Daily posts of baby on FB

[shebird]

A family member had a baby 6 months ago. Since the day baby was born she posts at least 3 photos and sometimes videos of baby together with updates on baby's weight, sleep and how much she's has expressed I thought this might have dwindled out as baby got older but it's not looking likely.

I'm aware that I can hide her posts and I am not having a moan about how annoying I find FB. My concern is for the child's privacy. We are not talking the odd cute photo here, pretty much all of this child's life to date has been documented on FB. Do children not have a right to have everything shared online or AIBU?

Shebird, rather than question your friend's need to use Facebook in this way, I think you'd be better off trying to understand your own reaction to it.

It's annoying you to an extreme degree. A normal would be to hide/defriend/ignore - and move on.

Instead you've canvassed opinion on MN & are psychoanalysing her motives.

Why do you care so much?

Maybe people who post regularly on FB are lonely or need affirmation in some way. Even more reason to stop and think, why am I sharing this?

The entire cohesive nature of society is based on the needs of the individual to receive positive affirmations from others. Whether that be affirmation that your spouce loves you, affirmation that his parents accept you, or affirmation that ones colleagues see them as an equal. It is a natural instinct.

The trick that social media pulls is to monetise this and gather data about us.

That said, some people have a greater need than others to be accepted, and to receive continual reassurance that they are accepted, and social media is their drug of choice. If you need positive social acceptance, you cannot find a faster and more consistent fix than messaging the world and asking for a pat on the back.

What you are describing in the way you bring up your children is the condoning of corrupt behaviour, by acceptance and turning a blind eye. There isn't a ribbon of corruption running through these organisations - it's all corrupt because of the tacit acceptance of the corruption.

By that definition/logic, you brand everyone who votes corrupt, by tassit acceptance of a system that is proven to be corrupt. You imply that unless you rebel (I did. I left), you tasitly accept and turn a blind eye. That logic implicates most people in our country in war crimes under the Geneva Convention, because they did not rebel, they simply turned a blind eye and tasitly accepted what was done in their name.

Everyone knows it goes on, but to make their own "honest" living, they have to live off the back of it without rocking the boat.

Everyone knows abuse of patients happens in hospitals, yet they continue to make their own honest living through hard work. The fact that it happens on wards right across Britain, side by side with HCPs trying to do an honest job for an honest days pay, doesn't make them all abusers of patients because it goes on on their wards. Nor does it make them tasitly accepting or turning a blind eye, if they fear their own career may be destroyed by ignoring such things. Or are you saying all NHS staff are equally culpable because some in the system abuse patients?

Sorry, I don't get your logic at all.

You don't want your children to be the victims of it, you would rather they joined it is what you are saying.

No, I don't won't my children to be a victim of it. I want them to recognise it for what it is instead of burying their heads in the sand and walking through life like a muppet, and I would wish that if they succeed in life, they do so through hard work and integrity, rather than corruption and fraud. That is what I said.

Are you assuming still that everyone you are posting to has no history or association with the square mile?

No, I am assuming from the posts that everyone is honest and hard working, and not involved in the world of identity fraud and social profiling. Posters have already intimated that they guard their social identity well because of their jobs. I do not know why they do this, but I do understand the need. Similarly, another poster said there is no need to do that when applying for a job at a supermarket. Likewise, I concur.

Properly laughing at people sleeping with aged men to get a corporate insurance contract

You would be surprised how often this comes up. We are talking hundreds of thousands of pounds here. There is a lot of commission on that. I'm sure there have been a number of whistleblowers over the years, but I haven't checked Google. Might be worth a spin.

I used to work in the City... I have to say, I did see some things I didn't like, and met a few arrogant tossers, but not to the extent I would bring my children up to accept that corruption and arrogance are inevitable if you want to lead a happy and successful life.

A few? I've met more than a few.

Not a case that you accept them. More a case that you recognise them and learn to avoid them so as not to be tainted by their schemes. I do not desire money in that sence, and money is the only temptation they have to offer people. But I do know to avoid conflict with those in positions of greater power than oneself. It exists. It is based on greed and lust for power. It is human nature. It cannot be prevented. Best to identify it, know how it works, and avoid it.

Laurie

Maybe she cares about the child's privacy? That is what she said.

That said, I don't see why anyone should give a flying F about another persons kids' privacy. They're not yours, not your problem. I completely get that. It's just some people actually give a shit. I don't get why they do that.

I've tried to explain the dangers of online fraud. It happens. No-one gets hurt. A few people get stung, but it's no big deal. They learn their lesson and move on in life. A load of really big corporations really go to town scrutinising their staff at the higher levels of management. That doesn't affect anyone who isn't applying to work for them, so no big deal there either. It's not like any of us are destined to pull such strings. It's highly unlikely that any of our children will either, and I'd wager those that do have very little online presence if they do.

laurie
As states before, I really value my own privacy so I respect that my DCs also have a right to that. I would rather err on the side of caution rather than regret something that can't be undone later. Maybe I'm over thinking things, but I don't feel the need to share what I've had for tea or how much I've slept so o apply that to my children too. That is my choice and I can hand on heart say that is how the majority of people I know also behave online. Theres no right or wrong we could argue the toss forever it seems.

