Em Clarkson #2

cee-bee · Mar 30, 2023

She isn’t keeping her baby private though? Her name and birth were publicly announced.

she is holding her baby whilst advertising an air fryer - why? Because being a domesticated mum is part of her brand now, and she needs a baby as a prop to make an effective ad. “I’m a new mum guys, look how easy and convenient this air fryer is #ad” and she’s making a joke referencing her baby’s birth.

the baby has been in several posts, stories and reels.

I’m genuinely confused as to how this can be interpreted as protecting her baby’s privacy? Arlo is literally a few weeks old and is already in an ad with her mum…?

in my world, privacy is not being put online at all, not having your name released, not being used as a prop for content. Pixie Geldof is more famous than Em Clarkson, and never features her daughter on her social media. Her birth and name have never been released. To me - that’s an example of privacy being protected.

are we so overexposed to celeb and influencer culture that we’ve lost sight of what true privacy actually is?

Mushroom50 · Mar 30, 2023

Yeah I'm not a fan of these influencers who still share every detail of their kids lives, they just hide the kids face/put an emoji over it. Because they still want the content and the engagement of selling out their children, but they also want to be praised for 'protecting their privacy' which they aren't. That baby will still have her entire life chronicled on social media for all to see. Hannah Witton is the same with her baby whilst also making a big show of hiding his face. Just don't post the pictures/tell the stories!

cee-bee · Mar 30, 2023

Yeh, covering a kids face or not photographing it, isn’t really very private is it? It’s paying lip service to it, to sleep better at night I imagine.

It’s especially feeble if baby’s whole life is online from a few weeks old. The details of their birth, their clothes, the trips they are taken on, if they are premature or not, health problems and milestones, their name and date of birth.

i remember going to a lecture on open source investigation. Law enforcement and bad actors only need two bits of biodata about you to be able to build from that. Name and date of birth included. Arlo’s full name and date of birth have been published online to an audience of thousands, when she was just a few days old.

At a minimum, Arlo has already featured in eight of Em’s grid posts - including one advert for an air fryer and one promo post for her podcast. That doesn’t count the stories she may have been featured in. That doesn’t factor in any posts her father has made featuring her. The baby is ~8 weeks old. That’s one post per week of her little life. She’s featuring in adverts before she is capable of conscious thought.

of course, she was being monetised before she was even born. Em has made posts about her pregnancy and about motherhood. Arguably this is about Em, but let’s not pretend it’s wholly disconnected.

and let’s not pretend Em is above monetising her child. Em will 100% post “funny” stories about things Arlo says or does. Arlo will 100% continue to feature heavily on Em’s gram, will be used as part of Em’s branding and to appeal to wider audiences. Em will 100% leverage being a mother to a daughter to promote herself further as some sort of feminist saviour (even though many of her views on feminism are problematic and shallow).

Will she feature Arlo’s face? Maybe not. But it doesn’t make a huge difference, does it? You don’t need to have your face splashed online to have your identity completely co-opted and monetised. If every other little detail is published online, her facial details are inconsequential really.

From a glance at Em’s account, I immediately know her daughters name and date of birth. I know what that child has been wearing, and where her parents have been taking her on trips out (Ground by Coco can be clearly seen on a coffee cup, so looks like they were in Chelsea that day). Chelsea bridge features in another post quite clearly in the background, so I know the baby is taken to Chelsea fairly regularly which - without knowing much else about Em - would suggest she lives in South London. Em had to do the obligatory breast feeding pic obvs, so I know Arlo is breast fed. Em has posted from her home too recently, so a quick glance at the last couple of posts and I can get a fair idea of what arlo’s home looks like. Again, this child is 8 weeks old and already a ton of info about her life is freely available on social media.

so for the posters who said they respect how Em is protecting her daughters privacy, I am genuinely interested in how you’ve reached that viewpoint? Because to me this baby has been plastered all over the internet without a thought for her privacy at all, within days of her birth. I just can’t get my head around the view that she is being protected with clear boundaries at all.

and imo it’s really crappy. It’s a sign of crappy parenting. It’s a sign of a talentless woman who has little of value to offer social media in terms of creativity or thoughtful output, and so needs to utilise her child for her own means.

