Fantasy Families
September 24, 2014 9:36 AM Subscribe
FastCo explores the invasive practice of taking someone else's baby's pictures off Instagram and pretending that the baby is yours, or even, you. It's called Fake Adoption or Baby Role-Playing. In response to the FC article, Instagram has declared, "This type of content violates our terms. Once a parent or guardian reports it to us, we work quickly to remove it."
So was Instagram not responding to copyright infringement claims before the FC article, or were people just not reporting them as copyright issues? Because isn't that the clear method of attack here?
Beyond that ... this is sort of unremarkable, isn't it? Weirdos gonna weird, and this is somewhere on the creepy-sad continuum that feels sort of icky to talk about.
posted by uncleozzy at 9:58 AM on September 24, 2014 [4 favorites]
Beyond that ... this is sort of unremarkable, isn't it? Weirdos gonna weird, and this is somewhere on the creepy-sad continuum that feels sort of icky to talk about.
posted by uncleozzy at 9:58 AM on September 24, 2014 [4 favorites]
Yeah; people should only use pictures I upload to the internet for what I want them to use them for!
posted by Curious Artificer at 9:58 AM on September 24, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by Curious Artificer at 9:58 AM on September 24, 2014 [7 favorites]
So, I have to give back that baseball team?
Here's my thought.. Yep, this is creepy as hell, but, playing devil's advocate, let me ask.... is it fundamentally different than any other "fantasy" game (football, baseball, etc..) where the personas of real people are co-opted (without permission) for someone's entertainment ?
posted by HuronBob at 9:58 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
Here's my thought.. Yep, this is creepy as hell, but, playing devil's advocate, let me ask.... is it fundamentally different than any other "fantasy" game (football, baseball, etc..) where the personas of real people are co-opted (without permission) for someone's entertainment ?
posted by HuronBob at 9:58 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
Yes because it's just random people and not celebrities.
posted by Small Dollar at 10:02 AM on September 24, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by Small Dollar at 10:02 AM on September 24, 2014 [8 favorites]
Do people have fake pretend conversations on twitter with their fantasy athletes?
posted by KathrynT at 10:02 AM on September 24, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by KathrynT at 10:02 AM on September 24, 2014 [4 favorites]
Holy cow is living in the future is really weird sometimes.
posted by Nevin at 10:02 AM on September 24, 2014 [53 favorites]
posted by Nevin at 10:02 AM on September 24, 2014 [53 favorites]
way back in the day, i was a cuter baby than anybody else on metafilter, and i have the pictures to prove it (with the metadata stripped out). i don't know how to explain what happened since. i also have a cat that plays the piano.
instagram did the predictable corporate sniff as part of the standard effort to impose corporate morality, but there are so many baby pics out there, how will a mommy in schenectady find out that a mommy in albuquerque has misappropriated her snookums?
posted by bruce at 10:05 AM on September 24, 2014
instagram did the predictable corporate sniff as part of the standard effort to impose corporate morality, but there are so many baby pics out there, how will a mommy in schenectady find out that a mommy in albuquerque has misappropriated her snookums?
posted by bruce at 10:05 AM on September 24, 2014
Because isn't that the clear method of attack here?
Yeah, it's a little odd, and it's poor journalism that Miller neglects to address that in the article. I doubt Instagram has any serious policy forbidding a particular form of role-playing. Copyright infringement, on the other hand, is comparatively clear-cut. I would assume that's what is meant by the vague statement, "This type of content violates our terms." It's vague but simpler and more direct than talking about copyright to people who likely don't understand it.
posted by cribcage at 10:10 AM on September 24, 2014
Yeah, it's a little odd, and it's poor journalism that Miller neglects to address that in the article. I doubt Instagram has any serious policy forbidding a particular form of role-playing. Copyright infringement, on the other hand, is comparatively clear-cut. I would assume that's what is meant by the vague statement, "This type of content violates our terms." It's vague but simpler and more direct than talking about copyright to people who likely don't understand it.
posted by cribcage at 10:10 AM on September 24, 2014
My child is licensed under Creative Commons so people are allowed to fake adopt him as long as they give proper attribution to my wife's uterus.
posted by bondcliff at 10:11 AM on September 24, 2014 [61 favorites]
posted by bondcliff at 10:11 AM on September 24, 2014 [61 favorites]
Do people have fake pretend conversations on twitter with their fantasy athletes?
There is a twitter which presents the thoughts and feelings of the magical gay assbaby of Colton Haynes and Tyler Posey.
posted by poffin boffin at 10:12 AM on September 24, 2014 [11 favorites]
There is a twitter which presents the thoughts and feelings of the magical gay assbaby of Colton Haynes and Tyler Posey.
posted by poffin boffin at 10:12 AM on September 24, 2014 [11 favorites]
Do people have fake pretend conversations on twitter with their fantasy athletes?
Peyton Manning, you are adorable! Do you want your bottle? Peyton want ba-ba?
posted by infinitywaltz at 10:13 AM on September 24, 2014 [7 favorites]
Peyton Manning, you are adorable! Do you want your bottle? Peyton want ba-ba?
posted by infinitywaltz at 10:13 AM on September 24, 2014 [7 favorites]
The most surprising part of this article to me was that it was teenage girls doing the roleplaying. They probably don't even understand it's creepy.
What makes me sad about this reported phenomenon is it plays into the paranoia of "I shouldn't post pictures of my child online to keep them safe". I'm not a parent, so while I certainly understand the desire to keep a child safe I haven't had the emotional experience of it. But I have never understood how posting a picture of your baby would in any way cause risk to the baby. But some parents feel it's a risk, strongly, and now this article reinforces that fear. It seems a symptom of a sick society.
posted by Nelson at 10:15 AM on September 24, 2014 [5 favorites]
What makes me sad about this reported phenomenon is it plays into the paranoia of "I shouldn't post pictures of my child online to keep them safe". I'm not a parent, so while I certainly understand the desire to keep a child safe I haven't had the emotional experience of it. But I have never understood how posting a picture of your baby would in any way cause risk to the baby. But some parents feel it's a risk, strongly, and now this article reinforces that fear. It seems a symptom of a sick society.
posted by Nelson at 10:15 AM on September 24, 2014 [5 favorites]
This is sadder than I expected-- the roleplaying obviously comes from very deep feelings of longing and a need to escape insecurities through fantasy. It's just terrible that there are enough people hurting in this specific way.
I'd expect it to happen if I were sharing photos of her with the general public-- people broadcast photos of their child to strangers because they desire complements and reassurance of their own worth. Their insecurities are not far removed from the people who then play house with the photos. I'm blaming the 'victims' here because they're not actually victims-- there's no harm from the people who steal the photos. They're just in a worse place than the people who shared them in the first place.
If there were photos of my daughter that were deliberately accessible to people whom I do not know, I'd be kind of flattered should they be 'fake adopted,' even as I was slightly skeeved. It certainly wouldn't make me demand action on the part of the people who had facilitated my oversharing in the first place. Especially when I consider the existential holes that would lead someone to roleplay like that in the first place.
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:15 AM on September 24, 2014
I'd expect it to happen if I were sharing photos of her with the general public-- people broadcast photos of their child to strangers because they desire complements and reassurance of their own worth. Their insecurities are not far removed from the people who then play house with the photos. I'm blaming the 'victims' here because they're not actually victims-- there's no harm from the people who steal the photos. They're just in a worse place than the people who shared them in the first place.
If there were photos of my daughter that were deliberately accessible to people whom I do not know, I'd be kind of flattered should they be 'fake adopted,' even as I was slightly skeeved. It certainly wouldn't make me demand action on the part of the people who had facilitated my oversharing in the first place. Especially when I consider the existential holes that would lead someone to roleplay like that in the first place.
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:15 AM on September 24, 2014
This is just like stealing someone's baby, except that they get to continue to change the diapers.
posted by ackptui at 10:19 AM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by ackptui at 10:19 AM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
Welp, it has finally happened: the internet has conjured a phenomenon and I have literally no idea what opinion I should have about this.
posted by griphus at 10:20 AM on September 24, 2014 [50 favorites]
posted by griphus at 10:20 AM on September 24, 2014 [50 favorites]
But some parents feel it's a risk, strongly, and now this article reinforces that fear.
Well, no doubt--but it seems to me to fall into the same "how is that a risk, exactly?" category as most of the other cases. Perhaps I'm just missing something obvious, but how does it hurt you or your baby if some sad teenaged girl is pretending that a photo of your baby is actually a photo of her baby? Would we feel equally troubled by this if the girls in question restricted themselves to commercially available baby-photos--say by Anne Geddes, for example? If not, why not?
posted by yoink at 10:21 AM on September 24, 2014
Well, no doubt--but it seems to me to fall into the same "how is that a risk, exactly?" category as most of the other cases. Perhaps I'm just missing something obvious, but how does it hurt you or your baby if some sad teenaged girl is pretending that a photo of your baby is actually a photo of her baby? Would we feel equally troubled by this if the girls in question restricted themselves to commercially available baby-photos--say by Anne Geddes, for example? If not, why not?
posted by yoink at 10:21 AM on September 24, 2014
OMG! Crystal Reed and Holland Taylor are followers of the magical gay ass baby.
Fortunately, I am without offspring so no one can steal my babies' pix.
But seriously, isn't altering children's images for illegal purposes something US Law enenforcement worried about during AOL days?
posted by Lesser Shrew at 10:23 AM on September 24, 2014
Fortunately, I am without offspring so no one can steal my babies' pix.
But seriously, isn't altering children's images for illegal purposes something US Law enenforcement worried about during AOL days?
posted by Lesser Shrew at 10:23 AM on September 24, 2014
Perhaps I'm just missing something obvious, but how does it hurt you or your baby if some sad teenaged girl is pretending that a photo of your baby is actually a photo of her baby?
I don't fully understand it either but my nonparent opinion doesn't somehow invalidate the feelings of parents who find this unacceptable. I assume I would feel differently if it was my kid but luckily I will never know.
posted by poffin boffin at 10:26 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
I don't fully understand it either but my nonparent opinion doesn't somehow invalidate the feelings of parents who find this unacceptable. I assume I would feel differently if it was my kid but luckily I will never know.
posted by poffin boffin at 10:26 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
But some parents feel it's a risk, strongly, and now this article reinforces that fear.
I'm a parent. I have two kids. I sometimes upload photos of them to social media, notably Facebook, Instagram, and Google Plus.
As a responsible, thinking adult, I understand that posting stuff to the Internet comes with certain risks, and I conduct myself accordingly.
While "Instagram baby role-playing" seems to be more like something out of a Markov Generator than something I could have ever have imagined 30 minutes ago, it is not particularly shocking or surprising.
And so I am careful about what I post online. I weigh the risks. Some risks are pretty minimal, or would likely have minimal impact on my life.
