Insta Mum 3

[Babaloo88]

Why is the other thread closed?!? I was enjoying reading through it?!!

I'm not entirely convinced how genuine all of these concerns are to be honest. The thread started to deteriorate when everyone took to slagging off the instamums. There's no point pretending this is a genuine discussion when it slips into abuse really quickly.

If there are genuine safeguarding concerns, then I don't know what good talking about them here are. If you truly are concerned about the safety of a child, there's fuck all anyone on MN can do. Safeguarding isn't the same issue as complying with ASA requirements. You either have genuine concerns that need reporting or you don't really have concerns for the twins safety but want to slag off FODs parenting - if that's what you want to do, don't dress it up as concerns for their safety.

Holiday - you said "anyone else would be under radar of SS."
Your words. Why would you say that if you thought they weren't in danger?
You must think it's real on some level.

It’s fine to discuss whether a parent should be filming a child in distress for social media and do nothing but talk about it here. No dms, no reports etc

Because it is timely and worth discussing for some.
Also Mn is a vast resource for outsiders and things can and do change as a result if people chatting.

It’s like anything is this ok, I don’t think it is etc

Exactly, kirinm. I've been interested in the debate behind it, the ethics, privacy, etc, but it's clear when you do start to discuss what it professes to be about in the first place it isn't at all. Clear from how quickly it degenerates when people stop discussing.

Holiday - you said "anyone else would be under radar of SS."
Your words. Why would you say that if you thought they weren't in danger? confused
You must think it's real on some level.

Those were not my words Cady, please read the post.

@kirinm yep, totally agree. I am not comfortable with turning my intense mistrust of MOFOD into something else. Will be taking a back seat til normal service is resumed.

Cady - I've basically disagreed with nearly everything you've said on all other threads. I am fully against the advert bullshit and deception and I'd say you have a very different opinion to me on the ethics of 'influencers'

I'm just uncomfortable with talking about the safety of kids as I'm not convinced there are genuine concerns.

I unfollowed FOD and MOD a long time ago by the way.

Why Ian it offensive to say the twins are FOD's USP? What else could it be bearing in mind about 90% of his feed seem to focus on them

MOD and FOD have agents. This is a business. There will be discussions with the agents about what their USPs will be and what to focus on/what gets the most likes etc. Which presumably MOD and FOD don't find so grossly offensive that they have had to shut up shop

Donald Trump is a parent. Should all discussions about him on mumsnet be shut down on the basis now that it isn't making his life easier etc. When you step out of the parent, private indivisual sphere, that argument kind of becomes redundant

Nobody is so suggesting the twins aren't his USP nor that it's offensive to say so.

Suggestions he's putting his kids in danger or isn't caring for them properly is not what this thread was started for. People are mentioning social services ffs!

Oops - epic name attempt fail!

One person mentioned it and most have said not relevant

I suppose I look at MN as somewhere to discuss and debate as I would with any group of my friends etc sometimes someone or something stands out from the crowd which can take a centre stage within a discussion. Things lead in from one thing to the next.

If FOD was a man of colour or on benefits he'd be under the radar of SS.
Holiday - YOUR words. Yes you did. Again, why would they be under radar of SS if you didn't think in some way they were in danger?

Just seen your later post. Ok, you n addressed that. You DID say about SS though if was anyone on benefits or "of colour." Which is bizarre if you don't think they're in any danger.
You might not like what they stand for, but they haven't done anything wrong. Plenty of instead take that USP. If you don't like, you don't have to follow that type of account. If you genuinely think they're not in danger like you say, it's a strange stance to take saying others would be under SS.

This debate is just daft again now. I'm awaiting an inevitable shutdown.

Sorry, on phone so apologies for typos!

Jamoncrumpets you said it. Daft indeed. Wouldn't get in danger of getting pulled, would it, if it didn't get so fucking crazy.

I'm against the deception of ads if they're not declared as well, kirinm. Have always stated so so we agree on some things.

A quick scroll back shows two people on about SS and a lot of much concern over parenting from other posters along with safety.
Which is why I asked if people genuinely believe everything they see as gospel truth and used FB as an example (8 year old with a beer on holiday) I saw on my feed.) He wasn't drinking beer at all.
People seem unable to distinguish between fact and fiction.

Some of the poses do look a bit risky. The toddler on the feet for example

I wouldn’t talk about safeguarding as it’s not the type of language I would use for this

But yeh I do think that toddler looks like it could fling itself off - maybe there’s someone there just in case to catch her

On the rest of the chat Hadley Freeman has done a great article on using children. They’ll be a swing towards more as mainstream media starts to pick up on what people are talking about

And I reckon it’ll be about things like using children in IG to sell stuff, filming distressed children and whether we should give them privacy

And they’ll probably reference a few accounts like FODs as examples. There, written it for someone

I strongly suspect if FOd was a man of colour and on benefits that he would be under the radar of SS

Cady this is what I said, not what you quoted me as saying. I do stand by my belief that if a man of colour on benefits was posting videos of his children climbing up furniture, in storage boxes in department stores, crying out for comfort whilst filming it all and stating that he didn't have a clue about parenting that at the very least the public perception and media uptake of them would be very different. Throw in his wife's need for gin and his need for a beer whilst the toddlers are wreaking havoc in a room upstairs and I'm sure you can see how White MC privilege works?

cady - if you ever facebook friend routinely publicly posting "comedy" photos of their children on Facebook crying and looking distressed? I think that is the correct analogy - not one picture of a child with a beer bottle. What would you think about that?