To be fed up of Instamums 2

[Hmmmmx100]

Continued from original post...

The discussion of protecting children online is an important one. The NSPCC are running a campaign to help children protect themselves online and help parents to protect their children online. But, we are living in a world now where it's the parents exposing their children online, publicly and for monetry gain. I have never been comforatable with this.

Hashtag I agree. We are teaching them to not give out details of where they live, not identify which school they go to, our primary cannot even post pictures of children with their faces showing on it's website. To not interact with strangers, to be aware of online bullying and how to deal with it, these kids are instantly recognised and just a google search and their home is available, with the layout of their houses etc etc it's crazy. So risky.

I've been reading a lot of these posts and also the Instagram posts and I think it's all really sad.

I hope women are more supportive of each other when my girls are older

The irony remains that a lot of people cross both platforms. But how it looks to the world at large - who might not be bothered to read a full 67 pages of commentary - both 'sides' are just bashing each other over the head with a rank used tampon.

Like MP said... opinion is important and everyone can and should have one. It's the measure of your character whether you can remain respectful while disagreeing with what someone does or says.

Bowinf out now as the interesting stuff keeps getting waylaid into the very uninteresting, offensive/defensive malarkey.

Motherpukka to be fair, 67 pages of this and you'd go crazy. Same with a post on Instagram with 1000 comments. There's a point in there somewhere.

both 'sides' are just bashing each other over the head with a rank used tampon.

Branded? Tampax #ad?

I am still on Tena Lady sanitary pads. More 'whallop'

The really smart bloggers will use this as free market research and adapt their blogs accordingly. Nearly every comment has come from a one time follower who at some point related to them. The creepy, fawning comments are not the ones I would be listening to.

I've lost track of the thread but I did post on the first one. My post was identifying and I knew the DF were about to pick it up so I asked for one or two to be removed.

What I've noticed on insta stories is that a lot of the 'stories' are made up. You can tell it a mile off. I assume it's to find a way to mention a brand? That's the way it seems. I can see how some would feel misled but I could tell what it was, an ad, and if I liked the product I might try it on the back of that ad, just like the TV or those annoying FB ads that keep making me buy stuff on Amazon!

The child anonymity debate is a real one. My insta is about my child, for the greater good as opposed to advertising. I'll RTFT before I say any more.

Why do they delete comments asking if stuff was free? Surely you'd just say yes. It was free and it was great and thank you to blah.

I'd enjoy the debate of constructive feedback!

In 10 years time, Mod and Fod will be sat in front of the fire one quiet night, whilst their teenagers slam doors in the background, and say, "Remember that time we Insta'd Nit lotion and blew up the Internet?!"

I used to love Emily Norris when she started out but she has totally sold out to the point it makes me cringe. It's like I'm not interesting enough on my own so I'm going to use my kids to milk every penny by advertising every product that I can.

I find Emily N to be one of the more honest and transparent. She said she wanted to grow her YouTube following so she could make enough money to give up her job and work from home. She (mostly) clearly labels things #ad and she also keeps her distance a little bit from her audience and doesn't try to be overly familiar. Although I wasn't that clear on whether some of Emily's recent trips (e.g. to Centre Parcs etc) were sponsored and she has accepted sponsorship from Johnson & Johnson. I know MOD got on her high horse about people that do that (although -not sure if true-another poster on here said MOD is paid by Proctor and Gamble herself -a company which had had its own controversies, so it's complete hypocrisy anyway).

I'd really prefer it if every single time these posters reviewed anything, they were completely transparent. Eg. If you get a free trip to Centre Parcs can the YouTuber specify what parts of the trip were free and whether the result of that means the poster is contractually obliged to leave a positive review. I suppose if you are given a free trip it is bound to skew your ability to be able to be entirely honest. But at least us viewers would be clearer about what the arrangements are.