Em and her ilk are compelled to share every aspect of their lives and their children’s lives because that’s the core base of their appeal - making themselves accessible and building that relationship with their following. That’s the trade off. I expose every detail of my life but I get to use that attention you give me, to sell stuff to you.
It’s bad enough when an influencer does it themselves, but it’s reprehensible when they include exposing their child as part of building that relationship with their following. Many, many
Academic journals and news articles have flagged children being exposed for content (and the impact and lack of safeguarding) as a key concern. This isn’t just a few harmless pictures online. This has real, long term impacts. Social media is relatively young, so we won’t know the full impact of how having a childhood posted online, will affect these kids in adulthood.

it’s unethical, it’s immoral, it’s selfish and it’s 100% happening to Arlo

JulieScoobyDoo · Mar 30, 2023

cee-bee said:
Yeh, covering a kids face or not photographing it, isn’t really very private is it? It’s paying lip service to it, to sleep better at night I imagine.

It’s especially feeble if baby’s whole life is online from a few weeks old. The details of their birth, their clothes, the trips they are taken on, if they are premature or not, health problems and milestones, their name and date of birth.

i remember going to a lecture on open source investigation. Law enforcement and bad actors only need two bits of biodata about you to be able to build from that. Name and date of birth included. Arlo’s full name and date of birth have been published online to an audience of thousands, when she was just a few days old.

At a minimum, Arlo has already featured in eight of Em’s grid posts - including one advert for an air fryer and one promo post for her podcast. That doesn’t count the stories she may have been featured in. That doesn’t factor in any posts her father has made featuring her. The baby is ~8 weeks old. That’s one post per week of her little life. She’s featuring in adverts before she is capable of conscious thought.

of course, she was being monetised before she was even born. Em has made posts about her pregnancy and about motherhood. Arguably this is about Em, but let’s not pretend it’s wholly disconnected.

and let’s not pretend Em is above monetising her child. Em will 100% post “funny” stories about things Arlo says or does. Arlo will 100% continue to feature heavily on Em’s gram, will be used as part of Em’s branding and to appeal to wider audiences. Em will 100% leverage being a mother to a daughter to promote herself further as some sort of feminist saviour (even though many of her views on feminism are problematic and shallow).

Will she feature Arlo’s face? Maybe not. But it doesn’t make a huge difference, does it? You don’t need to have your face splashed online to have your identity completely co-opted and monetised. If every other little detail is published online, her facial details are inconsequential really.

From a glance at Em’s account, I immediately know her daughters name and date of birth. I know what that child has been wearing, and where her parents have been taking her on trips out (Ground by Coco can be clearly seen on a coffee cup, so looks like they were in Chelsea that day). Chelsea bridge features in another post quite clearly in the background, so I know the baby is taken to Chelsea fairly regularly which - without knowing much else about Em - would suggest she lives in South London. Em had to do the obligatory breast feeding pic obvs, so I know Arlo is breast fed. Em has posted from her home too recently, so a quick glance at the last couple of posts and I can get a fair idea of what arlo’s home looks like. Again, this child is 8 weeks old and already a ton of info about her life is freely available on social media.

so for the posters who said they respect how Em is protecting her daughters privacy, I am genuinely interested in how you’ve reached that viewpoint? Because to me this baby has been plastered all over the internet without a thought for her privacy at all, within days of her birth. I just can’t get my head around the view that she is being protected with clear boundaries at all.

and imo it’s really crappy. It’s a sign of crappy parenting. It’s a sign of a talentless woman who has little of value to offer social media in terms of creativity or thoughtful output, and so needs to utilise her child for her own means.

Em and her ilk are compelled to share every aspect of their lives and their children’s lives because that’s the core base of their appeal - making themselves accessible and building that relationship with their following. That’s the trade off. I expose every detail of my life but I get to use that attention you give me, to sell stuff to you.
It’s bad enough when an influencer does it themselves, but it’s reprehensible when they include exposing their child as part of building that relationship with their following. Many, many
Academic journals and news articles have flagged children being exposed for content (and the impact and lack of safeguarding) as a key concern. This isn’t just a few harmless pictures online. This has real, long term impacts. Social media is relatively young, so we won’t know the full impact of how having a childhood posted online, will affect these kids in adulthood.

it’s unethical, it’s immoral, it’s selfish and it’s 100% happening to Arlo

I have seen you post on a few threads and everything you say is measured and insightful. This is bang on. Hiding faces is done as a "look at me protecting my child, only showing the back of their head or covering their face with a sticker". It is performative. What you explain above is exactly why it is so problematic.

cee-bee · Mar 30, 2023

JulieScoobyDoo said:
I have seen you post on a few threads and everything you say is measured and insightful. This is bang on. Hiding faces is done as a "look at me protecting my child, only showing the back of their head or covering their face with a sticker". It is performative. What you explain above is exactly why it is so problematic.

thank you!

I’m not trying to make a dig at Em per se - and I know she reads here.