But as adults we all need to be responsible for our actions.
posted by Nevin at 10:27 AM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
I'm a parent. I have two kids. I sometimes upload photos of them to social media, notably Facebook, Instagram, and Google Plus.
As a responsible, thinking adult, I understand that posting stuff to the Internet comes with certain risks, and I conduct myself accordingly.
While "Instagram baby role-playing" seems to be more like something out of a Markov Generator than something I could have ever have imagined 30 minutes ago, it is not particularly shocking or surprising.
And so I am careful about what I post online. I weigh the risks. Some risks are pretty minimal, or would likely have minimal impact on my life.
But as adults we all need to be responsible for our actions.
posted by Nevin at 10:27 AM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
is it fundamentally different than any other "fantasy" game (football, baseball, etc..) where the personas of real people are co-opted (without permission) for someone's entertainment ?
Maybe if you could ask the players questions and they would write back with weird faux-lispy replies about whether they love flowers? Although to be fair I have read and enjoyed fanfiction about professional athletes so I guess that's kind of the same thing.
I think the celebrity/not celebrity distinction is probably salient here but really I'm kind of with uncleozzy, as I tend to be overall fairly permissible in terms of what I think is okay to do/write/discuss on the internet.
posted by capricorn at 10:28 AM on September 24, 2014
Maybe if you could ask the players questions and they would write back with weird faux-lispy replies about whether they love flowers? Although to be fair I have read and enjoyed fanfiction about professional athletes so I guess that's kind of the same thing.
I think the celebrity/not celebrity distinction is probably salient here but really I'm kind of with uncleozzy, as I tend to be overall fairly permissible in terms of what I think is okay to do/write/discuss on the internet.
posted by capricorn at 10:28 AM on September 24, 2014
Would we feel equally troubled by this if the girls in question restricted themselves to commercially available baby-photos
No, because that's someone else's baby. This is about my baby. My perfect baby that obviously everyone else covets. And by extension, me. Because my child is a tool for me to gather attention. Attention that I deserve. If someone one else wants to steal attention that's rightfully mine, they should make their own baby that's as wonderful as mine and steal it fairly.
The previous sentence is actually a rhetorical trick because it is not actually possible to make a child better than mine. I have a t-shirt for my baby that says "you can't improve on perfection", so I don't want to hear any arguments about it.
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:32 AM on September 24, 2014 [7 favorites]
No, because that's someone else's baby. This is about my baby. My perfect baby that obviously everyone else covets. And by extension, me. Because my child is a tool for me to gather attention. Attention that I deserve. If someone one else wants to steal attention that's rightfully mine, they should make their own baby that's as wonderful as mine and steal it fairly.
The previous sentence is actually a rhetorical trick because it is not actually possible to make a child better than mine. I have a t-shirt for my baby that says "you can't improve on perfection", so I don't want to hear any arguments about it.
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:32 AM on September 24, 2014 [7 favorites]
There is a twitter which presents the thoughts and feelings of the magical gay assbaby of Colton Haynes and Tyler Posey.
This is the most disturbing sentence I have ever read.
posted by KathrynT at 10:32 AM on September 24, 2014
This is the most disturbing sentence I have ever read.
posted by KathrynT at 10:32 AM on September 24, 2014
Also, when I first read this post, I thought it was talking about something much more sinister -- a friend of mine had pictures of her twin girls ripped off her flickr account, including a couple of ultrasound pics, and used in an actual adoption scam. She was contacted by the state government of Kentucky, where I guess the scam was taking place -- the scammer had ripped nearly a quarter of a million dollars off of twelve different couples hoping to adopt the twins.
posted by KathrynT at 10:34 AM on September 24, 2014 [12 favorites]
posted by KathrynT at 10:34 AM on September 24, 2014 [12 favorites]
This is the most disturbing sentence I have ever read.
Stick around. I'm sure someone can top it.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:36 AM on September 24, 2014 [10 favorites]
Stick around. I'm sure someone can top it.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:36 AM on September 24, 2014 [10 favorites]
my nonparent opinion doesn't somehow invalidate the feelings of parents who find this unacceptable
The question of whether or not their feelings are "valid" is neither here nor there. Anyone's "feelings" are "valid" in and of themselves. But if we move from "this is how I feel" to "someone should do something about this" we move from "feelings" to "demonstrable injury." I may have a perfectly valid "feeling" that no one should post images of spiders on the web because spiders are icky. But that doesn't mean I have the right to demand that websites take down any and all pictures of spiders.
It seems to me that we can happily accept that some people will find it unpleasant to think that someone is roleplaying being a parent with photos of their baby and still ask the separate question--without in any way suggesting that they are "wrong" to feel that way--"does this actually cause any demonstrable harm?" So...does it? Is there some actual danger in this practice for the roleplayers or for the babies?
posted by yoink at 10:38 AM on September 24, 2014 [11 favorites]
The question of whether or not their feelings are "valid" is neither here nor there. Anyone's "feelings" are "valid" in and of themselves. But if we move from "this is how I feel" to "someone should do something about this" we move from "feelings" to "demonstrable injury." I may have a perfectly valid "feeling" that no one should post images of spiders on the web because spiders are icky. But that doesn't mean I have the right to demand that websites take down any and all pictures of spiders.
It seems to me that we can happily accept that some people will find it unpleasant to think that someone is roleplaying being a parent with photos of their baby and still ask the separate question--without in any way suggesting that they are "wrong" to feel that way--"does this actually cause any demonstrable harm?" So...does it? Is there some actual danger in this practice for the roleplayers or for the babies?
posted by yoink at 10:38 AM on September 24, 2014 [11 favorites]
I'm with yoink. In fact I'd go one further. While I agree that I find this creepy as hell, I honestly do see how anyone is harmed by this (well, other than the tween girls participating). The freak out about this kind of reminds me of why some people freak out about The Gay being legal. It creeps them out and because it creeps them out they think there ought to be laws about that sort of thing.
And on preview: yoink are you sure I don't know you?
posted by aspo at 10:39 AM on September 24, 2014
And on preview: yoink are you sure I don't know you?
posted by aspo at 10:39 AM on September 24, 2014
How do spiders you don't like in any way compare to the actual children of actual human beings?
are you a spider, tell the truth
posted by poffin boffin at 10:40 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
are you a spider, tell the truth
posted by poffin boffin at 10:40 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
If someone was using a picture of you in order to pretend they actually knew you, would you be totally okay with that?
It depends. I'd find it a little yucky, generally. But what if it was retired NHL star Ray Bourque pretending to know me? I'd find that pretty cool.
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:40 AM on September 24, 2014 [7 favorites]
It depends. I'd find it a little yucky, generally. But what if it was retired NHL star Ray Bourque pretending to know me? I'd find that pretty cool.
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:40 AM on September 24, 2014 [7 favorites]
Must remind self to Photoshop sunglasses, mustaches, hats, and trench coats onto all photos of other people's babies.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:42 AM on September 24, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:42 AM on September 24, 2014 [4 favorites]
I can imagine it would be deeply creepy to find (as the Internet is forever, as we all know) that your baby pictures had been used in weirdly sexualized role-playing.
posted by KathrynT at 10:42 AM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by KathrynT at 10:42 AM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
If someone was using a picture of you in order to pretend they actually knew you, would you be totally okay with that?
Frankly, there are those times in life where every friend counts for a lot, so there are some at least who would welcome the "Virtual Friends"
posted by mikelieman at 10:42 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
Frankly, there are those times in life where every friend counts for a lot, so there are some at least who would welcome the "Virtual Friends"
posted by mikelieman at 10:42 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
The Colton Haynes Tyler Posey baby post was the best thing I've read at least this week and that sentence filled me with joy.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 10:43 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Lesser Shrew at 10:43 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
If someone was using a picture of you in order to pretend they actually knew you, would you be totally okay with that?
If someone posted pictures of me saying that I was their old friend "Bill" from back in their goldpanning days in Alaska (NB my name is not Bill and I have never been to Alaska) then, no, I wouldn't care about that. Of course, you could dress this hypothetical up until it did, in fact, start to affect me in some way (i.e., creating genuine and potentially embarrassing confusion about my identity)--but that wouldn't be keeping the case parallel with this baby case. It's not as if these babies are showing up at the local creche and being mistaken for sex-offenders or tax-evaders or something.
posted by yoink at 10:43 AM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
If someone posted pictures of me saying that I was their old friend "Bill" from back in their goldpanning days in Alaska (NB my name is not Bill and I have never been to Alaska) then, no, I wouldn't care about that. Of course, you could dress this hypothetical up until it did, in fact, start to affect me in some way (i.e., creating genuine and potentially embarrassing confusion about my identity)--but that wouldn't be keeping the case parallel with this baby case. It's not as if these babies are showing up at the local creche and being mistaken for sex-offenders or tax-evaders or something.
posted by yoink at 10:43 AM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
If someone was using a picture of you in order to pretend they actually knew you, would you be totally okay with that?
Are they pretending to know me, or are they pretending to know a me shaped individual? Are they pretending to know me to get closer to people I know or are they pretending to know me because I am a human being that exists somewhere in the world? (Also, should it be illegal in any way shape or form to lie about knowing someone?)
posted by aspo at 10:43 AM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
Are they pretending to know me, or are they pretending to know a me shaped individual? Are they pretending to know me to get closer to people I know or are they pretending to know me because I am a human being that exists somewhere in the world? (Also, should it be illegal in any way shape or form to lie about knowing someone?)
posted by aspo at 10:43 AM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
How do spiders you don't like in any way compare to the actual children of actual human beings?
Um...I'm not sure you get how this "analogy" thing works.
posted by yoink at 10:44 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
Um...I'm not sure you get how this "analogy" thing works.
posted by yoink at 10:44 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
So just to be clear, what some people are saying is: If a parent finds this creepy, they should get over it and stop complaining/overreacting? That kind of stinks y'all.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 10:45 AM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 10:45 AM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
Venerate Me, bitches! Venerate Me!
posted by mikelieman at 10:45 AM on September 24, 2014
posted by mikelieman at 10:45 AM on September 24, 2014
And on preview: yoink are you sure I don't know you?
You are, in fact, my baby. Widdle wuvvy wudder-poo!
posted by yoink at 10:46 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
You are, in fact, my baby. Widdle wuvvy wudder-poo!
posted by yoink at 10:46 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
That sounds like something a spider would say.
posted by poffin boffin at 10:46 AM on September 24, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 10:46 AM on September 24, 2014 [8 favorites]
So just to be clear, what some people are saying is: If a parent finds this creepy, they should get over it and stop complaining/overreacting?
Sigh.
posted by yoink at 10:46 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
Sigh.
posted by yoink at 10:46 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
Yes because it's just random people and not celebrities.
