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

They attract the interest as they are non celebrities but with a large instagram following, they have become market leaders of 'instaparenting'. The fascination grew when the example they are setting became a bit questionable.

CadyHeron I wasn't intending to join any perceived obsession with the couple. A friend alerted me to the post last night. I agree it appears unintentional, but the use of 'pre-op' and 'sickness' were unfortunate and I do think people should be more careful with their words in their posts if they have a wide audience. I am more disappointed by some of the comments below the post. I wouldn't like my 'followers' to speak like that. I would not leave them unchallenged.

Neither of them have good PR skills or a particularly gracious attitude to apologizing when they slip up. Juxtapose this with MP's attitude to the mum awards fiasco.

I think the ‘pre-op’ thing is relevant because it speak to their continuing tone-deafness to the actual issues.

After all the scrutiny they’ve been under recently for careless language and explicit or implicit condoning of derogatory language, to go and post something like that is either very thick or calculated attention whoring.

I’m inclined to think it’s the former. And it’s a perfect example of the wider problem with insta slebs. They think they’re among friends. They think they’re safe to tell slightly off colour jokes or be a bit careless with the language they use because they do so under the assumption that everyone is like them. It’s the echo chamber thing again.

Clemmie Telford can say the getting a £1,500 car seat is cheaper than buying a whole new car because she lives in a bubble where she can’t conceive of a whole ‘new’ car costing less than £1,500.

It’s blithness writ large. And the accounts that are successful are cognisant of the fact that their following is diverse and will have different perspectives on things. You can tell the ones who have considered how their post might be perceived from all of those different perspectives and have worded it accordingly.

Because it needs that filter. It needs care and thought. When it’s done well it looks easy. When it’s done carelessly it looks like a bugger’s muddle (or like the OD’s accounts).

Randomwordsstucktogether So well put, thank you.

@cadyheron it's strange though as when the topic changes or moves on, you continue to mention them and bring it up. So in your own way you feed the threads and keep the discussion focused on them.

@random I agree with your post

@peony one of these reasons I have finally unfollowed is not a non-pc gaff, and I think your post should not be jumped on, it highlights how many people follow them and that people new to the thread have no idea they will be accused of being obsessive. But it's the comments underneath the posts. The fans who leap in to defend them as though they are all mates, 'just a bit of fun' 'harmless' 'ignore, people just love to get offended' etc. Thousands of them. Soothing the dented egos.
But it's not just a bit of fun, it's a very profitable job, and none of them seem to realise they are just players and funding the lifestyle. I'm not criticising that as such, if you use Instagram in that way, fine. Like a glossy magazine. But for the accounts to be so poorly managed and keep making such blunders, it is just odd. These are grown adults who should be capable of being careful and getting it right. I've seen people I know commenting and wading in defending him being funny and capturing that snapshot. I'd very much like to hear the children's accounts of half of these pics... I bet there is nothing spontaneous about most of them.
And that's where the line gets crossed with the people who come on saying, the kids are fine, it's nothing, it's not like child acting etc. I'm sure it started out as a snap on the beach, and a kid doing something funny, but it's now a contrived media circus.

I think FOD’s comment shows just how deep his wife’s sympathies were with the trans community on her recent post that was not at all used to have a dig at Mumsnet.

Not

Sorry meant to be

Or not of in my last post

it's strange though as when the topic changes or moves on, you continue to mention them and bring it up. So in your own way you feed the threads and keep the discussion focused on them.

Doesn't need me to "keep it focussed on them", the thread does a fantastic job of that all by itself.

I do think people should be more careful with their words in their posts if they have a wide audience

Maybe so, but again, who are we on here? The Internet Police?!

@cadyheron you should probably read back a bit. It does come across as quite obsessive from yourself. And then you wait for someone to mention it and are all over it like a rash.
Can you think of any other accounts that send arrogant DM's that get published, that balance children in random ways (to get attention) that are unmedia savvy enough to not present as a team (potty pic) etc. There's literally no one I can think of putting controversy in this manner, and let's not forget how many extra followers the controversy gets.
You may dislike people discussing certain accounts, but from the varied newbies that appear, mentioning them, it surely shows that quite large numbers of people have thoughts on them.

Boredandtired - in other words, basically nobody have a different opinion, or question anything other than the majority view on here? Just let us get on with our criticising and don't say otherwise?
Can you not see that that is EXACTLY what you (general you) are complaining about from them but from "the other side?"

@cadyheron not at all. I'm pointing out you are actually doing exactly the same. Your feeding the threads, continually bringing them up. You don't answer valid points with any back up. (I'm still waiting to hear of the accounts of 'loads of dads' you mentioned) you won't except that in this instaparent bubble they are the dominant accounts who Court the most attention (even account deletion is more drama seeking than anything else.) To me it doesn't seem that there's people who agree and a few who disagree, it seems people are affected by the accounts and discuss it.

Boredandtired - they're being brought up constantly. Not by me. If you mean I'm feeding it by disagreeing, well, last time I checked, people are allowed to disagree.
You don't have to just all have the same voice, all saying the same thing, you know.
why should I have to produce a list of "plenty of other Dads? They're out there. Can you not have a look yourself?

CadyHeron Do you police all of the threads you are on? I'm new to the thread and your comments above are a bit rude. I read the last thread after the telegraph article. I got the impression lots of people were commenting. Why is that not ok? I totally agree that everybody should be able to express their (moderated) opinion, including you.

@cadyheron I'm more than happy for you to have and share your opinion but you post as though you are the overwhelming voice of reason. I'm just pointing out that you are no different to any other poster. You are on a forum posting your opinion. We did go over the dad's things a number of times, and wondered if it was algorithms or whether there simply are hardly any, it was you who had come on to say people were obsessed with FOD when there were so many similar accounts. And no I couldn't really find any.

Oh come on Cady you have a MOFOD klaxon going on. You disappear for ages when they are not being discussed and then as soon as they crop up again, back you are to tell people to stop talking about them!

Course it's OK, sorry if I came across rude. It does seem by some that you can't have a differing opinion on these threads though.
It professes to be about social media and the use of children etc, but always, always ends up just being a MOD and FOD watch and then running back here.
It's so strange.

Moonkissed - I've been on the threads when there hasn't been any mention of them, so that doesn't stand up.

On the last thread, the topic had moved off Mod and FOD by several pages until cady came blundering back onto the thread to tell us to stop talking about MOD (except we had, several pages ago).

What's it to you if we talk about Mod and FOD? You aren't the Internet police either.

Sorry to mention them again! I just wanted to say one thing. I didn't follow mod but would check in on her - midwifery, nice dresses, occasional funny aside. I think she should come back and SAY something. Watching her sad little face trapped in FOD's car wash and Friday night dance stories just depressed me. Now it's just an arrogant man wheeling his wife and 4 daughters mutely around while he fulfills his advertising/book deal obligations.

Cady, its not strange at all. You've just said yourself, these threads are about social media and children. Not mentioning MOD or FOD would be like talking about cola but not being allowed to mention Coke or Pepsi.

I have mentioned mod/fod as I think they are the most relevant in terms of the ethics of featuring children. Their USP is the kids as opposed to other accounts which focus on fashion/work/lifestyle, and they're moved out of the insta bubble and into Waterstones etc. I'm not interested in what the comments underneath the posts are, I think it's a different issue the 'echo chamber' and pile ons. I'm more concerned about the effects on the kids featured long term. I watched the fallout from the Julie Myerson column and can see potential similarities. This isn't ODs bashing either, I think they're in uncharted territory and need some guidance? As I've said before a hostile teenager who feels aggrieved is a whole different ball game, and you don't really see it coming.