I would love it if she read something and instead of being indignant and defensive and insisting it’s just because she’s too much for us… she actually considered what we say. I really hope she reads my post (or similar) and decided to stop sharing Arlo online.

we know she’s a new mum, we don’t need to see a baby to know that. We don’t need to see her posting out and about with her baby, doing activities with her baby.

but my opinion of Em, based on how she conducts herself online and her content, isn’t especially high. She hasn’t shown herself to be a reflective, considered or even especially clever - at any point. So my expectations are on the floor RE arlo’s privacy.

she won’t encourage Arlo to go to Uni to educate herself or pursue a passion. The Clarkson fam don’t do that. They care about money, for as little effort as possible. She’ll expose her online in the hope that one day Arlo will also be able to faff about online selling air fryers.

Whazgoinin · Mar 30, 2023

cee-bee said:
...

are we so overexposed to celeb and influencer culture that we’ve lost sight of what true privacy actually is?

Yes quite probably. My reference to privacy was that she doesn't overshare as much as other people but you're right. She still is sharing details of her daughter more than 'normal' or safe levels.

CBS1 · Mar 30, 2023

One thing I will add is that there is software available that can remove emojis etc. which influencers use to place over babies faces/bodies. So whilst they believe they are keeping their children safe and hiding their identities it can be easily undone. A tactic used by the monsters you least want accessing your children's photographs

Kate7144 · Mar 31, 2023

cee-bee said:
are we so overexposed to celeb and influencer culture that we’ve lost sight of what true privacy actually is?

I think I may be very guilty of this.
My comment on privacy and boundaries was mainly driven by the quiet few weeks post birth - as honestly my expectation was there would be hour by hour updates and baby ads everywhere

But having read your full post I do agree that things are not actually as private as I thought!

cee-bee · Apr 2, 2023

Kate7144 said:
just watched her Molly Mae video and think it is well put together and agree with it!

Took me a while to watch the whole thing because I find Em’s presenting style so grating. She was saying exactly what I expected her too, and made a straw man argument as per. For such an easy argument as this, you think she’d be able to keep it on topic but no, she created that straw man.

1. for one, the comment section of Molly Mae’s Instagram account/social media isn’t reflective of society

Molly Mae appeals to a specific user base and her comment section will inevitably reflect that. So it’s nowhere near an accurate representation of wider society which is why you’re confused Em, that on “one hand we are calling out for better health” and having a go at MM at the same time.

2. It isn’t a toxic narrative that if you say one thing one time, “you are undeserving of empathy”.
Molly Mae made a deeply damaging statement that she hammered down on. It was classist, it was ignorant, it was toxic and damaging. It was lacking in empathy. And she refused to take responsibility for that.

3. live by the sword, die by the sword. I think it’s commendable Molly Mae is being honest about her struggles with new motherhood. I think it’s awful and I hope she feels better soon.
MM has built a brand and a following, by adopting classic influencer techniques. She leverages FOMO, she shows her highlight reel. She presents a perfectly curated image of herself that is photoshopped to the nth degree (and of course the fillers and hair extensions). She appeals to an audience that wants to be like her and who live vicariously through her posts. It’s not a nice thing to do, it’s not a nice way to live. But it’s lucrative and it’s worked for her. Molly Mae never actually demonstrates empathy herself; not for the people affected by her “24 hours” comments, not for the female factory workers who make her PLT lines, not for the people who feel bad because of her use of social media. No one.
My point? Since Molly Mae has based her persona on making people envious and is completely lacking in empathy herself, she won’t draw empathetic people to her grid. Ergo, her insta audience isn’t the place to go looking for empathy or kindness.

4. It’s irrelevant that she’s a woman really, and that men have been saying this. Because those men said it in different contexts, because those men don’t demonstrate a lack of empathy towards others then expect it for themselves. Those men are all wrong and that doesn’t make it ok for MM to perpetuate those falsehoods. And those men do receive criticism. It’s a total straw man argument.

speaking of lack of empathy, I’ve said it before… Em cares about this issues because you can tell she’s completely looking at her from her own selfish POV. She doesn’t care about MM or other postnatal women. Not really. She is thinking about how people play “fast and loose” with her, her life and her online presence. Her own anxieties come out in most of her posts and it’s tiresome.

I totally agree that MM has a right to her own feelings and to help and support and empathy. But she lost the right to get those things from her social media a long long time ago.

Clare · Apr 2, 2023

cee-bee said:
Took me a while to watch the whole thing because I find Em’s presenting style so grating. She was saying exactly what I expected her too, and made a straw man argument as per. For such an easy argument as this, you think she’d be able to keep it on topic but no, she created that straw man.