EllieFAntspoo - you appear to have shifted your position from implying people are idiots for living in a lesser sort of a world where they don't worry about their internet presence, when all the powerful people who lead better, healthier lives are bothered, to saying that you actually took the moral high ground and opted out of it because it was too corrupt for you - despite the fact you think it would be morally wrong not to do everything in your power to enable your own children to enter that world you deem to be immoral. Your position seems to be all over the place. Why should we all be working so hard to enable our children to do what we would not be willing to do ourselves?

Btw, I agree with you, if you take the position that all our institutions are built on the back of corruption and that corruption is inevitable, that we are all tainted by it.

And yes, we are all tainted by a tacit acceptance of war crimes.

And when we remain silent when we know someone more powerful than ourselves is doing something illegal, we are tainted by that, even if it is understandable that we act to protect our own families and dare not speak out.

Shebird, given your professed concern, I think a sensible response would be to explain to her the dangers and leave it at that. Given that it is her child it yours, there is nothing more you can do.

BUT you are still debating this on the internet days later. That would suggest to me that there is more going on here - and your post concluding that those posting on FB only do so to fuel a void only corroborates that.

Ellie, I still have no idea what you are talking about. So I'm leaving it there.

Ellie - there is no hope for humankind if we don't believe that we are capable of, and the majority of people are working towards, a society where corruption is not acceptable, but is a force to be fought against and eradicated, rather than ignored, cunningly avoided, or covered up.

There's no winning though is there? I mean, are these shady recruiters and consultants taking proper care of the data they gather for their morally suspect clients?

I appreciate there is social profiling, just not sure the baby photos, even an excessive amount, tell you much about anything about a potential employee?

Plus all this information is genuinely required all the time, my gp has it, my local health nurse, the school, the local church! Fb's security is probably a lot better than theirs...

Did a trawl through my own page and actually it was lovely to look back at the early photos

Anyway looking at what I posted in fact I tended to assume people already had a lot of info. So the only real info was yr of birth, their first name and my name.

I suspect a lot of people post like that....

LaurieMarlow I am totally with you on all points you have just made

You appear to have shifted your position...
Not at all. I warn that there is a need to be guarded about ones child's privacy. I went on to explain why. I care not whether people do or do not protect their children's privacy. I choose to protect mine.

... to saying that you actually took the moral high ground and opted out of it because it was too corrupt for you

I left for many reasons, not just the moral conflicts in my chosen career. In doing so, I lost everything I owned. I lead a different life now and am happier for it. But I wouldn't wish not to have had the experiences in my life that I have had.

despite the fact you think it would be morally wrong not to do everything in your power to enable your own children to enter that world you deem to be immoral.

No, it would be wrong of me not to enable my children to do anything they choose to do. We raise and empower our children, we nurture and educate them, and we try to give them th tools they need to do whatever they want to do. Then we set them free, and we hope for the best.

I will not teach my child that prostitues and pole dancers are wrong, bad, evil. I will explain why it happens, what it means, what the problems are. And I will hope they choose not to follow such a route. I would be disappointed if they did, naturally, but I would not presume to condem those who follow such a path in life, nor will I presume to condem those who service corporate corruption and greed. I won't condone it, but I don't need to condem it either, in order to recognise it for what it is and avoid it as something that does not suit me. I won't lie on my back and fuck for money, that doesn't suit me either, nor does dry humping a post, but I do not presume to condem those who do as evil or morally bankrupt individuals. People do what people do, for whatever personal circumstance or desire motivates them. It is a fact life.

Why should we all be working so hard to enable our children to do what we would not be willing to do ourselves?

We work hard to educate our children to be better prepared for life than we were, and to have more opportunity than we had. It is a natural parenting instinct to want your children to have greater opportunity and greater choice than oneself. I can only hope that I succeed, and I can only trust that they will do what makes them happy, regardless of any opinion I may hold in my old age about what I would have liked them to do. If my child can tell me to STFU because they are really happy (regardless of what I may think in the future), that is what I want for my children at this moment in time.

Btw, I agree with you, if you take the position that all our institutions are built on the back of corruption and that corruption is inevitable, that we are all tainted by it.... And yes, we are all tainted by the tasit acceptance of war crimes.

You see, I personally don't believe in joint and several liability (or whatever you'd call it) when it comes to the actions of institutions. I don't believe all Brits are guilty for the crimes of their Government by tassit approval and turning of a blind eye. That is the excuse terrorists use to attach Brits who have wronged no-one, and I cannot condone that mentality.