Anyone with more than three real followers is a celebrity in my book.
posted by jsavimbi at 10:47 AM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
Anyone with more than three real followers is a celebrity in my book.
posted by jsavimbi at 10:47 AM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
why does everyone think i am a man, this is so creepy.
posted by poffin boffin at 10:48 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by poffin boffin at 10:48 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
Well, if someone "lies about knowing someone" in a situation where the picture snatcher (or person who follows someone around taking photos) believes they actually know or should know them and they should be married and she can only love him... that can lead to harm pretty darn fast and it's not one bit rare.
In short: up-skirt photos, where's the harm?
posted by Lesser Shrew at 10:48 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
In short: up-skirt photos, where's the harm?
posted by Lesser Shrew at 10:48 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
If a parent finds this creepy, they should get over it and stop complaining/overreacting
If a parent finds this creepy they should find this creepy. There's a lot of things people do that are creepy.
posted by aspo at 10:49 AM on September 24, 2014 [8 favorites]
If a parent finds this creepy they should find this creepy. There's a lot of things people do that are creepy.
posted by aspo at 10:49 AM on September 24, 2014 [8 favorites]
woops
posted by Curious Artificer at 10:49 AM on September 24, 2014
posted by Curious Artificer at 10:49 AM on September 24, 2014
Do people have fake pretend conversations on twitter with their fantasy athletes?
I would bet yes.
posted by jeather at 10:50 AM on September 24, 2014
I would bet yes.
posted by jeather at 10:50 AM on September 24, 2014
(Setting: THE FUTURE.)
ME: Kids, I think it's important that I am honest with you. When you were young, and for about 10 years or so, I took a bunch of pictures of you and shared them with untold numbers of strangers on the Internet.
KIDS: ....
ME: I don't blame you, if you feel your privacy was violated a little...
KIDS: ....
ME: Are you even listening to me?
KID: Dad, what the fuck is a 'privacy'?
ME: Right, that was a long time ago.
posted by Dark Messiah at 10:51 AM on September 24, 2014 [16 favorites]
ME: Kids, I think it's important that I am honest with you. When you were young, and for about 10 years or so, I took a bunch of pictures of you and shared them with untold numbers of strangers on the Internet.
KIDS: ....
ME: I don't blame you, if you feel your privacy was violated a little...
KIDS: ....
ME: Are you even listening to me?
KID: Dad, what the fuck is a 'privacy'?
ME: Right, that was a long time ago.
posted by Dark Messiah at 10:51 AM on September 24, 2014 [16 favorites]
You're all just liveblogging my reality-tv show....
posted by mikelieman at 10:51 AM on September 24, 2014
posted by mikelieman at 10:51 AM on September 24, 2014
Didn't mean to do the "mis-paraphrase" thing yoink. Can you explain what I should do, if I as a parent think this is deeply wrong?
posted by Potomac Avenue at 10:51 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 10:51 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
In short: up-skirt photos, where's the harm?
That's only an apt analogy if you mean "self-posted, public upskirt photos that someone else claims as their own upskirt photo."
In which case, I agree. Where's the harm?
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:53 AM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
That's only an apt analogy if you mean "self-posted, public upskirt photos that someone else claims as their own upskirt photo."
In which case, I agree. Where's the harm?
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:53 AM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
The babies did not post their own pictures.
posted by KathrynT at 10:55 AM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by KathrynT at 10:55 AM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
Well, of someone "lies about knowing someone" in a situation where the picture snatcher (or person who follows someone around taking photos) believes they actually know or should know them and they should be married and she can only love him... that can lead to harm pretty darn fast and it's not one bit rare.
Yes, but that's clearly not analogous to this situation. The question here is whether it presents any actual threat to a child if someone uses photos of that child in order to roleplay being a parent (not a parent of that child--i.e., not a parent of "Michael Hill Jr. of 101 West Elm St, Toronto"--the child's actual identity--but, rather, a parent of some totally invented child). To question whether or not that practice is dangerous is not to question whether any and all potentially false claims about any and all photos of any person could ever possibly be harmful.
posted by yoink at 10:55 AM on September 24, 2014
Yes, but that's clearly not analogous to this situation. The question here is whether it presents any actual threat to a child if someone uses photos of that child in order to roleplay being a parent (not a parent of that child--i.e., not a parent of "Michael Hill Jr. of 101 West Elm St, Toronto"--the child's actual identity--but, rather, a parent of some totally invented child). To question whether or not that practice is dangerous is not to question whether any and all potentially false claims about any and all photos of any person could ever possibly be harmful.
posted by yoink at 10:55 AM on September 24, 2014
Before the internet, teenage girls clip a random cute baby photo from a magazine for a prop in playing house and no one cares.
Now with internet culture as it is, everyone's personal stuff is semi-public and just an URL away, so the magazine photo is now more personal, and the family of the random cute baby can just happen to wander through that game of house and everyone freaks out and someone writes a sensational article on how creepy those girls are.
And in a way it is creepy. But mostly as a symptom of how different the world is with respect to personal privacy than it used to be.
posted by Zalzidrax at 10:56 AM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
Now with internet culture as it is, everyone's personal stuff is semi-public and just an URL away, so the magazine photo is now more personal, and the family of the random cute baby can just happen to wander through that game of house and everyone freaks out and someone writes a sensational article on how creepy those girls are.
And in a way it is creepy. But mostly as a symptom of how different the world is with respect to personal privacy than it used to be.
posted by Zalzidrax at 10:56 AM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
Lesser Shrew: In short: up-skirt photos, where's the harm?You are in the wrong thread. I know this because your comment has nothing to do with this issue.
posted by IAmBroom at 10:56 AM on September 24, 2014 [14 favorites]
The weirdest thing is that people can recognize babies at all. I have no idea how anybody does this.
posted by srboisvert at 10:57 AM on September 24, 2014 [13 favorites]
posted by srboisvert at 10:57 AM on September 24, 2014 [13 favorites]
Privacy. You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place. People can legally photograph anyone at the dog park, for instance. But I find it hard to believe you don't think there's a gray area, and then a very ugly area where violating someone's privacy - even within the letter of the law - is wrong.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 10:58 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Lesser Shrew at 10:58 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
Can you explain what I should do, if I as a parent think this is deeply wrong?
If someone used your own pictures, send a polite request to them saying "these are my personal pictures that I would prefer you not repost. Do you mind taking them down?" Find someone you can vent to and vent to them about how deeply wrong it all is. Feel secure in the knowledge that you now know your own moral boundaries. Engage in a dialogue like this one where people are calmly discussing the ethical arguments, and try to gain a better understanding of the other side. Agree to disagree. Shrug. Move on.
posted by capricorn at 10:58 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
If someone used your own pictures, send a polite request to them saying "these are my personal pictures that I would prefer you not repost. Do you mind taking them down?" Find someone you can vent to and vent to them about how deeply wrong it all is. Feel secure in the knowledge that you now know your own moral boundaries. Engage in a dialogue like this one where people are calmly discussing the ethical arguments, and try to gain a better understanding of the other side. Agree to disagree. Shrug. Move on.
posted by capricorn at 10:58 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
You wouldn't download a baby...
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:59 AM on September 24, 2014 [30 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:59 AM on September 24, 2014 [30 favorites]
Can you explain what I should do, if I as a parent think this is deeply wrong?
I'm not sure what you mean by that question. If you mean "what I should do in your own personal view" then my answer would be "make a convincing case that this presents a concrete risk to your child." If you mean "under the law" I imagine that--as suggested earlier--a copyright infringement claim would be your strongest suit.
My "sigh" was because I'd been very, very careful to stress that I was not saying that you had no right to feel upset about it or that you should, as you put it, "just get over it." You can feel upset about whatever you find upsetting (obviously). But if you want other people to act in response to your feelings you need--obviously--something more than "I'm upset! Do what I say!"
posted by yoink at 11:00 AM on September 24, 2014 [5 favorites]
I'm not sure what you mean by that question. If you mean "what I should do in your own personal view" then my answer would be "make a convincing case that this presents a concrete risk to your child." If you mean "under the law" I imagine that--as suggested earlier--a copyright infringement claim would be your strongest suit.
My "sigh" was because I'd been very, very careful to stress that I was not saying that you had no right to feel upset about it or that you should, as you put it, "just get over it." You can feel upset about whatever you find upsetting (obviously). But if you want other people to act in response to your feelings you need--obviously--something more than "I'm upset! Do what I say!"
posted by yoink at 11:00 AM on September 24, 2014 [5 favorites]
You are in the wrong thread. I know this because your comment has nothing to do with this issue.
Much of this discussion is about whether or not a person using photos they took or stole, photos of a private person with whom they have no relationship, is disturbing, or creepy, or wrong.
I'm arguing that it can be and often is.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 11:03 AM on September 24, 2014
Much of this discussion is about whether or not a person using photos they took or stole, photos of a private person with whom they have no relationship, is disturbing, or creepy, or wrong.
I'm arguing that it can be and often is.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 11:03 AM on September 24, 2014
Before the internet, teenage girls clip a random cute baby photo from a magazine for a prop in playing house and no one cares.
Yes. That's actually what I was trying to get at with the point about someone using an Anne Geddes photo for a game like this, above. I suspect no one would find that "creepy" in quite the same way (other than the inherent creepiness of Anne Geddes photos). But why not? The baby didn't choose to have those photos taken and posted, either. The baby is just as much a "real" baby with a "real" mom and dad and a real life and a real name and so forth as any of these other babies. It's just as much an act of "misappropriation." And yet I suspect that no one would care because there isn't the same sense of unease about the boundary-crossing of "private" and "public" spaces. We understand the mechanism by which the Anne Geddes baby photo became "public" and therefore its appropriation from that public sphere doesn't trouble us. But from the point of view of "demonstrable harms" to the baby, it's unclear to me, at least, how there's any difference between that hypothetical case and the cases described in the FPP.
posted by yoink at 11:09 AM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
Yes. That's actually what I was trying to get at with the point about someone using an Anne Geddes photo for a game like this, above. I suspect no one would find that "creepy" in quite the same way (other than the inherent creepiness of Anne Geddes photos). But why not? The baby didn't choose to have those photos taken and posted, either. The baby is just as much a "real" baby with a "real" mom and dad and a real life and a real name and so forth as any of these other babies. It's just as much an act of "misappropriation." And yet I suspect that no one would care because there isn't the same sense of unease about the boundary-crossing of "private" and "public" spaces. We understand the mechanism by which the Anne Geddes baby photo became "public" and therefore its appropriation from that public sphere doesn't trouble us. But from the point of view of "demonstrable harms" to the baby, it's unclear to me, at least, how there's any difference between that hypothetical case and the cases described in the FPP.
posted by yoink at 11:09 AM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
Meh. Kids are basically fungible until they're teenagers, right?
posted by ryanrs at 11:10 AM on September 24, 2014
posted by ryanrs at 11:10 AM on September 24, 2014
No, I have a Canadian baby
posted by thelonius at 11:10 AM on September 24, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by thelonius at 11:10 AM on September 24, 2014 [9 favorites]
I'm arguing that it can be and often is.