1. for one, the comment section of Molly Mae’s Instagram account/social media isn’t reflective of society Molly Mae appeals to a specific user base and her comment section will inevitably reflect that. So it’s nowhere near an accurate representation of wider society which is why you’re confused Em, that on “one hand we are calling out for better health” and having a go at MM at the same time.

2. It isn’t a toxic narrative that if you say one thing one time, “you are undeserving of empathy”.
Molly Mae made a deeply damaging statement that she hammered down on. It was classist, it was ignorant, it was toxic and damaging. It was lacking in empathy. And she refused to take responsibility for that.

3. live by the sword, die by the sword. I think it’s commendable Molly Mae is being honest about her struggles with new motherhood. I think it’s awful and I hope she feels better soon.
MM has built a brand and a following, by adopting classic influencer techniques. She leverages FOMO, she shows her highlight reel. She presents a perfectly curated image of herself that is photoshopped to the nth degree (and of course the fillers and hair extensions). She appeals to an audience that wants to be like her and who live vicariously through her posts. It’s not a nice thing to do, it’s not a nice way to live. But it’s lucrative and it’s worked for her. Molly Mae never actually demonstrates empathy herself; not for the people affected by her “24 hours” comments, not for the female factory workers who make her PLT lines, not for the people who feel bad because of her use of social media. No one.
My point? Since Molly Mae has based her persona on making people envious and is completely lacking in empathy herself, she won’t draw empathetic people to her grid. Ergo, her insta audience isn’t the place to go looking for empathy or kindness.

4. It’s irrelevant that she’s a woman really, and that men have been saying this. Because those men said it in different contexts, because those men don’t demonstrate a lack of empathy towards others then expect it for themselves. Those men are all wrong and that doesn’t make it ok for MM to perpetuate those falsehoods. And those men do receive criticism. It’s a total straw man argument.

speaking of lack of empathy, I’ve said it before… Em cares about this issues because you can tell she’s completely looking at her from her own selfish POV. She doesn’t care about MM or other postnatal women. Not really. She is thinking about how people play “fast and loose” with her, her life and her online presence. Her own anxieties come out in most of her posts and it’s tiresome.

I totally agree that MM has a right to her own feelings and to help and support and empathy. But she lost the right to get those things from her social media a long long time ago.

You’ve articulated perfectly what I was struggling to process. I unfollowed Emily after the MM video, MM’s hypocrisy is just unbearable and Emily not being able to see how she’s playing the game was just too much.

cee-bee · Apr 2, 2023

Clare said:
You’ve articulated perfectly what I was struggling to process. I unfollowed Emily after the MM video, MM’s hypocrisy is just unbearable and Emily not being able to see how she’s playing the game was just too much.

tbh, I think Emily 100% sees the game being played here, but since she plays it too she’s overlooking it and creating straw man arguements to deflect from it.

to be clear (so em doesn’t try and pretend us tattle “trolls” don’t care about Molly Mae’s mental health), MM 100% is deserving of empathy and kindness and support. A lot of the messages she has been sent are very unkind. But she is also a total hypocrite and deeply manipulative, and those things aren’t mutually exclusive.

Em Clarkson has a ton of insecurities about her privilege, her own online presence and she gets so worked up about specific issues because she sees her own insecurities reflected in them.

she’s not upset for Molly Mae. She’s not upset on behalf of postnatal women. She’s outraged because she sees her own tactics in Molly Mae. She’s outraged because she knows that, like Molly Mae, she also uses shitting influencing techniques and she also comes from the same place of privilege that she doesn’t want to acknowledge. All of that makes her terrified of the backlash that MM has faced.

And so she comes on and does her silly little reel and pretends it’s all from a place of altruism and feminism to legitimise her position. What she should really be saying is “I’m outraged that Molly Mae is being treated this way and I’m terrified I’ll be called out for the same things, so I’m going to try and whip up a defence for this behaviours and pretend it isn’t about me so I don’t look like the self absorbed twit I really am”

jofluff · Apr 11, 2023

Annoying me how she's going on about being a bigger size and that being okay (of course it's okay !) but also posting loads about all the exercise she's doing and purely enjoying it for the endorphins, when it's obvious she is doing it to try to lose weight ? Just say you are trying to lose weight instead of pretend like you're not

unwanted.opinions · Apr 11, 2023

cee-bee said:
Yeh, covering a kids face or not photographing it, isn’t really very private is it? It’s paying lip service to it, to sleep better at night I imagine.

It’s especially feeble if baby’s whole life is online from a few weeks old. The details of their birth, their clothes, the trips they are taken on, if they are premature or not, health problems and milestones, their name and date of birth.

i remember going to a lecture on open source investigation. Law enforcement and bad actors only need two bits of biodata about you to be able to build from that. Name and date of birth included. Arlo’s full name and date of birth have been published online to an audience of thousands, when she was just a few days old.

