ability is another kettle of fish.

So?

right, but we are living in a world in which facial recognition software and the vast aggregation of data are not just possible but integral to the operation of social media.

there's a limit to how many faces I (or a Stasi agent) can remember and for how long and what other data I can cross refer it to, but Facebook's ability is another kettle of fish.

I refer you to my original question - [i]'What do all the worriers think might happen to a photo like that published without identity on a photographer's site that will in some way affect the baby in question? Where do you think the abuse will come from?'[/i]

Re facebook - yes friends can tag you in photos that you might not appreciate but it's dead simple to review and remove the tags, even from photos you were tagged in years ago. It's also incredibly easy to change your account privacy settings to prevent anyone ever tagging you if you felt so inclined.

Never know when Spectre might want to take a hit on your kids. Even worse when Cyberdine system 101 comes back he can just use Facebook now to stop your kid leading the resistance.

😆

There is a big difference between having a photo of yourself [...] ravishing some young strumpet

If anyone has a photo of me ravishing a young strumpet, please step forward. I have no recollection of the event, but I'm happy to have my memory jogged.

🙂

used to be a photographer
>Presents picture with one subjects face obscured and blown highlights.
At least you cleaned the EXIF

sorry the wife's iPhone doesn't have the dynamic range of my old
FF canon sensor 🙁

I never stripped the exit out of my pics, that's Facebook for you

divenwob - Member
How many realise that they are posting without removing the data,does Nanna know what to/not to post? I do not know how to safely post pics so choose not to.

not sure what people will do with the camera settings used to take the photo but yeah I'm sure there is some perv out there that tosses off to meta data

As my kids are now in their 20's it was never an issue, they joined social media on their own. Most of my friends with kids have pictures of their families on Facebook pretty much right from birth. Likewise those with grand kids

sorry poah, didn't mean to be too rude 🙂

EXIF is important though - if you are going to share pics of your kids, taken with a phone or other device with GPS, then you should be careful where they end up IMHO.

EXIF is important though - if you are going to share pics of your kids, taken with a phone or other device with GPS, then you should be careful where they end up IMHO

why?

'Cos you might not want people to know where you and they live / hang out?

Like the privacy zone on Strava*

*I don't actually use Strava, you couldn't handle it 😉

There is a lot of paranoia on this thread.

This is why kids don't go and ride bikes by themselves, play in the woods, go fishing etc.

Everyone seems to think the World is full of peado's. It's not. Nothing has changed since the 1970's when I was young.

When I was 8 I used to walk about a mile to the local swimming baths with my mates and go swimming. Nothing happened. Imagine suggesting that an 8 year old would be safe going to a swimming pool without an adult today?

Something has changed.... The dissemination of information.

Something has changed.... The dissemination of information.

So you think that social media has increased the frequency of child abuse? 🙄

As a Scout leader we sometimes have children who can't appear on photographs full stop, for various reasons, including legal ones sometimes. You just keep it in mind before taking pics. Obviously, you just need to be careful about taking photos, so the kids don't notice your singling anyone out. It's certainly not our place to question it.
I'm doing our display board at the moment, & each child has a little characature with their face on to mark their progress, but one or two are left blank. For Beavers, I try to get a mugshot, as (God forbid), if one ever gets lost on a trip out, we have a pic on hand for obvious reasons.

We use social media but only in a closed group with as leader as admin & everything locked down, so any posts get vetted before they appear. It can be a bit OTT but you have to respect people's wishes.
My children are on FB occasionally, but I'd be very concerned if an adult shared or tagged them specifically, especially at a young age.
As regards using pics for a web site, I'd probably not see it as s problem.

So you think that social media has increased the frequency of child abuse

No I didn't say that.

I said that the dissemination of information we now have with the internet

has changed since the 1970's

Because it has.

You will, however, note that a lot of child abuse is in some way connected to the internet.