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 shitty. It’s a sign of shitty 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
drama 