I do not condone actions done in my name, and I do not accept any responsibility for those actions. No I did not vote. No I did not protest the actions when they were carried out. I have a family to feed.

Shebird, given your professed concern, I think a sensible response would be to explain to her the dangers and leave it at that.

Yes. That is exactly it. Beyond expressing your concern in a curious manner, it has nothing to do with you. This thread has served to explore the issue, and possible risks, but we each make our own choices based on our own experiences of the world. You must trust that your friend is still trying to do the best she can for her child, even if it is not what you would choose to do with yours.

And shebird - yes, I do see why it bothers you on the baby's behalf. But has this baby actually done anything that isn't mundane and normal for a baby, yet? I know some people do post a lot of tiresome details about their babies' routines, but I don't know many who have posted seriously unfavourable comments, so it is apparent that there is quite a high degree of editing and self-selection of information going on. Hopefully that will translate as the baby becomes a child with its own views and personality, into a bit more sensitivity about the child's feelings with regards to what is posted about it.

EllieFAntspoo - I shall remember you for this and be glad that my view of the world is not the same as your rather confusing one:

"Well, merely looking at what we can all see, the offices of state and the functionaries therein. They govern for a reason. We vote for them for a reason. They are merely puppetry, but very well paid, and their positions come with the chance to build legacy wealth. A step into civil servitude, or into the cabinet for one generation can bring with it the upward mobility of an entire family line into the lower levels of the governing classes.

I can't see that most hold no ambition or hope of ever advancing future generations of their family, and to be honest, very few outside of the aristocracy perceive lineage or their position within their family as being one of mere custodian. The traditional view is a very narrow one. They think differently, act differently, and have a different value system. However, on all measurable scales, health, education, leisure, access to resources, freedom, liberty, access to the law, immunity from the law, etc. Their way of thinking is better. It produces greater results.

Somewhere along the line, families here today are going to begin their move upwards in society. It is inevitable, but it requires foresight. In a hundred years some of them may be thought of by those around then to have always been there. To have always been influential or powerful, and to have come from a line that has always held office or formed part of the judiciary or banking industry, whatever.

But you're right. No-one really wants that for their family, least of all their children. Too much hard work, and it's never likely to happen to poeple like us, anyways. Best just enjoy life on FB. We can teach little Jimmy that kids like him can't do things like that, because if they could, we'd have done it long ago. And just to make sure, we'll plaster the internet with as much of his personal information as we can. That way everyone will see that we're just like them, we'll get lots of thumbs up, and little Jimmy won't ever be able to prove us wrong."

Properly laughing at people sleeping with aged men to get a corporate insurance contract

Ellie
"You would be surprised how often this comes up. We are talking hundreds of thousands of pounds here. There is a lot of commission on that. I'm sure there have been a number of whistleblowers over the years, but I haven't checked Google. Might be worth a spin."

Oh good grief. Stop spouting bollocks.
I know exactly how much corporate insurance contracts are worth. The brokerage. The RI . The potential to reduce costs through offshore in house excess cover.
I don't need fucking Google
And no one in the history of the world ever shagged someone to seal a corporate contract.
It's been fun but reign it in now - your preposterous level has now reached that of a James Bond movie.

Ellie, I still have no idea what you are talking about. So I'm leaving it there.

That's okay. rabbit and I took the thread way off on a tangent and are now exploring collective morality in societies.

rabbit

A noble ideology, but not reality. So long as man needs resources to provide for his family, and the free choice to do something about it, there will be those who conspire with likeminded individuals to further their own ends. It has been that way since humanity began, and will not change no matter how much evil we label it. Sin forms part of the human condition, and greed is probably the most powerful of those. It is hard wired into us all. That is why we teach our children to recognise it and to not be greedy.

But how can you say that greed is hard wired into us all which is why we teach our children to recognise it and to not be greedy? What's the point of a) teaching someone to recognise something that comes naturally to them, anyway, and b) teaching them not to be something they will be, anyway? You are admitting that we are, as human beings, capable of self control.

You are also admitting that we seek social approval and teaching to help us fit in. Society can be more or less corrupt, depending on the way we are brought up to think and act.

rabbit

There are differences between entering Whitehall or one of the many organisations of state, and entering the financial centres and their retinues in the City. They are completely different beasts. Yes they both scrutinise you to the backs of your eyeballs, but they are clearly different entities, and service to the state is arguably far less 'corrupt' an avenue through life, than senior management in our major financial institutions.

Both can make you rich, unbelievably so, but I'd imagine it is far easier to live with having served in a ministers, than having served in one of the big five banks.

So, you are implicating peoples' upbringings when you talk about their behaviours - and therefore think that you can have some influence over what your children end up doing. Whilst simultaneously professing not to want to stop them doing anything they choose. Not entirely free will, is it? You've engineered the situation from the beginning.