To think this is not a picture you would post on Facebook

[Nowaynowjose]

SIL posts regularly about various problems, usually the half info type post which has lots of ppl sympathising and asking after more detail. Her young child recently had an issue which required hospitalisation, and was put on a ventilator for a day, fluid drained etc. Luckily, treatment has been positive and the worst is over. She will need to stay in for a few more days for observation.
The first we knew about it was from a post on FB, on entry to the hospital, although it wasn't clear which child was involved, or what the problem was. Subsequent updates have included photos of child with various tubes etc, which has been distressing for some family members to see (for various reasons). I understand FB is a fast way to update everyone at once, but AIBU to think posting the pics is a bit unnecessary? The poor child is ill, surely they deserve a bit more privacy than having these pics plastered on social media?

[Shadow666]

I have a couple of friends who like to vaguebook too. I just ignore them but I can imagine that vaguebooking about sick children is very upsetting for those reading it. I understand that perhaps the parents are too upset to post properly but it's frustrating to read.

So,

"Just to let you all know that Tom had a bad asthma attack today so we took him to hospital. He's doing ok, will update when we know more." Is absolutely fine.

"It's Tom..... checks into hospital"

"He's not breathing :("

"Really scared"

"Don't know what to do :("

" Please pray for him. It looks bad :("

Followed by no further update so you're left wondering what actually happened.

Is really fucking horrible to read because you don't have a clue what is going on and it sounds far worse than it is.

It's these kinds of posts that people feel are attention seeking and annoying. Then 3 days later you see a photo of Tom on Facebook at a party and he looks absolutely fine.

[Owl1011]

Whatever camp you sit in with this debate - social media is a complete construct, edited to perfection. Unless you have a 24/7 live stream on your timeline no one will truly know the real detail of your life. People post selectively, carefully choosing what they want the world to see. This doesn't make it wrong because it's how people want the world to view them and their lives and we live in an age that allows them to do this. Call it "updating friends and family" or call it "attention seeking", that is simply a matter of opinion.

I also know my timeline well enough by now, to know who posts 'just because they want the world to see' and who posts because they 'genuinely want to update family and friends'. I don't get offended by it either way, just keep on scrolling through my timeline.

I will say though - just because this is an anonymous forum it doesn't give people the right to be rude and forget their manners, whatever camp you sit in on this debate.

mic drop

[nakedscientist]

Are you in the UK Vanilla? I would be amazed if a public hospital could legally prevent a parent taking a photograph of their own child or bar a parent from seeing that child for taking a photo. How would they police it? Do they have security guards in there?

I spent a month in ITU a few years back with DH and in the Homerton, London you are not allowed to take photos (I too read all the posters). They 'policed' this because when you are in ITU there is nurse standing at the foot of the bed 24/7. They said it was for patients privacy.

[MumsOnCrack]

Someone I know posted a picture of her friend's afterbirth - and tagged her in it. Nothing would surprise me after that.

[mumoseven]

This

[Gingersnapshard]

I have a friend who Facebook profile picture ATM is a picture of herself crying hysterically on her Mom's funeral. I simply cannot wrap my head around it. And she isn't exactly a pretty crier.