Do you really think there are people in this thread who are claiming that there is no possible use of a photo--whether taken by oneself or stolen from another--which is "disturbing, or creepy, or wrong"? Really?
posted by yoink at 11:13 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
Do you really think there are people in this thread who are claiming that there is no possible use of a photo--whether taken by oneself or stolen from another--which is "disturbing, or creepy, or wrong"? Really?
posted by yoink at 11:13 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
Well I don't feel any obligation to prove that using a stranger's baby's photos to enact your own fantasies is morally wrong. It seems self-evident to me, in the same way that a forum on reddit posting clothed images of preteen models is morally wrong. Fortunately instagram agrees with me and will ban people if they catch 'em doing this.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 11:16 AM on September 24, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 11:16 AM on September 24, 2014 [4 favorites]
This might be the internet version of showing off the pictures that came with your wallet.
posted by dances with hamsters at 11:17 AM on September 24, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by dances with hamsters at 11:17 AM on September 24, 2014 [9 favorites]
Especially when I consider the existential holes that would lead someone to roleplay like that in the first place.
Yeah, but that wouldn't be what you'd be doing if you stumbled upon repurposed photos of your slightly above average kid in the middle of the night via an email from a stranger. That said, after reading the article I went from creeped out to depressed.
posted by yerfatma at 11:18 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
Yeah, but that wouldn't be what you'd be doing if you stumbled upon repurposed photos of your slightly above average kid in the middle of the night via an email from a stranger. That said, after reading the article I went from creeped out to depressed.
posted by yerfatma at 11:18 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
Yes. That's actually what I was trying to get at with the point about someone using an Anne Geddes photo for a game like this, above. I suspect no one would find that "creepy" in quite the same way (other than the inherent creepiness of Anne Geddes photos). But why not? The baby didn't choose to have those photos taken and posted, either. The baby is just as much a "real" baby with a "real" mom and dad and a real life and a real name and so forth as any of these other babies.
Howver, the "real mom and dad" in the case of magazine ads, Anne Geddes photos, etc. are aware of their baby's picture being used in that way, and gave permission for the photo's use.
So a more apt analogy wouldn't be like "a bunch of girls cutting a photo out of a magazine", it'd be like One Hour Photo, where it's private people who took photos for their own personal use and someone found a way to use THOSE photos.
Actually, another apt analogy would be like the celebrity icloud photo hacking thing.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:18 AM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
Howver, the "real mom and dad" in the case of magazine ads, Anne Geddes photos, etc. are aware of their baby's picture being used in that way, and gave permission for the photo's use.
So a more apt analogy wouldn't be like "a bunch of girls cutting a photo out of a magazine", it'd be like One Hour Photo, where it's private people who took photos for their own personal use and someone found a way to use THOSE photos.
Actually, another apt analogy would be like the celebrity icloud photo hacking thing.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:18 AM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
This is the most disturbing sentence I have ever read.
Stick around. I'm sure someone can top it.
As it turns out, she didn't need to, because she topped it herself two minutes later:
Also, when I first read this post, I thought it was talking about something much more sinister -- a friend of mine had pictures of her twin girls ripped off her flickr account, including a couple of ultrasound pics, and used in an actual adoption scam.
posted by jamjam at 11:20 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
Stick around. I'm sure someone can top it.
As it turns out, she didn't need to, because she topped it herself two minutes later:
Also, when I first read this post, I thought it was talking about something much more sinister -- a friend of mine had pictures of her twin girls ripped off her flickr account, including a couple of ultrasound pics, and used in an actual adoption scam.
posted by jamjam at 11:20 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
I want to roleplay as one of these roleplayers.
"WOKE UP AT NOON. DEBATED WHETHER TO TAKE A SHOWER. SAT DOWN AT CIGARETTE-STAINED COMPUTER WITH BROKEN, HUMMING CRT MONITOR. KNOCKED OVER TWO OF MY EIGHT FULL PISS JARS. GUESS I'LL HAVE TO CLEAN IT UP. HA HA JUST KIDDING I'M GOING TO PRETEND TO BE A BABY. GONNA BE A LONG DAY LOL"
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:21 AM on September 24, 2014 [16 favorites]
"WOKE UP AT NOON. DEBATED WHETHER TO TAKE A SHOWER. SAT DOWN AT CIGARETTE-STAINED COMPUTER WITH BROKEN, HUMMING CRT MONITOR. KNOCKED OVER TWO OF MY EIGHT FULL PISS JARS. GUESS I'LL HAVE TO CLEAN IT UP. HA HA JUST KIDDING I'M GOING TO PRETEND TO BE A BABY. GONNA BE A LONG DAY LOL"
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:21 AM on September 24, 2014 [16 favorites]
Actually, another apt analogy would be like the celebrity icloud photo hacking thing.
That's a horrible analogy. In that case they were private photos that were meant to be private and the mere publicity of the photos was the problem.
Celebs were not harmed because people were looking at the photos and pretending to be/know the celebs. They were harmed because the photos were private photos that were never supposed to be seen outside a small audience and someone stole rights to see the photos from them.
posted by aspo at 11:23 AM on September 24, 2014 [4 favorites]
That's a horrible analogy. In that case they were private photos that were meant to be private and the mere publicity of the photos was the problem.
Celebs were not harmed because people were looking at the photos and pretending to be/know the celebs. They were harmed because the photos were private photos that were never supposed to be seen outside a small audience and someone stole rights to see the photos from them.
posted by aspo at 11:23 AM on September 24, 2014 [4 favorites]
If someone was using a picture of you in order to pretend they actually knew you, would you be totally okay with that?
I think that's an insightful framing. We do grant legal rights in this regard to celebrities and public figures, that average people don't have. The legal distinction is economic; like with copyright, the purpose is to incentivize the (theoretical) hard work of becoming a public figure. But in pure moral terms, I think most people agree that it's wrong no matter whose likeness is being co-opted, public figure or not. It's about identity.
And it extends from parent to child in two ways. First, because your child is, in some very real senses, part of your own identity. And second, because it's your job as parent to protect the child against injuries whether real or perceived. A more distant but perhaps apt analogy would be a neighbor gossiping about how your four-month-old is a "fucking jerk." It's probably not a real injury in any logical sense, but I think most parents would take offense.
posted by cribcage at 11:31 AM on September 24, 2014
I think that's an insightful framing. We do grant legal rights in this regard to celebrities and public figures, that average people don't have. The legal distinction is economic; like with copyright, the purpose is to incentivize the (theoretical) hard work of becoming a public figure. But in pure moral terms, I think most people agree that it's wrong no matter whose likeness is being co-opted, public figure or not. It's about identity.
And it extends from parent to child in two ways. First, because your child is, in some very real senses, part of your own identity. And second, because it's your job as parent to protect the child against injuries whether real or perceived. A more distant but perhaps apt analogy would be a neighbor gossiping about how your four-month-old is a "fucking jerk." It's probably not a real injury in any logical sense, but I think most parents would take offense.
posted by cribcage at 11:31 AM on September 24, 2014
Howver, the "real mom and dad" in the case of magazine ads, Anne Geddes photos, etc. are aware of their baby's picture being used in that way, and gave permission for the photo's use
But we're talking about photos taken from Instagram (and similar services). We're not talking about photos stolen from people's private accounts. These are photos that have been deliberately published to the internet by responsible adults. I don't quite see how that's so radically different from responsible adults giving Ann Geddes the right to publish photos of their babies all over the place.
It's a pretty sure sign that people are incapable of actually thinking of any concrete harm posed by this practice that they have to keep reaching for different kinds of violation (the stealing of private images; the surreptitious taking of photographs without the person's consent etc.) in order to import the obvious ethical wrong involved in those cases into this much less clear-cut case.
posted by yoink at 11:32 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
But we're talking about photos taken from Instagram (and similar services). We're not talking about photos stolen from people's private accounts. These are photos that have been deliberately published to the internet by responsible adults. I don't quite see how that's so radically different from responsible adults giving Ann Geddes the right to publish photos of their babies all over the place.
It's a pretty sure sign that people are incapable of actually thinking of any concrete harm posed by this practice that they have to keep reaching for different kinds of violation (the stealing of private images; the surreptitious taking of photographs without the person's consent etc.) in order to import the obvious ethical wrong involved in those cases into this much less clear-cut case.
posted by yoink at 11:32 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
I dunno, I'd already find it creepy if someone took MY picture and used it in a role playing game, to act out some fantasies that have nothing to do with me, but with a baby the ickiness increases.
posted by Omnomnom at 11:39 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Omnomnom at 11:39 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
"Demonstrable harm" isn't the only standard out there. Metafilter comments that say shitty things can be removed without demonstration that they were actively harmful. I think it's fine for Instagram to use "creepy and violating" as their standard, even if that's highly subjective.
Social media does not actually have to allow everything that meets some standard for legality. It's possible to make a social media site with expectations of its users that are higher than "don't break the law." It's also totally possible to have a policy to remove things that are just "creepy" but 100% legal. I would argue that that's a more authentic replication of human interaction than "we allow everything that is legal and your feelings about that are your own to deal with!" and I don't really understand the insistence that all websites should follow that model. Real life isn't like that. There are social consequences to doing and saying shitty things, even if I am not breaking the law or actively harming someone.
posted by almostmanda at 11:41 AM on September 24, 2014 [15 favorites]
Social media does not actually have to allow everything that meets some standard for legality. It's possible to make a social media site with expectations of its users that are higher than "don't break the law." It's also totally possible to have a policy to remove things that are just "creepy" but 100% legal. I would argue that that's a more authentic replication of human interaction than "we allow everything that is legal and your feelings about that are your own to deal with!" and I don't really understand the insistence that all websites should follow that model. Real life isn't like that. There are social consequences to doing and saying shitty things, even if I am not breaking the law or actively harming someone.
posted by almostmanda at 11:41 AM on September 24, 2014 [15 favorites]
I'm not surprised that these fantasy adopters are mostly teen girls, from the sound of it. Reminds me of that news story a few years back about the bunch of teen girls that had made a "pregnancy pact" and were trying to get impregnated by some homeless guy. You put these girls in a world that tells them, in all sorts of ways large and small, that their only value to society is to be a mother, and which then also tells them that they're not supposed to be a mother yet, and they're gonna look for ways to get around being stuck feeling worthless. And being teenagers, they're gonna make some bad decisions. This beats out "have a homeless guy get me pregnant" by a country mile. I mostly just feel sad for them.
