Ethics regarding Instamums and huns

[BurberryIsSo2000]

Homeisthecalm here, I think it's suitable to start a new ethics thread.

Since clearly, the one from yesterday isn't really about ethics but Clemmie.

Thanks all,

Keep it as nice or as stingy as you like

I'll start off by saying things should be clearly marked 'ad' or 'gifted'

Although the term gifted gives me the rage

Cady and Sofia have a vested interest in this for whatever reason, maybe they are instamums themselves, maybe they do work for MoFod (who they obsessively actively defend on every single thread, going back to the S&B ones) that’s what I think anyway but they’ve denied this repeatedly.

I think the more you focus on them, the less your debate flows and that’s why they do it.

Cuddlecouch - I agree with you on the privacy of kids there. I do think there should be an element of privacy as in no names, or faces,or locations etc. Basic internet safety you're taught at primary school, really, isn't it? Unethical to not allow them any modicum of privacy as they haven't really consented, have they?
To have them as part of a family IG brand though and not to reveal any identifying details - they'd still have their privacy in that respect.
Many reality stars or celebrities have family brands that people follow.
Some keep the kids out of the limelight, some don't. Same with IG, I suppose. You're just following public figures on a different platform instead.
I do think it wise to not have all details out there.
If by unethical to use them at all though even if they're more private - I think that's a matter of opinion.

What's more relevant is how the kids are shown. Do the Beckhams, for example, show their kids having tantrums/crying/upset/opening #gifts? I'm genuinely asking because I've only seen a couple of posts that have come up on IG of famous people's kids. I've only seen them been shown in a positive light, in their own right and no commentary as to how difficult/boring etc. it is to parent them. The difference is clear, right?

Readingchair - I hear what you're saying re celebs like the Beckhams. They may be a family brand, but it's not quite the same thing.
People clearly follow parenting feeds as they're interested in everyday family life, and following/watching others lives.
So in that respect they're different as your family life is your USP.
Every day thing like tantrums will probably be shown.
I agree though,if you're (general you) are identifying them by showing faces/names/locations that doesn't sit too well.
It stays "out there."
You can be a family IGer, but it makes sense to keep a little privacy back as well.

Do you think it’s possible for people to relate to you as much as people if you don’t mention the child’s name?

If you are parent IGer and build a following using your children that is. All the ones I can think of off the top of my head very much build in the name. So this is Emily she is 18 months and loves apples, smiling and...

Could it even work without the name? It’s such a huge part

Marsha, perhaps they're missing a trick not having branded named kids - Pampers 7, Disney 4, and the triplets Farrow, Ball & LittleGreene.

Ha I really do think that we’re not far a child being sponsored for life - oh darling you only got Asda (that’ll teach her)

Far off that is. Especially since all the people who can make money are invested in shutting down the conversation. Even on here (by Mn)

Cady To be clear I am not interested in ever seeing a public post of any child who is upset or crying. Not because they might one day resent the image, but because it shows a basic lack of respect for them.

Marsha you only got Asda

Erica Davies has a lot of the same audience as the Instamums but she disguises her kids faces and we don't know their names.

DMBL40 does show her kids but they're older and it seems she does ask their permission these days. And she never says their names except occasionally it may slip out by accident. She never says her husbands name either.

Poppy of WIWT with the twin boys has not revealed their names and tries to obscure their faces with images of sunglasses etc.

Reading - You're not interested in ever seeing them, but you watch them, you admitted as much on the thread earlier. Just like you read magazines in the dentist.
So you are interested. Maybe a strange kind of hate interest, but you're interested in them.
You contribute to the very thing you're not interested in (maybe not by money,but by traffic etc) by keenly expressing an interest in parenting feeds and commenting.

Thanks TheLady Glad to see no-one is missing. Look after CadyHeron over there.

Oh and Mamas Scrapbook never shows her kids. I've gone off her since she supported all the aggressive histrionics on IG last week, it seemed highly at odds with her job as a therapist and I've unfollowed her as a result. But at least she doesn't give any identifying info about her kids.

Elspeth - disguising kids faces and not showing their names, I think that's a great way to go about it. That's what I meant earlier.
That way they're not identifiable.

Marsha- I follow a few feeds that don't say a name,they seem very popular too.
I think some of the names they sometimes come out with can be a little "cutesy",but a better way of not having actual names I suppose.

Nice to see NOTHING new has happened since I last checked, still Cady and Sofia telling us all we are #jel #haters #uokhun

Not familiar with Poppy of WIWT, which one's that?
I follow DMBL40 though. You do tend to see obscured or partial faces I agree. That's a good one to follow.

No CadyHeron I do not contribute. I am here joining the voices of people who think that certain posts of children are exploitative. I do not watch stories, I do not follow, like or comment on such posts on IG. I do not consider looking a public post 'traffic'. If other people see my comments here and it makes them consider contributing to a conversation about whether children should be shown in such a way on IG, then my small input isn't a bad thing.

But you win. I can't bear to share a thread with you any longer. You are being obtuse and insufferable in your relentless misrepresentation of what I am actually saying.

Looking at feeds is traffic though. Each time you click on, you're giving them more views.

I had hoped this thread might prove an interesting place to discuss actual ethics, not people's opinions of kids on SM as they're 2 different topics. Le sigh.

Reading don’t go! I’m enjoying reading your posts

Jelly what do you mean?

As in what is it you wanted to talk about?

Ps Reading it’s only one person that is (deliberately?) (mis)interpreting your posts that way, they seem perfectly reasonable given what we’re talking about

I don't know, I'm quite crabby today

I guess I care less about the kids being used and more what they're being used for, and this unattainable life they're selling. Hawking expensive sandals and Boden clothes they get for free and #gifted but us regular schmucks can't afford them? So their lifestyle is built on jealousy and aspiration - thanks but no thanks.

CB is the recent example of this. "It's how I make money yo" like that means it's okay I go out to work, and you sit at home trying on #gifted dresses and going to retreats, and then tell your audience that it's just business!?