At a minimum, Arlo has already featured in eight of Em’s grid posts - including one advert for an air fryer and one promo post for her podcast. That doesn’t count the stories she may have been featured in. That doesn’t factor in any posts her father has made featuring her. The baby is ~8 weeks old. That’s one post per week of her little life. She’s featuring in adverts before she is capable of conscious thought.

of course, she was being monetised before she was even born. Em has made posts about her pregnancy and about motherhood. Arguably this is about Em, but let’s not pretend it’s wholly disconnected.

and let’s not pretend Em is above monetising her child. Em will 100% post “funny” stories about things Arlo says or does. Arlo will 100% continue to feature heavily on Em’s gram, will be used as part of Em’s branding and to appeal to wider audiences. Em will 100% leverage being a mother to a daughter to promote herself further as some sort of feminist saviour (even though many of her views on feminism are problematic and shallow).

Will she feature Arlo’s face? Maybe not. But it doesn’t make a huge difference, does it? You don’t need to have your face splashed online to have your identity completely co-opted and monetised. If every other little detail is published online, her facial details are inconsequential really.

From a glance at Em’s account, I immediately know her daughters name and date of birth. I know what that child has been wearing, and where her parents have been taking her on trips out (Ground by Coco can be clearly seen on a coffee cup, so looks like they were in Chelsea that day). Chelsea bridge features in another post quite clearly in the background, so I know the baby is taken to Chelsea fairly regularly which - without knowing much else about Em - would suggest she lives in South London. Em had to do the obligatory breast feeding pic obvs, so I know Arlo is breast fed. Em has posted from her home too recently, so a quick glance at the last couple of posts and I can get a fair idea of what arlo’s home looks like. Again, this child is 8 weeks old and already a ton of info about her life is freely available on social media.

so for the posters who said they respect how Em is protecting her daughters privacy, I am genuinely interested in how you’ve reached that viewpoint? Because to me this baby has been plastered all over the internet without a thought for her privacy at all, within days of her birth. I just can’t get my head around the view that she is being protected with clear boundaries at all.

and imo it’s really crappy. It’s a sign of crappy parenting. It’s a sign of a talentless woman who has little of value to offer social media in terms of creativity or thoughtful output, and so needs to utilise her child for her own means.

Em and her ilk are compelled to share every aspect of their lives and their children’s lives because that’s the core base of their appeal - making themselves accessible and building that relationship with their following. That’s the trade off. I expose every detail of my life but I get to use that attention you give me, to sell stuff to you.
It’s bad enough when an influencer does it themselves, but it’s reprehensible when they include exposing their child as part of building that relationship with their following. Many, many
Academic journals and news articles have flagged children being exposed for content (and the impact and lack of safeguarding) as a key concern. This isn’t just a few harmless pictures online. This has real, long term impacts. Social media is relatively young, so we won’t know the full impact of how having a childhood posted online, will affect these kids in adulthood.

it’s unethical, it’s immoral, it’s selfish and it’s 100% happening to Arlo

I thought she was going to keep her hidden, but it seems all she is doing is not showing her face. Which isn’t really that private when your sharing so much about her.

jofluff said:
Annoying me how she's going on about being a bigger size and that being okay (of course it's okay !) but also posting loads about all the exercise she's doing and purely enjoying it for the endorphins, when it's obvious she is doing it to try to lose weight ? Just say you are trying to lose weight instead of pretend like you're not

But that would’t suit her anti diet facade. Why can’t people say I’m dieting to get back to a size I felt happier/healthier at. There is duck all wrong with wanting to loose weight, as long as people are advised to do it healthily and not by following a fad diet.

cee-bee · Apr 11, 2023

jofluff said:
Annoying me how she's going on about being a bigger size and that being okay (of course it's okay !) but also posting loads about all the exercise she's doing and purely enjoying it for the endorphins, when it's obvious she is doing it to try to lose weight ? Just say you are trying to lose weight instead of pretend like you're not

I thought that too. If you asked her why she was exercising so much, she’d definitely just insist it was purely for mental health and her own fitness and wellbeing.

It’s obvious she’s not as cool about being “bigger sized” as she claims. She’s not even that big either, she was fairly regular sized before pregnancy at least.

Just admit you want to loose weight Em and stop being so effing disingenuous.

cee-bee · Apr 19, 2023

Of COURSE Em Clarkson is besties with toxic, walking red flag and covert narcissist, Ashley James. of COURSE she is. Birds of a feather and all that

StarCross · Apr 23, 2023