...and so then while writing this comment I went looking for news articles about that pregnancy pact that I could link to and discovered it got turned into a Lifetime movie. There's something very ironic or meta about all that as it relates to this discussion but rather than contemplating it I just feel even more like I need to go take a shower than I already did.
posted by mstokes650 at 11:46 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
...and so then while writing this comment I went looking for news articles about that pregnancy pact that I could link to and discovered it got turned into a Lifetime movie. There's something very ironic or meta about all that as it relates to this discussion but rather than contemplating it I just feel even more like I need to go take a shower than I already did.
posted by mstokes650 at 11:46 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
That's a horrible analogy. In that case they were private photos that were meant to be private and the mere publicity of the photos was the problem.
Well....yeah.
But we're talking about photos taken from Instagram (and similar services). We're not talking about photos stolen from people's private accounts. These are photos that have been deliberately published to the internet by responsible adults. I don't quite see how that's so radically different from responsible adults giving Ann Geddes the right to publish photos of their babies all over the place.
Ohhhhh, I see what your point is now. No, that's a good point.
Hmm. Well, there is one thing that comes to mind as a counterargument - that perhaps Instagram pulled a bait-and-switch in terms of privacy restrictions, the way Facebook is prone to doing every five minutes? I can see how someone put their photos online in a "family only" kind of thing, only then the privacy rules got changed and it got made public-access and the picture-posters just didn't know that.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:46 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
Well....yeah.
But we're talking about photos taken from Instagram (and similar services). We're not talking about photos stolen from people's private accounts. These are photos that have been deliberately published to the internet by responsible adults. I don't quite see how that's so radically different from responsible adults giving Ann Geddes the right to publish photos of their babies all over the place.
Ohhhhh, I see what your point is now. No, that's a good point.
Hmm. Well, there is one thing that comes to mind as a counterargument - that perhaps Instagram pulled a bait-and-switch in terms of privacy restrictions, the way Facebook is prone to doing every five minutes? I can see how someone put their photos online in a "family only" kind of thing, only then the privacy rules got changed and it got made public-access and the picture-posters just didn't know that.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:46 AM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
"we allow everything that is legal and your feelings about that are your own to deal with!"
This is pretty much how the technolibertarian jerks on big swathes of the internet think it should work. Possibly adding the clause "and many things that are not" after "everything that is legal."
posted by uncleozzy at 11:48 AM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
This is pretty much how the technolibertarian jerks on big swathes of the internet think it should work. Possibly adding the clause "and many things that are not" after "everything that is legal."
posted by uncleozzy at 11:48 AM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
I don't feel any obligation to prove that using a stranger's baby's photos to enact your own fantasies is morally wrong. It seems self-evident to me
This strikes me a priori as an extremely dangerous and blinkered way of thinking, but upon reflection I'm honestly not sure it can go any other way when judging what is or is not "morally wrong".
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 11:54 AM on September 24, 2014
This strikes me a priori as an extremely dangerous and blinkered way of thinking, but upon reflection I'm honestly not sure it can go any other way when judging what is or is not "morally wrong".
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 11:54 AM on September 24, 2014
Right I mean we can get into what morality means philosophically, or we can just agree that certain things are morally wrong and the best way to judge what those are is by looking at who claims to be hurt by it.
Here's a group of parents going OW! THIS HURTS! and people like yoink saying "Your pain is in no way evidence that this actually is causing harm."
I mean we don't have to start putting the people doing this in jail (I don't see much evidence this is actually teenager also), but Instagram erring on the side of Nahhh cut it out seems like the fairest choice.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 12:00 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
Here's a group of parents going OW! THIS HURTS! and people like yoink saying "Your pain is in no way evidence that this actually is causing harm."
I mean we don't have to start putting the people doing this in jail (I don't see much evidence this is actually teenager also), but Instagram erring on the side of Nahhh cut it out seems like the fairest choice.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 12:00 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
Hang on, I'm still thinking through this.
So - the current premise is that "these people posted the photos publically and thus there shouldn't have been any expectation of privacy", yes?
If so - can you speak to how this "public appearance should result in lessened expectation of privacy" argument is trumped in the case of, say, upskirt photos? Because technically those photos aren't hurting the woman thus photographed.
(Note: I am not advocating for the legality of upskirt photos.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:01 PM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
So - the current premise is that "these people posted the photos publically and thus there shouldn't have been any expectation of privacy", yes?
If so - can you speak to how this "public appearance should result in lessened expectation of privacy" argument is trumped in the case of, say, upskirt photos? Because technically those photos aren't hurting the woman thus photographed.
(Note: I am not advocating for the legality of upskirt photos.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:01 PM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
Well. That's... weird.
I can see how this is a harmless diversion for kids with technology who want to play imaginary things (hell, if I'd had the internet when I was thirteen, I... am not going to finish that thought) and that is both harmless and as old as kids themselves.
On the other, it'd be pretty damn creepy to see a photo of your own kid listed as being "adoptable." It also plays into the Kids On Internet panic that seems to grow every year - there are all manner of ridiculously impossible horror stories circulating on facebook about how there are secret underground rings of men who abduct and then auction off children. Which would make national news if it ever happened, I am fairly sure.
On the third, I think my face is stuck in the "what the fucking shitting fuck" expression it hit when I got to the part about some of this involving sex and violence. I think I'm gonna stay there.
posted by cmyk at 12:05 PM on September 24, 2014
I can see how this is a harmless diversion for kids with technology who want to play imaginary things (hell, if I'd had the internet when I was thirteen, I... am not going to finish that thought) and that is both harmless and as old as kids themselves.
On the other, it'd be pretty damn creepy to see a photo of your own kid listed as being "adoptable." It also plays into the Kids On Internet panic that seems to grow every year - there are all manner of ridiculously impossible horror stories circulating on facebook about how there are secret underground rings of men who abduct and then auction off children. Which would make national news if it ever happened, I am fairly sure.
On the third, I think my face is stuck in the "what the fucking shitting fuck" expression it hit when I got to the part about some of this involving sex and violence. I think I'm gonna stay there.
posted by cmyk at 12:05 PM on September 24, 2014
Next you'll be telling me people are posting photos of other people's cats.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:05 PM on September 24, 2014
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:05 PM on September 24, 2014
It's super creepy, though there are a lot of creeper things out there on the internet. It's also copyright infringement and it ought to be possible to deep-six any particular instance of it on those grounds, at least if Instagram is doing their jobs (which apparently they weren't till the article came out). I love the fact that the BabyNames.com people are trying to find a way to guide the whole thing into a harmless direction. That's an awesome thing to do.
posted by edheil at 12:06 PM on September 24, 2014
posted by edheil at 12:06 PM on September 24, 2014
This might be the internet version of showing off the pictures that came with your wallet.
Except those photos are specifically taken for generic stock photo purposes, not an individual person's personal photos that have now been weirdly, idk, hijacked seems too strong but taken seems too weak. Appropriated? Anyway, that are now being used for purposes which are a bit creepy and might feel intrusive. If someone found a photo of me online and started using it as a roleplay thing where they were my imaginary fantasy parent or sibling or partner I would find it wildly creepy.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:19 PM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
Except those photos are specifically taken for generic stock photo purposes, not an individual person's personal photos that have now been weirdly, idk, hijacked seems too strong but taken seems too weak. Appropriated? Anyway, that are now being used for purposes which are a bit creepy and might feel intrusive. If someone found a photo of me online and started using it as a roleplay thing where they were my imaginary fantasy parent or sibling or partner I would find it wildly creepy.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:19 PM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
The babynames.com thing illustrates the steep chasm between "weird but harmless roleplay" and "...using images of someone else". If somebody were to use photos of my kid for RP, I could find out about that, and it would be weird as hell for me to see. On the other hand, if somebody just wrote about being a baby, even using descriptions of my kid's pictures, I would never, ever, ever find out.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:19 PM on September 24, 2014
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:19 PM on September 24, 2014
I think it would be less creepy if it were more like fantasy sports. That is, if people assembled these borrowed babies into teams and had them compete against each other somehow. Maybe photoshop on little uniforms. Ideally, there would be betting. I could get behind that.
posted by neroli at 12:20 PM on September 24, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by neroli at 12:20 PM on September 24, 2014 [9 favorites]
Find a way to include tiny linebacker and BEEFTANK and I'm in.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:24 PM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by poffin boffin at 12:24 PM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
Except those photos are specifically taken for generic stock photo purposes, not an individual person's personal photos that have now been weirdly...
...taken for generic stock photo purposes
It's not like they're stalking the kids or whatever fever dreams parents conjure up these days.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:26 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
...taken for generic stock photo purposes
It's not like they're stalking the kids or whatever fever dreams parents conjure up these days.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:26 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
I think that the public-figure vs. private person distinction and the copyright angle are distractions, here. The real source of outrage is not "I maintain intellectual property in that photograph, as I am not a public figure!" I'd say the real sources of discomfort here are two: (1) a feeling that anyone role-playing being a baby is doing something creepy with overtones of pederasty; and (2) concern about the fact that people use other people in their fantasies.
I saw the first issue, deep discomfort with people role-playing being young children, play out in the virtual world of Second Life, where in early years there was a large community of people who chose child avatars, spending time playing on virtual swings and flying virtual kites, and being "adopted" by adult avatar "mommies and daddies." Those playing child avatars said they enjoyed the pure fun of being a kid, and having the sorts of innocent adventures and loving families they'd always wanted. But many, many people were creeped out by these child avatars. Then, when a middle-aged German heterosexual couple was caught roleplaying a Daddy/daughter sex scene, the feeling of moral outrage against all child avatars crystallized. All over Second Life, venues banned them, and a once-large population of people role-playing being children dwindled to a tiny, defensive smattering. The nonsexual fantasies of many thousands couldn't survive against the belief that anyone who would role-play being a child was a "perv."
As a society, we seem to be very anxious about the internet as a site of exploitation of children. We may just have read that most of the people "adopting" Instragram baby photos are tween and teen girls who are using their fantasies as a way to work through painful childhood experiences, but our minds keep sliding to something darker.
As for issue two, I see a lot of sense of violation in this thread about people being used in others' fantasies without their consent. I absolutely get that--believe me, as someone who openly runs a blog on intersex issues, and regularly gets email asking for photos of my genitalia to aid the requestor in their fantasies. Being sexually fetishized without one's consent feels nasty. But what about nonsexual role-playing and imagination? If someone takes your photo from Instragram because they love your hairstyle, and share it with their friends saying, "This is totally going to be my hairstyle for the prom," do you feel violated? If some person who can't keep a dog takes a photo of yours from Instagram and says, "I'm pretending to adopt this dog, and I'm going to post every day about our adventures," is that creepy, something Instagram should ban? If some adult who wants a baby walks by yours in a park, finds her adorable, and spends days imagining having a baby exactly like her, is that violating? And if not, what distinguishes it from a fake adoption of a photo of your baby?
