I see you have found a window to creep back in as the moral police on this thread. I always thought you were a funny one.
The thing is, when you say 'I give up' - don't, just chose your battles adequately. The people who need a good reasoning are those posting their kids images online for the only purpose of engagement and generating sales, not those on the reactive end. I suspect you're in for an endless game if you're policing those mentioning this immoral practice. I do agree however, that children should not be brought into the picture whatsoever but that's down to the marketeer.
Maybe target the big corporations who pressure influencers to utilise their kids in order to be more relatable? They’re the ones profiting the most and silently watching it all unfold. Criticism is unavoidable and I find it quite unbelievable that many are willing to pay that price in order to make money. I would never inflict that onto my children, or my family, and there is a point one has to wonder if it's something they are willing to take on considering all the risks involved. You can't just do it and hope for the best?
When some say people have every right to post their kids or whatever they want online, it is somewhat true, but every right comes with obligations and a price that more often than not has nothing to do with money. I am obviously talking about people with a commercial account, who post their kids online as a mean to an end. Mrs Hinch in this instance has made a conscious choice to carry on posting her kids altho she was allegedly criticised over her first born. She milked the autism topic for years before she officially announced it - she knew it would generate engagement on her acct and she definitely knew it would generate criticism. Would you do that to yourself and your child? Probably not. It is not to justify anyone's words but let's be frank about her own involvement and accountability in it.
The likes of the Hinch business want to have access to products to sell, people to sell it to, yet they want to shut down anyone or anything that has an opinion about the way it is done, and the very tools (herself, her family) that used & abused to sell. I find that concept rather totalitarian. This is not North Korea. People have a say when they are targeted, it goes both ways.
As much as I disapprove of criticising children, I mostly disapprove of people using their children to generate an income mainly because they haven't had the brains to do anything else but exploit their own kids.
I'm not in the slightest concerned about being named if it came to that, I have always expressed my opinion and there is nothing I wouldn't have said to mrs hinch directly. Her company and PR have a lot to answer for, so if anything I wonder how she can untangle herself out of the numerous lies and lack of ads/gifts she has received throughout the years. She undoubtedly has many anon accts in various sites so I do wonder how she would justify those as well.
Some members have made comments or assumed theories I didn’t agree with but none of this would have been possible without the creators posting incredibly private and therefore dangerous details about their private lives.
My grandchild would say "that's not woke you silly old c**t"
