No. of Recommendations: 4
Parental consent or not, you can't post pictures of your kids that aren't blurred. Normally I wouldn't say that is necessary, but if what apparently is happening on FB is true, then we should put a stop to the whole thing. Yes, it punishes some folks who aren't doing anything wrong, but it stops the questionable behavior in its tracks.
But that's not going to happen. Really? I can't post a picture of my kid on the internet for the grandparents to see, even though there are literally billions of pictures of kids on the internet - to say nothing of the millions (?) of kids that appear in films, television shows, advertisements, print photos...even just crowd shots on the street? If I think it's fine for my son's grandmother to post a picture of them having ice cream together on her FB account (I don't have one) or snapshots of all of us walking around Disney together, should FB overrule that?
That's why these issues are so complex. The category of content - non-indecent photos of minors - is not itself objectionable. And is massively engaged in by nearly every family in the country with any type of online presence. But in certain contexts, it can be extremely harmful.
Which.....what to do? That's why I put the question to Dope. The tech giant's approach to these thorny questions has been to have well-staffed Trust and Safety departments that are trying to make these fine distinctions, so that you don't inadvertently ban classical artworks that happen to have putti in the background while trying to enforce your rules. But conservatives are really, really upset at the idea that these companies aren't operating like common carriers, where anything not illegal should be allowed. How to thread that needle?
