To find it annoying when parents choose to put their children on social media but cover their faces?

[yellowpinkbluegreenlilac]

I don’t mean parents who for whatever reason decide they don’t want their children’s images on social media: that’s a totally valid choice.

But why share photos of your child and then stick a smiley face or similar over their image? Quite a few pages I follow on instagram do this, mostly those with a small business. They’ve evidently decided to share images of their family life but are so secretive about their child.

I find it irrationally annoys me, as if their child is so special in some way. I just can’t understand why, you know, you just wouldn’t share images of the child at all, or ones of the child looking out at a view so only back of head or similar. Or am I being petty and disagreeable?

I don't understand what you don't understand?

They want to put photos of themselves, fine, but they respect their kids = and kids friends - privacy.

You might have no interest for the photos, but you are the one following these people.

Haha yes! It's so attention seeking and performative. They are basically say their lives are too important not to be shared but the peasants and pervs watching their stories are not worthy of seeing their actual faces. Insufferable main character syndrome or just people who are so bored with their lives they can't live without the validation of social media. If you don't want people to see identifiable details, just don't post the picture. Same as posting images of your house from the outside, the view from your window, your kids in school uniform or other things that are just stupid to put in public.

I find it ok to have the occasional picture which is taken from the back and doesn't reveal many identifiable details. Or ones taken from far away or with lots of movement so it's not a huge deal. If someone doesn't post too frequently and just does a sporadic update with their kids on holiday where they're standing angled away from the camera, it's totally fine.

But genuinely don't understand the rationale behind uploading loads of portrait style, close up photos but then deliberately covering up the face. Statistically, the risk of CSA is much, much higher from people who already know them personally in real life. Step parents, uncles, grandfathers, adult authority figures etc. Quite obviously, these people know what the child looks like. Some of the Instagram Identity Gatekeepers act like they're preventing their children from a lifetime of abuse by covering their face with a heart emoji.

But what if they want photos on but to protect their children? What if it’s a group photo they don’t want their child left out of?

I think this practice is MUCH better than the people who make sure their kid’s face are constantly out there without their consent

Or maybe they just don’t want their child’s face all over social media for the world to see?

Hoe stay I never thought I’d see criticism for people protecting their child’s identity and respecting the fact children can’t consent

I agree, I don't get it either. The newborn pictures of a foot are just silly. Princess Beatrice posted a picture of her newborn baby with the baby's arm obscuring her face. Who's going to identify a week old baby? If you don't want her picture out there - don't post it!
I think some people love social media, it's become a form of validation and because celebrities do this to their children's images, they copy them.

I don't think it's that, I think it's more asking why they post them in the first place if they value privacy.

Because it’s the best of both worlds - they can reap the benefits of whatever social media bring them plus protect their child’s privacy

I don’t think you understood the thread. No one is criticising what you think they are criticising.

It is these sort of images (it’s my own child, by the way!) that people are saying are ridiculous to post. Nothing wrong with choosing not to post at all!

Ah - images under review which is fair enough.

Then simply don't post the photo? That's what the thread is questioning. I'm assuming the majority of families don't want their children's faces on social media so it's standard practise to not post your kids online. Most people we know don't have an active (public) social media account and definitely don't upload photos of their children. Some people like social media and don't mind sharing photos and that's perfectly fine too.

It's the weird in between behaviour that makes no sense. Why share bits of your life but then edit it so it defeats the purpose of anyone really enjoying the image? The basic rule of visual design is that an image is not interesting if you can't even tell what it is. If a newspaper runs a picture of a suspect with a pixellated face, they might as well not print anything at all.

Yes, fair point.

I think this is why I don’t like them; it becomes a marker of a ‘good’ parent valuing their child’s privacy, while the parents who actually do value their child’s privacy go unnoticed.

😂true!
I just think they are copying celebrities, it's nothing to do with privacy or Internet safety. I agree with you - if it was, they wouldn't post pictures at all.

Fair enough if you've decided your child will not have a social media presence but if you're keeping them off, keep them off properly.

I know someone who posts loads but with the emoji over faces. But LOADS of other identifying information including their full names, dates and place of birth, which nursery/ school they go to. If i were minded to (I'm not) I could easily deduce their address from photos and other info, mothers maiden name etc. It's bizarre, as if safeguarding and having a private life starts and ends solely with the face which can be seen by members of the public unless you make them walk around with a bag over their head.

Totally agree....and I always thought that with Peter Andre and his kids with Katie Price. I appreciate that now they're old enough to make their own decisions but I'm sure they were primary school aged when he was happy to post pics of them but not of his kids with his new wife. No doubt it's partially because KP would have continued to post pics of them anyway (!) but he could have still made a stand on his social media if he'd wanted to?

Yes I agree OP, someone on my fb will share a photo of her daughter for her birthday and be like "Happy birthday to my little X" and then share a pic just featuring the daughter with some kind of emoji over her face?

It doesn't annoy me as such, but I just think...why? Just put the message with no pic, or don't put it at all surely?

I understand more in group photos, but when the only person in the picture has their face covered it just seems pointless.

You have shared an image of somebody else's child which really isn't on.

The post you’ve quoted literally says it’s my own child by the way!

😂😂

I don't understand why both can't be 'good' parents? Why does one approach trump the other, and why is external validation needed?

I think more important is that people are able to make informed decisions that work for them and their families.

I find this a strange take tbh. Why are you so bothered to see their child’s face? No it’s not ‘look at me’, it’s wanting to share activities/parts of your life whilst simultaneously respecting your child’s privacy. Why is that hard to understand?

Why are they sharing their child's activities if they want privacy for said child?.

I’m not at all - some of the interpretations on this thread are a bit strange.

It is possible and easy I would say to share things without sharing the child at all. The face covering just smacks of being oh so very precious and intense.

Not to be rude but he looks a little jaundice

It’s like listening to the radio with no sounds

just screams attention to me

you wouldn’t post look at my new car then just post a massive blacked out circle with a bit of wheel showing

just don’t post nobody’s interested in 1/2 a pic