My feeling is that the issue here is that photos of children on the Internet are involved--this is what raises so many hackles. There's a moral unease that this is somehow, at its base, child porn, because it's photos of children on the internet. And that can make defending the right of people to age-play get elided with defending the sexual violation of children. You won't get many defenders under those circumstances. . . But I do think tween girls role-playing being babies to work through childhood traumas should be defended, and not cast as child abusers, or at best as creepy social losers violating copyright law.
posted by DrMew at 12:30 PM on September 24, 2014 [16 favorites]
I saw the first issue, deep discomfort with people role-playing being young children, play out in the virtual world of Second Life, where in early years there was a large community of people who chose child avatars, spending time playing on virtual swings and flying virtual kites, and being "adopted" by adult avatar "mommies and daddies." Those playing child avatars said they enjoyed the pure fun of being a kid, and having the sorts of innocent adventures and loving families they'd always wanted. But many, many people were creeped out by these child avatars. Then, when a middle-aged German heterosexual couple was caught roleplaying a Daddy/daughter sex scene, the feeling of moral outrage against all child avatars crystallized. All over Second Life, venues banned them, and a once-large population of people role-playing being children dwindled to a tiny, defensive smattering. The nonsexual fantasies of many thousands couldn't survive against the belief that anyone who would role-play being a child was a "perv."
As a society, we seem to be very anxious about the internet as a site of exploitation of children. We may just have read that most of the people "adopting" Instragram baby photos are tween and teen girls who are using their fantasies as a way to work through painful childhood experiences, but our minds keep sliding to something darker.
As for issue two, I see a lot of sense of violation in this thread about people being used in others' fantasies without their consent. I absolutely get that--believe me, as someone who openly runs a blog on intersex issues, and regularly gets email asking for photos of my genitalia to aid the requestor in their fantasies. Being sexually fetishized without one's consent feels nasty. But what about nonsexual role-playing and imagination? If someone takes your photo from Instragram because they love your hairstyle, and share it with their friends saying, "This is totally going to be my hairstyle for the prom," do you feel violated? If some person who can't keep a dog takes a photo of yours from Instagram and says, "I'm pretending to adopt this dog, and I'm going to post every day about our adventures," is that creepy, something Instagram should ban? If some adult who wants a baby walks by yours in a park, finds her adorable, and spends days imagining having a baby exactly like her, is that violating? And if not, what distinguishes it from a fake adoption of a photo of your baby?
My feeling is that the issue here is that photos of children on the Internet are involved--this is what raises so many hackles. There's a moral unease that this is somehow, at its base, child porn, because it's photos of children on the internet. And that can make defending the right of people to age-play get elided with defending the sexual violation of children. You won't get many defenders under those circumstances. . . But I do think tween girls role-playing being babies to work through childhood traumas should be defended, and not cast as child abusers, or at best as creepy social losers violating copyright law.
posted by DrMew at 12:30 PM on September 24, 2014 [16 favorites]
Maybe some of this is harmless tween identity exploration. But: people are stealing strangers' baby pictures and then enacting sex and violence roleplay with those pictures? Holy shit, I'm not a parent and I am having nightmares just thinking about it. Surely there's a line that can be drawn between "harmless adoption roleplay" and "oh god please bleach my brain what is this"
posted by naju at 12:32 PM on September 24, 2014
posted by naju at 12:32 PM on September 24, 2014
I dunno, I'd already find it creepy if someone took MY picture and used it in a role playing game, to act out some fantasies that have nothing to do with me, but with a baby the ickiness increases.
If you've got a better way for me to source units for my Warbaby 40K campaigns, I'm all ears.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:32 PM on September 24, 2014 [8 favorites]
If you've got a better way for me to source units for my Warbaby 40K campaigns, I'm all ears.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:32 PM on September 24, 2014 [8 favorites]
If so - can you speak to how this "public appearance should result in lessened expectation of privacy" argument is trumped in the case of, say, upskirt photos
Yes. I think we have a reasonable expectation that if someone is walking on the street people are not allowed to stare up their skirt. Their underwear is not public, even if the wearer is in public. If someone was actually running around in their underwear and nothing else I think they should not have protection against someone taking their photo for instance.
posted by aspo at 12:44 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
Yes. I think we have a reasonable expectation that if someone is walking on the street people are not allowed to stare up their skirt. Their underwear is not public, even if the wearer is in public. If someone was actually running around in their underwear and nothing else I think they should not have protection against someone taking their photo for instance.
posted by aspo at 12:44 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
Legally, you may not have that kind of protection.
Or maybe you do, if you are a child in a swimsuit.
Where and how intent matters is hardly settled in US law.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 1:11 PM on September 24, 2014
Or maybe you do, if you are a child in a swimsuit.
Where and how intent matters is hardly settled in US law.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 1:11 PM on September 24, 2014
I've had people use photos of me passed off as photos of themselves on dating sites. It is extremely creepy and weird and gross, and I am glad that the sites were immediately amenable to having the photos removed when I asked.
posted by poffin boffin at 1:18 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 1:18 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
If someone takes your photo from Instragram because they love your hairstyle, and share it with their friends saying, "This is totally going to be my hairstyle for the prom," do you feel violated? If some person who can't keep a dog takes a photo of yours from Instagram and says, "I'm pretending to adopt this dog, and I'm going to post every day about our adventures," is that creepy, something Instagram should ban? If some adult who wants a baby walks by yours in a park, finds her adorable, and spends days imagining having a baby exactly like her, is that violating? And if not, what distinguishes it from a fake adoption of a photo of your baby?
I loved your comment in general because you captured well what bothers me about the whole thing.
I do think these are different situations, though. Someone fantasizing in private: can't control and don't want to know what other people think of me. None of my business.
But if you make it public it becomes my business. In a way, it is the public enactment that makes it a violation, not the fantasies themselves.
The admiring hairstyle example is different from using pictures of me and posting "here is what I'm wearing to work today!"
I am unwilling to draw hard and fast lines over something I learned only this evening. I think it's a bit of a false expectation that internet commenters who object to something must be able to describe in detail what exactly makes this different from other circumstances, and present a perfect solution for what to do about it. We're not legislators. "I don't like this and I wish someone would do something about it" is a useful gut response, too.
posted by Omnomnom at 1:19 PM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
I loved your comment in general because you captured well what bothers me about the whole thing.
I do think these are different situations, though. Someone fantasizing in private: can't control and don't want to know what other people think of me. None of my business.
But if you make it public it becomes my business. In a way, it is the public enactment that makes it a violation, not the fantasies themselves.
The admiring hairstyle example is different from using pictures of me and posting "here is what I'm wearing to work today!"
I am unwilling to draw hard and fast lines over something I learned only this evening. I think it's a bit of a false expectation that internet commenters who object to something must be able to describe in detail what exactly makes this different from other circumstances, and present a perfect solution for what to do about it. We're not legislators. "I don't like this and I wish someone would do something about it" is a useful gut response, too.
posted by Omnomnom at 1:19 PM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
But I do think tween girls role-playing being babies to work through childhood traumas should be defended
I think it's fine if you feel that way. It's a totally reasonable position, insofar as we assume arguendo that the people behind these accounts are in fact tweens. But I think it's possible to make that point—that children oughtn't be pilloried—without adopting a gasoline-soaked strawman like the assertion that people object to this stripe of role-playing because they feel it is "somehow, at its base, child porn."
"I maintain intellectual property in that photograph, as I am not a public figure!"
If this is referencing to my earlier comment where I mentioned public figures, then I should maybe clarify. You own copyright for any photograph you take, irrespective of who is depicted. Whether your depiction can be co-opted is a separate issue apart from copyright, and people who are public figures can have different protections in this regard. Some terms to Google for more in-depth discussion are right of publicity, misappropriation of likeness, and model release. Apologies for any confusion.
posted by cribcage at 1:24 PM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
I think it's fine if you feel that way. It's a totally reasonable position, insofar as we assume arguendo that the people behind these accounts are in fact tweens. But I think it's possible to make that point—that children oughtn't be pilloried—without adopting a gasoline-soaked strawman like the assertion that people object to this stripe of role-playing because they feel it is "somehow, at its base, child porn."
"I maintain intellectual property in that photograph, as I am not a public figure!"
If this is referencing to my earlier comment where I mentioned public figures, then I should maybe clarify. You own copyright for any photograph you take, irrespective of who is depicted. Whether your depiction can be co-opted is a separate issue apart from copyright, and people who are public figures can have different protections in this regard. Some terms to Google for more in-depth discussion are right of publicity, misappropriation of likeness, and model release. Apologies for any confusion.
posted by cribcage at 1:24 PM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
Also, wasn't there an article posted on the blue about the lady whose dog's pictures got used for this stupid dog meme ("so wow!") and she had no idea at first?
Can't remember how she felt about it. I'd feel pissed off.
posted by Omnomnom at 1:25 PM on September 24, 2014
Can't remember how she felt about it. I'd feel pissed off.
posted by Omnomnom at 1:25 PM on September 24, 2014
On the one hand, since my baby is the most wonderful baby in human history, I would not be at all surprised if people were stealing her picture to RP her online. I would too, objectively, since she's the best.
On the other hand, I've had some pretty out-there real-person fanfiction written about me before, and it did make me pretty unsettled and grossed out.
In conclusion, the internet is a land of contrasts? Wow.
posted by town of cats at 1:58 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
On the other hand, I've had some pretty out-there real-person fanfiction written about me before, and it did make me pretty unsettled and grossed out.
In conclusion, the internet is a land of contrasts? Wow.
posted by town of cats at 1:58 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
I am loving the synchronicity of the post below this one, with the title "betcha Brian Eno's gonna snap this baby up..."
posted by bibliowench at 2:08 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by bibliowench at 2:08 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
Next you'll be telling me people are posting photos of other people's cats.
*deletes several tumblrs*
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 2:42 PM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
*deletes several tumblrs*
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 2:42 PM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
stupid dog meme ("so wow!")
As a side note, I can't believe I'm already nostalgic for doge. There was a great golden age of doge before it got really big and redditors just started spamming that one shibe's face onto every video game cover or whatever.
(this is one of my favorites: "its leviosa no levisar! knowledge tkaing place")
Anyway, I'm not sure if I agree that adding silly captions to other peoples' pictures is a useful analogy for appropriating the identity of the subject of the pictures, as in the baby example.
A slightly better analogy might be someone whose picture was turned into a meme without their knowledge or consent, since at least there's a person involved that could feel violated or experience harm from it (e.g. the ermahgerd girl - I have no idea how she feels about the meme but I feel bad for her every time I see it), but I'm still not sure that really counts as the same phenomenon. The creepy thing here is the appropriation of identity, not the appropriation of the picture itself, right?
posted by dialetheia at 3:05 PM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
As a side note, I can't believe I'm already nostalgic for doge. There was a great golden age of doge before it got really big and redditors just started spamming that one shibe's face onto every video game cover or whatever.
(this is one of my favorites: "its leviosa no levisar! knowledge tkaing place")
Anyway, I'm not sure if I agree that adding silly captions to other peoples' pictures is a useful analogy for appropriating the identity of the subject of the pictures, as in the baby example.
