Also, why is Washington Post publishing this? Terrible editorial judgment. Sad enough that the parents are so irresponsible. (It's not just a few cute pics online—the writing includes the child's private struggles). Somethings aren't worth the clicks and shouldn't be encouraged.
-
-
Show this thread
-
There's absolutely great value for parents to share their struggles with each other. There are many forums and ways of writing that provide pseudonymity and allow just that. Maybe, a decade ago, one could say we were all naive about all this. It's 2019. Don't publish this stuff.
Show this thread -
It's a pity that major newspapers no longer have ombudsman. Still angry that
@washingtonpost published a piece openly celebrating exploiting children. This isn't a small issue. This piece should never have been published and the editor should've reacted with horror.Show this thread -
Parenting by class: A poor parent tells her kid to wait within view to interview for job she needs to put roof over kid's head: child protective services! Professional mom exploits her kid in deeply harmful manner only to help along her writing career: piece in Washington Post!
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The presence of that hyperlink tells you where her journey of self-reflection will lead (i.e. with not respecting her daughter's privacy and request) well before she gets there in the writing.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is horrifying. And worse that she realizes "the internet is forever." I don't even like putting my kids on Facebook, but I know if I don't, my in-laws will, and at least this way I'm in control and can take them down.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Imma call borderline personality disorder on the mother. They are some sick fuckos who abuse their children mentally and emotionally and never think they’re the bad ones.



-
I understand the desire to find and name a reason for behaviour like this, but please don't instantly jump to "she must have this mental illness". It's stigmatising to a disorder whose members are already at incredibly increased risk of violence.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Kinda a reason why I think the age of 16 in the GDPR is too late. People need control of their data earlier in life. (Until 16 the parents or guardians effectively control the data, member states can lower that date to 14)
-
The age of 16 (with possible derogation down to age 13) is only for whether or not a child can consent to their data being processed by “internet society services” without also having parental consent. GDPR doesn’t restrict data subject rights to adults or people over age 16.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.