To think Mumsnet doesn't hate Instagram influencers?

[jamoncrumpets]

And for prominent influencers who I will not name here for fear of them kicking off and getting the thread pulled to even hint that this might be the case is irresponsible on their part?

SO much gets discussed on MN every day. So much gets criticised. Social media influencers are a new and intriguing phenomenon - why wouldn't they be discussed here? For better or worse?

Many people have supported influencers for the way they earn money. That gets ignored. Many have politely criticised and pointed out ways it could be more ethical. This gets ignored. One or two have made comments that are personal or cross the line, these have been pounced on and discussed publicly.

The 'arguments' die down. People stop caring. Then prominent influencers go and start the whole thing up again.

Blaming MN is just lazy and irresponsible.

I’m sitting here matching teas to my friends...erm no I’m not. Shame as there’s such lovely sentiment behind that post, but the tea ruins it.

I'm pleased to see the more proactive approach that users of SM are taking to reporting non compliant ads to the ASA, because I can see this having a big effect on my feed. Even you must agree with that, M5, being a big supporter of ad transparency and all?

@EeebyMum absolutely...that was a schoolgirl error for you; sure it only happened the once though eh? It is indeed helpful to learn from other's experience. Thank you for the lesson. Hope the repercussions were manageable for you .

@m5slowdown - I didn't "pledge" anything. I said I'm more keen than ever to discuss those things. So if you could kindly stop derailing the thread away from that topic, and nitpicking so we end up with 1000+ bickering posts that would be marvellous.

If not, I'd be genuinely interested in taking this conversation away from this thread (and m5 and other strange trolls) so we can get back to it

@BeautyBox garnering support from other supporters to gang up on a dissenting poster; really? How is this relevant to the thread? Why though?

I'm not trying to gang up on anyone. I want a sensible discussion and you're offering the opposite of that.

Try ignoring the trolling and engage with genuine posters?

@tvcabinet, what is the criteria you are using which constitutes 'troll'? Are you the sole arbiter of the decision as to whom is, or is not, trolling? Genuine question.

MN is the arbiter of whether someone is trolling or not.

Much as ASA will decide whether someone isn't following the advertising regulation properly.

We enjoyed discussing as a class whether FOD's story was 'fishing' for a replacement pair of shoes. 80% that he was, 20% that he was providing content as 'hapless dad' to further his brand. My class also are very clear what a troll is.

Sorry, but I do agree with this.
Much as ASA will decide whether someone isn't following the advertising regulation properly.
The ASA deals with this. MN users acting as the Internet Police over ad disclosure and posters sniding about accounts and then others gleefully commenting which ones they've reported if they think it could be in breach (even if they're not sure but they'll do it anyway) - too much.

@CadyHeron - do you genuinely not see @m5slowdown's contributions as a bit of weird and trolly?
I can see that some of the posts are a bit weird, but behind some strangeness there is actually some very good points raised.

We enjoyed discussing as a class whether FOD's story was 'fishing' for a replacement pair of shoes. 80% that he was, 20% that he was providing content as 'hapless dad' to further his brand.

Nobody HAS to send him (or indeed anyone else) anything. Maybe he was fishing, maybe he wasn't. Even if he was, who cares? If people want to read a post and decide to send stuff, that's their lookout.
If it's all declared, which everyone is so terribly worried about, then there's not a problem.

Cady, I wouldn't tell you or any other posters on the threads if I reported an advert to ASA.

MN and ASA can only act on the evidence made available to them. If people see things they feel are in breach of the guidelines they have every right to report them.

And every right to alert other consumers, who can draw their own conclusions. Keep reporting folks.

Cady, I wouldn't tell you or any other posters on the threads if I reported an advert to ASA.

Maybe you personally, but some on the thread have,

Keep reporting folks.

Are you this diligent and reporty happy for all those mums/parents with FB businesses?

You curtain twitch and see Linda down the road's got a new car, and decide she must be on the fiddle or something so report.
I'll bet not.

@tvcabinet, "my class also are very clear what a troll is." Yes, the objective and dictionary definition is 'an ugly cave-dwelling creature depicted as either giant or a dwarf'. Any definition used in SM is subjective, applied to suit a user's agenda and very rarely capable of attracting a standardised definition on SM. The definition you are 'teaching' your students will be grounded in your interpretation based on interactions you have had on SM. May I respectfully suggest you qualify your teaching by separation of 'troll' and 'Internet troll'. The two are distinctly separate .

