'Sharenting' (posting pics/Tweets/blogs about your kids): love it or loathe it?

[HelenMumsnet]

Hello. There's an article in The Guardian today about "sharenting", suggesting that parents who blog, Tweet and share pictures about all aspects of their children's lives could be doing their children harm by crossing the boundaries between public and private life.

Would you consider yourself a "sharent"? What form does your "sharenting" take: Facebook updates? Tweets? Blogpost? And do you think folks are vastly overdramatising the dangers of your children growing up with such a huge digital footprint?

If you're not a "sharent", does other people's "sharenting" enthrall, amuse or just annoy you?

Do please share your thoughts here.

[Hulababy]

KylaKevin - I am not really sure what you mean

[Hulababy]

Nehru - maybe, maybe not. She is very used to having her image online because of her drama, etc. If, as a teenager she doesn't like it, then fine. I will cease putting up photos. But we shall see.Not all children are fussed by it ime. Adults - yes. Children - generally less so.

[DuelingFanjo]

my opinion is that if people are too thick to limit what they view in their facebook/twitter/blog feed then maybe they shouldn't be using social media.

It's really irritating when other people complain about something they are perfectly capable of turning off.

[KylaKevin]

Well! i think this is true because many children had become ill, if their pictures uploaded by their parents or others from many ways on the internet, there are many experiences like this, i have seen in my life so take care of your children by don't showing their pictures and save them from the eyes of others people.

[Bramshott]

Some people over-share via social media. Some of those people are also parents.

However, most people manage a middle way with no drama, somewhere between over-sharing, and never letting pictures of their kids on the internet ever.

[CherylTrole]

Sharenting is vile, Sharonenting is ok. I do however object to anyone who posts on FB constantly, thinking their life is amazing. Dullsville. Oh and my life will still be good if you dont tell me when you/ your DH/ children/granny/dog last farted. Here endeth the rant.

[FrillyMilly]

I think over sharing or constant sharing about children is very annoying but general posts on Facebook or photos don't bother me. Surely this is why we have various forms of social media? I have full privacy settings and not too many friends on Facebook. I post pictures and posts about my kids. I also use twitter where most of my posts are about tv or sport, nothing too personal as its easier to find me. If you were really worried about colleagues finding out you were a bit mumsy (because that's so unprofessional ) then used LinkedIn.

Some parents do take things way too far though with their sharing. I'm glad though because STFU, parents blog is hilarious.

[swallowedAfly]

we need to come up with an equally ridiculous name for journalists who make a living from writing about absolutely nothing.

as others said there is absolutely no reason at all that an employer or anyone else should be able to access photos you have shared on facebook if you take 2 minutes to set your privacy settings properly.

i've had a good check with the links in the OP and i'm invisible online thankfully.

[Jux]

The fewer pix of dd on the internet, the better. There are none here, and the only ones on fb have her very much inmthe background - part of family get-togethers where others are the focus, and they're put there by other relatives anyway. She's not tagged. Even on her own page on fb she has no pix of herself, not for profile or anything.

I think it's vile in all it's incarnations.

Whoever came up with that word should be shot for crimes against the language.

[StrawberryMonkey]

Well, this thread has really enlightened me as to how many people are rather vague about Internet security.
Having pics of your dc on fb doesn't mean they will end up shared on adverts etc if your privacy and sharing settings are set securely.
Having a blog doesn't necessarily mean everybody can read it either! You can write a private blog and only send links of the posts you wish to share via email to your select and trusted audience. Having a blog doesn't necessarily mean the whole world can read it. It depends on your privacy settings!
Sounds like the papers are publishing "news" which isn't really news and scaremongering is rife following the article.
"Sharenting" yet another term to judge and criticise other people. This too will pass.

[Nehru]

She so will. Any minute soon.

[Hulababy]

My dd is 11y. She doesn't care if I post a photo of her at all. Her image is online on the school website, on her drama school's website and various other places. It is something she is comfortable about. Nothing un fair about it here.

I don't have issues regarding her image being seen by strangers tbh.

[AnneEyhtMeyer]

Surely the word should be Oversharent?

Blogs are in the most part dullsville. I have no idea why people think their lives are interesting enough to be shared with a wider audience. People who have genuinely exciting lives wouldn't have the time to blog.

[Raaraathenoisybaby]

I can't bear the mummy bloggers either. I have read two recently who were able to blog within a few hours of their babies dying from SIDS. This was too much for me. Flame away.

[stargirl1701]

I do not post photos of DD online. My only exceptions are photos which are already in the public domain. For example, I will repost a photo on FB/Twitter that appeared in the newspaper.

[Tubemole1]

I used to put pix of did on Fb but don't anymore. She's six and might be embarrassed by it. Also I worry who can see them.

[Stubbed56]

I put a couple if photos on FB per year of DS. Mainly at the start it was because he has a facial birthmark and I don't want him to be resentful of the photos when he's older. Plus he can't give me his permission yet and I think it's intrusive.

I have a friend who shares a lot, daily even, it's boring and IMO not fair on her DD.

[Einsty]

That article is more annoying than any parental oversharers I know of. More from the 'Oooh oooh, the sky is falling in' school of journalism.

[Springforward]

I don't have a FB account and I ask friends and family not to post pictures of DS. There have been a few pics slip through though, which I consider rude TBH.

To me this is kind of like the whole watching-a-gig-through-an-iphone phenomenon, which also baffles me.

Having said that I know someone who FBs to stay in touch with family who aren't local, but I believe she's pretty careful about who can see what.

[cantreachmytoes]

I consciously don't put pictures of my DS on FB. In total there are probably about 3 and none have his name under them. I don't trust FB.

I have a friend who updated his FB status all throughout his wife's labour, until I embarrassed/shamed him into putting down the phone and being with her. 2 or so hrs after their DD was born, he posted pics of her being delivered. Mother isn't visible, but their DD's genitals are. He is a lovely, lovely guy, had wanted kids for ages and was full of puppy-type excitement, but I just felt so sorry for the DD. once something is online, you have list control of it for eternity.

I also have friends who post photos of their scans and I feel that the poor child isn't even entitled to privacy in the womb.

I'm probably totally over-sensitive though!

[TiredFeet]

should clarify as well, I do think the word "sharent" is truly hideous!

[TiredFeet]

I suspect no one looks at that many pictures of someone elses life thebirds

[TheBirdsFellDownToDingADong]

TiredFeet, that's nothing. I have hidden FB friends who post that quantity every sodding weekend.

[TiredFeet]

I'm not apologetic about posting a fair number (maybe 30-50 ish a year) of pictures of ds on facebook. But he is only 2 and we live 100s or 1000s of miles from family and friends and I know they appreciate it. I also do a very occassional post about something he has said or done. But I am selective about what type of pictures/stories I share publicly.
Agree with the comment that very unique names make this more 'high risk' but the pictures are under my name not ds's and my privacy settings are high