Poll: This is why i dislike social media

[Caged]

Are you one of those people that thinks taking a photo instead of performing an equally unhelpful act like 'worrying' is somehow a sign of a flawed sense of priorities?

 

[muon]

Lol so much outrage.

So many parents post photos of their children on the internet.

This is a photo of a generic looking kid. Completely blown out of proportion.

The argument that the mum has no time to take a photo is absurd.

 

[muon]

I was wondering that as well but when reading further on the naked female and child apparantly recieved nothing but praise suggests it's an assumption a naked male and child equates to paedo regardless of context.

Personally I think it's a lovely photo once knowing the context. Although if I'd seen such a photo without context I'd probably be wondering wth and reported it for someone else to decide. I do question the need to share a photo of it publically.

Spot on. As soon as I read the first bits of the article I was thinking it wouldn't be a story if the genders were different.

 

[tintin82]

Are you one of those people that thinks taking a photo instead of performing an equally unhelpful act like 'worrying' is somehow a sign of a flawed sense of priorities?

I just cannot picture anytime when my kids were ill that I would decide to go and grab a camera, but them I am not a photographer so maybe I would prioritize photos over simply sitting there comforting my child. But as my OP said, regardless, the fact that the childs privacy has be violated is my main issue.

 

[benneh]

I think it's a beautiful photograph. It shows both the fragility of the child and the love of the father.
As to whether it's appropriate for Facebook and the like, sure, why not.

This.

I think if you have an issue with this type of image, it probably says more about how your own mind works than it does about anything else (by which I mean, you've spent too long reading the daily mail. Not everyone wants to **** your child)....

 

[Caged]

I just cannot picture anytime when my kids were ill that I would decide to go and grab a camera, but them I am not a photographer so maybe I would prioritize photos over simply sitting there comforting my child. But as my OP said, regardless, the fact that the childs privacy has be violated is my main issue.

Someone was comforting the child, though. I'm not sure what the photographer was supposed to add in this situation that taking a picture has left them unable to do.

 

[tintin82]

Someone was comforting the child, though. I'm not sure what the photographer was supposed to add in this situation that taking a picture has left them unable to do.

That's great, each to their own. But as I said, personally, taking a photo would have been the last thing on my mind, and I have spent quite a few all nighters with a sick toddler.

Again, privacy of child clearly a non issue.

 

[Safetytrousers]

as I said, personally, taking a photo would have been the last thing on my mind, and I have spent quite a few all nighters with a sick toddler.

But as you said you are not a professional or I presume very keen photographer. Someone who is spots any good photo subject if they see it.
I don't think if you saw this child in the street that you would be sure it was the child from this photo, especially after only a few years have gone by.
I think the photo has social value.

 

[tintin82]

But as you said you are not a professional or I presume very keen photographer. Someone who is spots any good photo subject if they see it.
I don't think if you saw this child in the street that you would be sure it was the child from this photo, especially after only a few years have gone by.
I think the photo has social value.

Right.. but even if my mother took a photo of me barfing in the loo and posted it online saying she was 'capturing a beautiful moment' I would still be a quit annoyed, regardless if I would be recognized, and regardless of its social value.

I think the photo has social value also, its a really good photo, no denying that, and it has many folk talking. I just find it sad that the subject of the photo has not in my eyes had their privacy protected in a very vulnerable situation.

 

[Caged]

So no photos on Facebook of people's children until they can not only listen and talk to a sufficient level to be able to consent to their photos being posted, but also develop a sufficient understanding of the concept of personal privacy to be able to consent/object?

I mean if the aim is to get baby photos off Facebook then I'd go along with the above because they are wicked annoying, but I don't see it as the violation of rights that you do.

 

[tintin82]

So no photos on Facebook of people's children until they can not only listen and talk to a sufficient level to be able to consent to their photos being posted, but also develop a sufficient understanding of the concept of personal privacy to be able to consent/object?

I mean if the aim is to get baby photos off Facebook then I'd go along with the above because they are wicked annoying, but I don't see it as the violation of rights that you do.

Have a think about that one. What gives you the right to share an image of another person into the public domain without their understanding and consent?

You wouldn't post pictures of an adult without their consent (isn't that what that face tag thing is?) so why a child?

This is obviously my personal opinion. I feel quite strongly about this as some parents appear to broadcast their children's life online without their consent. Kids today are the first generation that have the potential to have their entire lives documented online, this may have ramifications for their future in ways that are only starting to become the norm (online profiling by employers).