Cady, the whole influencer market has been (still is) like the Wild West of advertising. There are lots of contributors to these threads who feel they have been take for a ride in the past and are unhappy that ASA have been so lax in enforcing the regulation. As I said before, I have seen a marked improvement in disclosure on my feed, and a huge number of brands clearly doing extensive marketing on IG that I was previously unaware of. I don't think it is a coincidence either that people are taking a more proactive stance to reporting. Influencers that don't disclosure are the ones that are starting to look unprofessional and sloppy. The tide is turning in the consumer's favour and I think that is a good thing.

I'm with you on that they should make ads clear.
It's seriously weird to set yourself up as some kind of internet police officer though and take it upon yourself to report when if there was anything wrong, ASA would be on it.
If these threads really were about ad concerns and child privacy/concerns why is it the second that people don't post any opposite opinions for a change it turns into an utter bunfight because there's a small proportion of posters who really are just out to internet curtain twitch, bitch and expect everyone to laugh along with them in their nastiness?

@myothernamewasfunnier I agree these threads are having an impact on the accounts and consequently what we see on our feeds. Since they started (with the very original one in Style & Beauty which I think is coming up for nearly 1 year ago!) the transparency that many of us are looking for has started to trickle down to the smaller accounts as a few of the big names led the way in trying to figure out a new way of working through all of this although there's still much room for improvement. There are a few accounts that come to mind who have been specifically talked about on these threads and as a direct consequence of that they've stepped up their ad and affiliate disclosures after being called out (again still room for improvement), some have disappeared for a couple of days to go off and lick their wounds and regroup after being discussed in detail and some have obviously changed the way they put their children in front of the camera. I'm sure these are all as a direct consequence of these threads and for the regulars that have been contributing to the discussions and want to see change, I think we'd all agree there has been a shift.

However it seems that as these threads continue, we're having to wade through more and more trolling, derailing, attempted censorship, nit picking and bickering between posters (I was guilty of getting drawn in a few days ago) and that's a shame. There's been a lot of insightful discussion around this topic and now it's hard to stay on track. Some posters seem to think there are aspects of the discussion that should not be up for debate, are none of our business. There seems to be a fundamental mis-understanding of the concept of free speech, thought and opinion from some people. So it's ok for us to talk about the free gifts and disclosures on free gifts but we... "have no place discussing selling on of gifts". Ah ok sorry I didn't get the memo that that part of Instagram influencing was [for some inexplicable reason] off limits. If you're one of the people on here that are trying to steer the discussion away from certain aspects, tell us why. Why is the selling of gifts off limits? Why is that not a pertinent part of the discussion? Surely that's a highly relevant aspect of influencer "ethics". Rather than trying to school us in what we can and can't discuss, give us your argument for why you think we have no place discussing certain things. Step up your discussion engage with thoughtful argument and lets' see where the thread goes. If not, then you'll never be seen as anything but disruptive.

@its5oclocksomewhere, the discussion around selling on of gifted items has been couched in 'how dare they double up the money'; the impact and or connection to influencer ethics has not been made thus far. It is easy therefore, to conclude posters making these comments have a grudge against IGers making money. Which I also perceive to be the crux of the argument. FWIW, there are no ethics applicable to an IGer selling on gifted items. Their gift; their choice. A donor donated; the recipient received - this is the stage where ethics come into play. Beyond this, no one's business what happens to said gifted item.

If you're one of the people on here that are trying to steer the discussion away from certain aspects, tell us why. Why is the selling of gifts off limits

I don't think anyone is saying it is off limits? Just pointing out that if they sell any gifted goods for cash and everything's being declared, they're doing nothing wrong.
People sell gifted stuff on say Ebay all the time.
The dress you got given as a present by Aunty Ethel but you've put on a bit of chub and can no longer fit into it? Or the pair of shoes your sister bought you but you've worn them a lot and now don't want them anymore so you decide to sell them.
Or clothes your baby has grown out of.
Some give to the charity shop, some will hoard them all, and some will try and make a little bit of money from selling them on.
Nothing wrong in any of those scenarios.

the discussion around selling on of gifted items has been couched in 'how dare they double up the money'; the impact and or connection to influencer ethics has not been made thus far

It does come across as that. One earlier comment was

When did 'greed is good' become so acceptable?

How is that to do with ethics? That's to do with being affronted they're daring to try and make a bit of money in the first place.

The humphy face after the quote was the other posters, not mine it just hasn't bolded as well for some reason.