The confusion comes when the poster has received a free holiday ...but hasn't also been paid to sponsor it. I think the viewers are saying loud and clear that they want more transparency. And I think it's MOD and FOD's recent luxury holidays (that were shrouded in positive plugs, combined with secrecy about what the arrangements were behind the scenes), that seems to have sparked all this. It's really misleading to their followers and I feel like I've been taken for a complete ride by them. That arrangements for the £7k villa holiday they went on should have been more transparent from the start. It's not right that MOD at one point admitted that the accommodation was free but then deleted the comment. These people have broken our trust a bit now.

I honestly just think they should use the #gift. Solves a lot of problems.

I don't expect them to use it 6 months later - someone up thread was asking when it stops being a gift. I'd say when it's become a part of your house or wardrobe that's got stains on, it ain't a gift no longer.

But for an initial mention, it would help enormously.

For those who instagram their lives on big accounts the problem is going to be that the whole nature of instagram has changed really quickly from being a bit of fun flicking through photos of other people's lives (ignoring for a minute the moral issue of putting the children out there very publicly) into a big advertising fest. People are just going to lose interest in it at some point and then the source of income from it will dry up.

I can completely see why the instagrammers did it in the first place, what they enjoy about it but also wonder whether at some point they will feel like they have sold their souls and feel very exposed. Being in the public eye always, always means you will be criticised and have opened your lives up to discussion and inevitably put their children at risk to some extent. It's why some famous actors/well known public figures etc keep their children completely away from all public events and never share their photos. The issue of the risk to children mostly from a psychological and also a 'stranger danger' perspective is when their lives are made very, very public on the internet, as many have said, should be debated.
On my original point, Instagram has gone from being genuinely entertaining to feeling like you're having various products rammed down your throat and it has taken away the escapism element of looking at it for me.

*sorry lots of typos due to multitasking!

Yes I think there has been a fair amount of naivete.

I was reading an article about child privacy on HuffPo or somewhere and one sentence struck me "Do you have any idea what Matt Damon's kids look like? No you don't"

And its true, I don't. In other words it there are hugely over exposed people who are literally followed everywhere who manage to keep their kids lives 100% private. But on Instagram there are people doing the exact opposite, it's bizarre.

Sorry one more point. I think it might be similar to big brother- at the start it works really well, normal people become famous, everyone loves it, but it quickly falls out of favour because everyone jumps on the bandwagon and is full of people desperate to get rich/ famous quickly.
For those with genuine professions, such as MoD being a midwife, in the long term it would be much better to focus on that side of things not the instant but empty instagram fame which will be short-lived.

I don't think the hashtag should be gift. A gift is normally given unilaterally with no expectations in return. That's not the case here, obviously there is an expectation that a review will be given or the product tagged etc. It should be clearly tagged as an advert/review/collaboration

FOD's Renault ad last night was interesting, and someone did comment along the lines of 'careful the ad police will be along' and FOD's response was basically 'why can't people enjoy it for what it is? Just family life in a car' (except I have to say I thought it painted MOD in a very poor light- and one comment that was responded to suggested exceptionally poor acting from both parents, confused upset twins and poor old oldest child being used, this was left there) the ad wasn't clear - again I believe Renault have loaned both MP and the 'oD's cars for a year and are filming constantly.
In the comments however FOD engaged in conversation about the twins car seats and why they had those seats and how the twins had got on with them, I don't think this was an ad but the info was genuine and very useful!!
It is a murky world, and they open themselves up for discussion.

Interestingly MOD's latest post is firmly midwife-centric, returning to her core (and original) genre.

Mod on the other hand seems to be reverting back to her job and issues surrounding it, which is how and why she first got popular and liked. Except in the car ad.

I also just watched FOD's latest offering and it was clearly marked as an ad. It was a bit funny too - reminiscent of "candid" tv ads.

To be fair, it's not MODs fault she doesn't know the protocol. No one does, really. Enough questions and debate has gone on in this thread to be evident of that.

Plus, seeing that place the ODs went to would have been useful for many. Can't imagine it's easy to find good accommodation with a tribe of kids. Regardless of paid/gifted, people get to see somewhere they may not have considered, and decide with this as an option. I don't see how anyone is coming off badly in that equation. If it was an absolute dive and they showed it otherwise that would be different.