 

[JayMax]

I have zero issue with this photo, it's emotive and captures a moment.
It's quite a good photo tbh.

I'll suggest that most people who are outraged and butthurt about the whole deal are under the age of 30, maybe 25. The new internet generation.
People over 30 see it and understand it for what it is without the need to get outraged over nothing....

 

[Gzero]

Right.. but even if my mother took a photo of me barfing in the loo and posted it online saying she was 'capturing a beautiful moment' I would still be a quit annoyed, regardless if I would be recognized, and regardless of its social value.

I think the photo has social value also, its a really good photo, no denying that, and it has many folk talking. I just find it sad that the subject of the photo has not in my eyes had their privacy protected in a very vulnerable situation.

Pretend for a moment you don't know the back story, does the child look ill or just sleeping/resting?

What about the guy, he can't go back to his workplace now, his moob was showing!?!?

 

[Gzero]

I have zero issue with this photo, it's emotive and captures a moment.
It's quite a good photo tbh.

I'll suggest that most people who are outraged and butthurt about the whole deal are under the age of 30, maybe 25. The new internet generation.
People over 30 see it and understand it for what it is without the need to get outraged over nothing....

I feel special now, not 30 yet!

 

[JayMax]

I feel special now, not 30 yet!

I was of course being very broad in my comment, but Jeeez, people today.

 

[AHarvey]

Have a think about that one. What gives you the right to share an image of another person into the public domain without their understanding and consent?

You wouldn't post pictures of an adult without their consent (isn't that what that face tag thing is?) so why a child?

This is obviously my personal opinion. I feel quite strongly about this as some parents appear to broadcast their children's life online without their consent. Kids today are the first generation that have the potential to have their entire lives documented online, this may have ramifications for their future in ways that are only starting to become the norm (online profiling by employers).

Are you serious?

People post photos all the time without the consent of others, in fact, unless you're using them to advertise you don't need consent at all. Never been tagged in a friend's photos? I've just spent a day photographing a 10K run and the photos are online. Didn't need anyone's consent but if they have issues I would take them down but no one has asked me to do that.

As for children giving consent, they can't, they aren't adults and the consent lies with the guardians of the child. Not to mention that NO employer will a)give a damn that a kids photo has been posted online and b)think that any photo of them as a child has anything to do with how they are as an adult.

You seem to be grasping at straws to provide weight to your own beliefs...

 

[Caged]

We've got two great candidates here but I can see from our extensive online research that this one was ill when they were a baby and it was quite messy. Are you OK to break the bad news?

 

[tintin82]

Are you serious?

People post photos all the time without the consent of others, in fact, unless you're using them to advertise you don't need consent at all. Never been tagged in a friend's photos? I've just spent a day photographing a 10K run and the photos are online. Didn't need anyone's consent but if they have issues I would take them down but no one has asked me to do that.

As for children giving consent, they can't, they aren't adults and the consent lies with the guardians of the child. Not to mention that NO employer will a)give a damn that a kids photo has been posted online and b)think that any photo of them as a child has anything to do with how they are as an adult.

You seem to be grasping at straws to provide weight to your own beliefs...

You are entitled to your own views as I am, be that grasping at straws in your opinion.

I raise my kids with a zero online presence. The reason for this is that when the are of an age to decide responsibly if they want to 'share' then that's their decision to make. They will have a clean online slate, and not some embarrassing kid photos floating around the Facebook world.

You may think that wrong, that's fine. I personally don't think my kids will be disadvantaged by opting out of the FB share society we live in, the alternative, possibly.

Difference of opinion.

 

[itchy]

The last thing I would think about is taking a picture of anyone in distress or peril.

People are seriously ****ed up these days.

 

[Tefal]

You are entitled to your own views as I am, be that grasping at straws in your opinion.

I raise my kids with a zero online presence. The reason for this is that when the are of an age to decide responsibly if they want to 'share' then that's their decision to make. They will have a clean online slate, and not some embarrassing kid photos floating around the Facebook world.

You may think that wrong, that's fine. I personally don't think my kids will be disadvantaged by opting out of the FB share society we live in, the alternative, possibly.

Difference of opinion.

Ao essentially you're going to make sure theyre completley devoid of any learning of being online till its the crushing pressures of highschool where they can learn all those lessons in the most embarrassing way possible.
Cool.