A slightly better analogy might be someone whose picture was turned into a meme without their knowledge or consent, since at least there's a person involved that could feel violated or experience harm from it (e.g. the ermahgerd girl - I have no idea how she feels about the meme but I feel bad for her every time I see it), but I'm still not sure that really counts as the same phenomenon. The creepy thing here is the appropriation of identity, not the appropriation of the picture itself, right?
posted by dialetheia at 3:05 PM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
I really don't see whats so creepy about it. - It seems EXACTLY the same as when young girls are given toy babies to play with and "pretend" being mothers. Isn't this just the online version of a toy baby?
But then again....if anything slows down the rate at which I am inundated by baby photos then I say "bring on the outrage!"
posted by mary8nne at 3:16 PM on September 24, 2014
But then again....if anything slows down the rate at which I am inundated by baby photos then I say "bring on the outrage!"
posted by mary8nne at 3:16 PM on September 24, 2014
It seems EXACTLY the same as when young girls are given toy babies to play with and "pretend" being mothers.
The difference is that there is a real person involved.
posted by KathrynT at 3:19 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
The difference is that there is a real person involved.
posted by KathrynT at 3:19 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
EmpressCallipygos: So a more apt analogy wouldn't be like "a bunch of girls cutting a photo out of a magazine", it'd be like One Hour Photo, where it's private people who took photos for their own personal use and someone found a way to use THOSE photos.
Actually, another apt analogy would be like the celebrity icloud photo hacking thing.
Wut.
wut.
ec r u 4 real
It's ok to be offended by this and want other people to be offended/upset by it too, but those are offensive analogies.
What's going on here is not some sort of hacking or theft that is a borderline sex crime, it's more like someone reposting someone elses tumblr fanart and not crediting them.
Seriously, these photos were posted publicly on instagram. No ones private film being developed was snooped here, and nothing was "hacked".
You can comment on how you feel about them being used without attribution or whatever, but these were posted in public. It's like something freaking out that gifs got saved off of their geocities.
And yes, i realize photos of a kid are involved so people are freakin', but no massive violation of privacy hack happened here. And definitely nothing like what you're describing.
You're trying to drum up creepyness that isn't here, and it's really tired and hyperbolic.
posted by emptythought at 3:29 PM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
Actually, another apt analogy would be like the celebrity icloud photo hacking thing.
Wut.
wut.
ec r u 4 real
It's ok to be offended by this and want other people to be offended/upset by it too, but those are offensive analogies.
What's going on here is not some sort of hacking or theft that is a borderline sex crime, it's more like someone reposting someone elses tumblr fanart and not crediting them.
Seriously, these photos were posted publicly on instagram. No ones private film being developed was snooped here, and nothing was "hacked".
You can comment on how you feel about them being used without attribution or whatever, but these were posted in public. It's like something freaking out that gifs got saved off of their geocities.
And yes, i realize photos of a kid are involved so people are freakin', but no massive violation of privacy hack happened here. And definitely nothing like what you're describing.
You're trying to drum up creepyness that isn't here, and it's really tired and hyperbolic.
posted by emptythought at 3:29 PM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
EmpressCalipygos: I can see how someone put their photos online in a "family only" kind of thing, only then the privacy rules got changed and it got made public-access and the picture-posters just didn't know that.
Also, to not break the edit rules since i forgot to C/P this one, no.
that is not how instagram worked. Instagram has always been like twitter but with photos. You either post it for everyone or you don't post it.
It's like putting up a poster outdoors, and then getting mad when someone takes a picture of themselves next to it.
Also, please don't crap this up by sending it down the rabbit hole of upskirts or whatever. These photos were, to just bullet point a bit
A. taken with express permission of the parent, who can give permission for the child
B. taken BY the parent.
C. POSTED in public by the parent
There isn't much of a conversation to be had in comparison there that isn't disingenuous since the photos were posted in public, by someone who can give consent for the photos of that child to be posted.
A more apt comparison would be people who post defaced malicious joke edits of photos that someone else posted publicly on social media.
Basically, stop trying to make the sex crime/creepshots angle happen here. It's a bad fit. I'm open to this being a problem, but the old templates don't apply and it's actually sort of an offensive comparison.
posted by emptythought at 3:36 PM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
Also, to not break the edit rules since i forgot to C/P this one, no.
that is not how instagram worked. Instagram has always been like twitter but with photos. You either post it for everyone or you don't post it.
It's like putting up a poster outdoors, and then getting mad when someone takes a picture of themselves next to it.
Also, please don't crap this up by sending it down the rabbit hole of upskirts or whatever. These photos were, to just bullet point a bit
A. taken with express permission of the parent, who can give permission for the child
B. taken BY the parent.
C. POSTED in public by the parent
There isn't much of a conversation to be had in comparison there that isn't disingenuous since the photos were posted in public, by someone who can give consent for the photos of that child to be posted.
A more apt comparison would be people who post defaced malicious joke edits of photos that someone else posted publicly on social media.
Basically, stop trying to make the sex crime/creepshots angle happen here. It's a bad fit. I'm open to this being a problem, but the old templates don't apply and it's actually sort of an offensive comparison.
posted by emptythought at 3:36 PM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
So, I play tabletop role-playing games (D&D and suchlike), and it is not at all an uncommon thing to gank a photo (or a few photos) from online to give the other players a sense of what [you imagine that] your character looks like. Celebrity photos are probably the most common, but I've also used historical photos, and stock photos, and more than once got a photo from a Google image search where I didn't pay really close attention to where the image actually came from. I have never really investigated where other people's photos came from, either.
These character pictures are usually just showed around the group, but sometimes they're posted on a publicly-viewable website. If someone came across a photo of themselves representing an RPG character, and wasn't cool with it, and if they had copyright to the image, they would be fully justified in asking for the photo to be taken down.
The purpose of using the image, though, is to give people a mental image to go with the personality of the character that you're portraying. Everyone knows that the character is made up, a figment of the player's imagination, and nobody thinks that the character has any connection whatsoever to the actual person that the picture shows.
I don't think that many of these roleplaying parents, or the people interacting with them as they play the role, are confusing this made-up baby character, represented by the photos, with the actual baby, either, though perhaps there is more concern since they're using multiple images of the children, following them for a long period of time. That seems to create a closer tie between the imaginary baby character and the actual child.
And there is an added layer of ooginess coming from the use of a photo of a minor.
I find myself agreeing with those who have posted above that if parents are concerned about people copying and repurposing photos of their kids, they shouldn't have publicly viewable images up, and/or need to be exceptionally diligent about policing their copyright.
posted by BrashTech at 3:38 PM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
These character pictures are usually just showed around the group, but sometimes they're posted on a publicly-viewable website. If someone came across a photo of themselves representing an RPG character, and wasn't cool with it, and if they had copyright to the image, they would be fully justified in asking for the photo to be taken down.
The purpose of using the image, though, is to give people a mental image to go with the personality of the character that you're portraying. Everyone knows that the character is made up, a figment of the player's imagination, and nobody thinks that the character has any connection whatsoever to the actual person that the picture shows.
I don't think that many of these roleplaying parents, or the people interacting with them as they play the role, are confusing this made-up baby character, represented by the photos, with the actual baby, either, though perhaps there is more concern since they're using multiple images of the children, following them for a long period of time. That seems to create a closer tie between the imaginary baby character and the actual child.
And there is an added layer of ooginess coming from the use of a photo of a minor.
I find myself agreeing with those who have posted above that if parents are concerned about people copying and repurposing photos of their kids, they shouldn't have publicly viewable images up, and/or need to be exceptionally diligent about policing their copyright.
posted by BrashTech at 3:38 PM on September 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
(BTW, nothing in any of the articles indicates following a real child/family on Instagram and continuing to use newly-posted pictures in ongoing roleplay; I was mistaken in saying so.)
posted by BrashTech at 3:50 PM on September 24, 2014
posted by BrashTech at 3:50 PM on September 24, 2014
Let's not lose sight that the part about working through childhood traumas is pure speculation. I don't know who those people are and what motivates them, but neither does anyone else, apparently.
But I am pretty sure that I know one of those babynames roleplayers. She's a young woman, no kids, and I've always wondered why she was always talking about hanging out on a site about naming babies. I guess this.
I'm 95% sure this isn't her working through some childhood trauma. She's just kind of obsessed with babies right now, and she tends to fall hard and fast into various internet subcultures. She's gotten the same way with various different fandoms more than a couple of times.
That said, I certainly don't think it's unreasonable of the parents of actual kids being appropriated in other forums to be creeped out, and I think it's horrible that so many people seem to think that they're asking for trouble by posting pictures of their kids on the internet. Parents, and especially moms, pretty much devote their lives to their kids. They have as much right to brag and show them off as anyone does with their life's work, and they have as much right to complain when their 'work' is appropriated, even leaving aside the potentially sinister aspects of people fantasizing about actual children.
posted by ernielundquist at 4:08 PM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
But I am pretty sure that I know one of those babynames roleplayers. She's a young woman, no kids, and I've always wondered why she was always talking about hanging out on a site about naming babies. I guess this.
I'm 95% sure this isn't her working through some childhood trauma. She's just kind of obsessed with babies right now, and she tends to fall hard and fast into various internet subcultures. She's gotten the same way with various different fandoms more than a couple of times.
That said, I certainly don't think it's unreasonable of the parents of actual kids being appropriated in other forums to be creeped out, and I think it's horrible that so many people seem to think that they're asking for trouble by posting pictures of their kids on the internet. Parents, and especially moms, pretty much devote their lives to their kids. They have as much right to brag and show them off as anyone does with their life's work, and they have as much right to complain when their 'work' is appropriated, even leaving aside the potentially sinister aspects of people fantasizing about actual children.
posted by ernielundquist at 4:08 PM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
I think "appropriated" is a pretty gross freighted phrase to drag in here. it's like the people who call copyright infringement "stealing".
I also don't see much "asking for trouble" type rhetoric in here, and think that's a bit of a crappy brush too. I mean you can do a potato/po-taa-to here i guess, but there's a different between posting something on one of the most open ended intentionally public social media sites and like, posting it online at all in a photobucket album or something where there's at least some obfuscation even with the privacy settings turned off.
This is basically as publicly as you can post something online. It's on the same level as say, posting it on a tumblr blog.
A lot of focus seems to be placed on how grabbing the photos from wherever they were in the first place was somehow a gross violation, and i think that logically doesn't float. How they're getting used is weird, but how they were acquired isn't. And i think appropriation is a pretty nuclear bomb word to be tossing around about it.
posted by emptythought at 4:26 PM on September 24, 2014
I also don't see much "asking for trouble" type rhetoric in here, and think that's a bit of a crappy brush too. I mean you can do a potato/po-taa-to here i guess, but there's a different between posting something on one of the most open ended intentionally public social media sites and like, posting it online at all in a photobucket album or something where there's at least some obfuscation even with the privacy settings turned off.
This is basically as publicly as you can post something online. It's on the same level as say, posting it on a tumblr blog.
A lot of focus seems to be placed on how grabbing the photos from wherever they were in the first place was somehow a gross violation, and i think that logically doesn't float. How they're getting used is weird, but how they were acquired isn't. And i think appropriation is a pretty nuclear bomb word to be tossing around about it.
posted by emptythought at 4:26 PM on September 24, 2014
Emptythought, could you maybe dial the righteous indignation just a scoche and give me the TEEEENSIEST benefit of the doubt here?
hat is not how instagram worked. Instagram has always been like twitter but with photos. You either post it for everyone or you don't post it.
There are people in the world who do not use instagram. I am one of them. So I did not know this. But you will also note that that's why I used a lot of question marks and "maybe it's like on Facebook" and such, to indicate to people that I was working with incomplete knowledge and admit that i was aware that I could be wrong.
Also, you will note that i get the "Oh this is public" thing later on, when someone NICELY pointed that out to me, and I even admitted it when I got it.
Basically, stop trying to make the sex crime/creepshots angle happen here. It's a bad fit. I'm open to this being a problem, but the old templates don't apply and it's actually sort of an offensive comparison.
I wasn't making that comparison, I was asking where people drew that distinction. That's why I had a question mark in that statement. It was a sincere question asked in an attempt to ask people to elaborate on where they saw where the differences and distinction between these two instances lay, and someone else also answered that question. I'm open to discussion and a difference of opinion, but not outright accusations from people who are assuming the worst about each other out of Zeal To Be Right.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:29 PM on September 24, 2014
hat is not how instagram worked. Instagram has always been like twitter but with photos. You either post it for everyone or you don't post it.
There are people in the world who do not use instagram. I am one of them. So I did not know this. But you will also note that that's why I used a lot of question marks and "maybe it's like on Facebook" and such, to indicate to people that I was working with incomplete knowledge and admit that i was aware that I could be wrong.
Also, you will note that i get the "Oh this is public" thing later on, when someone NICELY pointed that out to me, and I even admitted it when I got it.
Basically, stop trying to make the sex crime/creepshots angle happen here. It's a bad fit. I'm open to this being a problem, but the old templates don't apply and it's actually sort of an offensive comparison.
I wasn't making that comparison, I was asking where people drew that distinction. That's why I had a question mark in that statement. It was a sincere question asked in an attempt to ask people to elaborate on where they saw where the differences and distinction between these two instances lay, and someone else also answered that question. I'm open to discussion and a difference of opinion, but not outright accusations from people who are assuming the worst about each other out of Zeal To Be Right.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:29 PM on September 24, 2014
I think "appropriated" is a pretty gross freighted phrase to drag in here. it's like the people who call copyright infringement "stealing".
How is 'appropriated' a gross freighted phrase or a nuclear option? I can't think of a more objectively accurate term for repurposing someone's photos for your own use.
And if I made it sound as though the asking for it rhetoric was from here, my bad. There's not much of that here, but the rest of the internet is lousy with it. Go read the comments on the Fast Company article.
posted by ernielundquist at 5:10 PM on September 24, 2014
How is 'appropriated' a gross freighted phrase or a nuclear option? I can't think of a more objectively accurate term for repurposing someone's photos for your own use.
And if I made it sound as though the asking for it rhetoric was from here, my bad. There's not much of that here, but the rest of the internet is lousy with it. Go read the comments on the Fast Company article.
posted by ernielundquist at 5:10 PM on September 24, 2014
Yea, ok EC, i'm sorry. Fair enough.
Can you at least see how
can you speak to how this "public appearance should result in lessened expectation of privacy" argument is trumped in the case of, say, upskirt photos? Because technically those photos aren't hurting the woman thus photographed.
can be taken as making that point, rather than asking other people where they were coming from with making that point, especially when it had been dropped much earlier in the thread though?
I guess i just saw it as a bridge too far because the creepshots angle is something people get(understandably!) very het up about, and in my opinion making that comparison here is the equivalent to godwinning.
I realize i took the first bit the wrong way, and i'm sorry for not giving you the benefit of the doubt on that one. It kind of lead to me taking the second part worse than i probably should have, but as a whole it seemed like an attempt to take the conversation in a pretty crappy direction.
How is 'appropriated' a gross freighted phrase or a nuclear option? I can't think of a more objectively accurate term for repurposing someone's photos for your own use.
Because that's become a pretty loaded term with a specific meaning and context online. There's more to it than just repurposing. It's got a lot of meaning in say, discussions of racism. And that's what it immediately brings to mind.
I just think it's a bit much to use a phrase that's primarily brought out for stuff like that to go "Yea well, they're appropriating those photos of that baby and pretending they're it's mother!" because by using that heavy phrase, there's a bit of an unspoken "And it's like all those other appropriation things people talk about!" in there you can't really escape. Appropriation is like, something you do to culture. Not baby photos. It sort of parses like "that school detention was like a gulag!" to me.
posted by emptythought at 5:19 PM on September 24, 2014
Can you at least see how
can you speak to how this "public appearance should result in lessened expectation of privacy" argument is trumped in the case of, say, upskirt photos? Because technically those photos aren't hurting the woman thus photographed.
can be taken as making that point, rather than asking other people where they were coming from with making that point, especially when it had been dropped much earlier in the thread though?
I guess i just saw it as a bridge too far because the creepshots angle is something people get(understandably!) very het up about, and in my opinion making that comparison here is the equivalent to godwinning.
I realize i took the first bit the wrong way, and i'm sorry for not giving you the benefit of the doubt on that one. It kind of lead to me taking the second part worse than i probably should have, but as a whole it seemed like an attempt to take the conversation in a pretty crappy direction.
How is 'appropriated' a gross freighted phrase or a nuclear option? I can't think of a more objectively accurate term for repurposing someone's photos for your own use.
Because that's become a pretty loaded term with a specific meaning and context online. There's more to it than just repurposing. It's got a lot of meaning in say, discussions of racism. And that's what it immediately brings to mind.
I just think it's a bit much to use a phrase that's primarily brought out for stuff like that to go "Yea well, they're appropriating those photos of that baby and pretending they're it's mother!" because by using that heavy phrase, there's a bit of an unspoken "And it's like all those other appropriation things people talk about!" in there you can't really escape. Appropriation is like, something you do to culture. Not baby photos. It sort of parses like "that school detention was like a gulag!" to me.
posted by emptythought at 5:19 PM on September 24, 2014
I'm really confused why anyone's reaction to these articles is to come into this thread and let everyone know why parents shouldn't be creeped out by it. It doesn't need any analogies--it's creepy enough on its own. Seriously disappointed in y'all this is almost as off kilter as that SHAME ON THAT TV LADY WHO DID A CURSE thread. Metafilter has been having some strange fit of contrarianism recently.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:33 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:33 PM on September 24, 2014 [2 favorites]
playing devil's advocate, let me ask.... is it fundamentally different than any other "fantasy" game (football, baseball, etc..) where the personas of real people are co-opted (without permission) for someone's entertainment ?
Uh...maybe fantasy hockey is different but there's no adopting "personas" in fantasy sports that I'm aware of. It's not some weird sports LARPing or something. To my knowledge fantasy sports are a game that you select a bunch of players and judge your success based on their statistics for the season ahead compared to the other people playing the game.
posted by Hoopo at 5:34 PM on September 24, 2014
Uh...maybe fantasy hockey is different but there's no adopting "personas" in fantasy sports that I'm aware of. It's not some weird sports LARPing or something. To my knowledge fantasy sports are a game that you select a bunch of players and judge your success based on their statistics for the season ahead compared to the other people playing the game.
posted by Hoopo at 5:34 PM on September 24, 2014
I really doubt that baby pictures are recognizable to anyone besides the baby's parents. If even. I looked through my photo archive the other day and I could only recognize my own kid by the clothes that I remember. Some of the photos from when he was a toddler looked like "Who is that kid who stole my kid's shirt and is sitting on my mom's lap?" I think the creepiness coming from this is overstated. (on the other hand, I've never put any of my photos in the cloud)
posted by Daily Alice at 6:18 PM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Daily Alice at 6:18 PM on September 24, 2014 [3 favorites]
I really doubt that baby pictures are recognizable to anyone besides the baby's parents. If even.
Srsly. I couldn't pick any particular baby out of a lineup.
And if you're concerned about people who can, mebbe don't put your kids on theperpetual image fountain Internet.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:25 PM on September 24, 2014
Srsly. I couldn't pick any particular baby out of a lineup.
And if you're concerned about people who can, mebbe don't put your kids on the
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:25 PM on September 24, 2014
I'm not given to appropriating or adopting other Mefite's comments, but when one of you starts a comment with 'Um, ...' I secretly pretend it was directed at me.
posted by um at 7:52 PM on September 24, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by um at 7:52 PM on September 24, 2014 [9 favorites]
It's emotional appropriation. I have a photo of a woman who is a private citizen and a child, and I'm sitting on whether to share it with a friend of hers who is considering helping this woman. If they had similar circumstances, I'd feel easier about it but there's a huge gulf in power and culture and wealth, and it feels exploitative. I can't ask the woman right now because she's in a crisis and unable to decide independently. It's the same with celebs - the balance feels tipped by their wealth and power to compensate for their loss of expected privacy. When it's teenage girls vs adult parents, sympathy tilts to the younger girls. If it was someone richer or with more power than the parents who have an expectation of privacy and emotional boundaries, we'd probably side with the parents more.
posted by viggorlijah at 8:09 PM on September 24, 2014
posted by viggorlijah at 8:09 PM on September 24, 2014
Reading MetaFilter with the cloud-to-butt plugin installed has officially started to cause me problems with this thread:
I think the creepiness coming from this is overstated. (on the other hand, I've never put any of my photos in my butt)posted by scrump at 5:09 PM on September 25, 2014
FTR, you can make your Instagram account private. I've done it and have had to request to follow some of my friends who have their accounts private.
posted by hollygoheavy at 12:33 PM on September 26, 2014
posted by hollygoheavy at 12:33 PM on September 26, 2014
But I am pretty sure that I know one of those babynames roleplayers. She's a young woman, no kids, and I've always wondered why she was always talking about hanging out on a site about naming babies. I guess this.
Baby naming sites are a good resource for characters of all ages. Among other possible explanations.
posted by reprise the theme song and roll the credits at 10:48 PM on September 27, 2014
Baby naming sites are a good resource for characters of all ages. Among other possible explanations.
posted by reprise the theme song and roll the credits at 10:48 PM on September 27, 2014
« Older betcha Brian Eno's gonna snap this baby up... | Wait for Me! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Well that's the creepiest thing I've heard in a long time.
posted by Librarypt at 9:57 AM on September 24, 2014 [26 favorites]