[prea]

> What's even the point of posting a photo of your child, with the face hidden? Seems very niche.

Might be a cultural US thing, but this is something my wife does a lot and I see a lot of people doing. It's one of those things that might not make sense if you don't have kids.

[Grustaf]

I have kids, and don't mind posting their photos. But if I did, why post at all? It just seems weird. "Here's my son, minus the face. Oh he's so cute!"

[tedmiston]

I also find it bizarre and think similarly... if you're going to cover up the person's face, why post it at all?

I have seen some people use these on dating apps where they don't want their own children's or other people's children's faces to be visible. I understand that use case a bit more from a privacy perspective.

[matt_heimer]

For some, its not about the kids its about showing themselves as a parent.

For others, its about sharing with people that you know that you and your kids had a good time while providing some privacy protection for your kids. Micro-managing who can see what picture is hard, the people that know your kids get the full mental image from the picture.

[wyldfire]

> the people that know your kids get the full mental image from the picture.

Maybe it's just me but this kinda thing seems a little weird. If it's too much work to partition into groups then maybe not post at all? But then again I'm not doing any social networks so I guess I'm not the intended audience.

[kiwijimm]

I also didn't get this. Why put photo's on social media of your kids AT ALL if you feel weird about it. Making them look weirder feel a bit strange to me. But now you point out that is basically to enable virtue signalling for parents its makes more sense.

[2muchcoffeeman]

This post made it make sense to me. It’s about the people taking the photos and some external validation thing.

[coin]

Yes it’s bizarre and I don’t understand it. Didn’t even realize it’s a thing.

[mysterydip]

I have a friend who does this for her foster kid(s).

[Nathanael_M]

My in-laws foster and this is the first use case I thought of. It’s sad to take a big family photo and either not be able to share it, or have to take a duplicate without the foster child.

[Grustaf]

Why do you need to do that?

[ajbourg]

Speaking as a foster parent: my agency like many have rules against posting foster kids to social media. Usually intended to help protect kid's privacy. I think the motivation comes from a handful of places, protecting kids from being exploited for likes, keeping kids privacy, but a big one in foster circles is so that people don't know you're a foster kid unless you say so. Most adults in the system take great care to not acknowledge kids if they run into them in public to avoid situations where kids have to explain to their friends, "Who is that?" and then having an awkward situation where they have to say something like, "That's my caseworker/therapist/whatever".

[Grustaf]

Some of these make sense (not that I agree with them), but don't seem peculiar to foster children. But what does this one mean?

> so that people don't know you're a foster kid unless you say so.

If you post a photo of your family and none of the children have emoji faces, why would anyone conclude that the foster child is a foster child? Because he looks different? Seems to me that emoji:ing out one child would do the opposite, draw attention to him.

EDIT: It seems we are talking about temporary arrangements, then things become clearer. Still very weird photos.

[wlesieutre]

Probably varies by location but here's what Connecticut DCF has to say about it:

> Please refrain from posting any photos or information on social media websites about the child/ren in your care. Their presence in your home should be treated as confidential information is not to be referred to on any social media websites.

https://portal.ct.gov/DCF/CTFosterAdopt/Manual/Chapter2#Scho...

[andrewoneone]

Why do you care? Nearly every comment you've left here in this post has negative language. You claim to have been an iOS developer for ten years - where's your podcast? Where are your apps on the app store that you're posting publicly about? Why aren't we talking about Grustaf in this post? Find empathy. Find humility. Find more in life than being a negative person on the internet.

[Grustaf]

I asked because I didn't see why foster children specifically had to be hidden.

The reason you are not talking about me is that I'm not famous. Does that disqualify me from having an opinion? Do all opinions have to be positive? Do I have to (pretend to) believe that this app can make money? That seems pretty strange, this is not a kindergarten, grownups should be able to handle feedback even when it's not praise. If he needs empathy, he should go to his friends and family. I will just write what I believe, and that is that this is not a monetizable service, he is wasting his time.

He obviously has made a name for himself in podcasting, so he should double down on that. He is clearly not a product person, and I don't think he's a very good developer, he will do much better focusing on his strengths.

I'm curious, why do I need to have a podcast if I have been an iOS developer for 10 years, what's the connection?

[ProAm]

To be fair their podcast has two programmers and a stay at home dad so it makes sense why he only had focus on his kids. The app isnt worth .99 cents though with questionable utility and a plethora of other apps that do this for free.

[greedo]

To be accurate, all three of the hosts are programmers.

[ProAm]

Two of them are working programmers though and, in my opinion, much stronger programmers. I just think it's clear why he thought this was a valuable app idea.

[greedo]

I've listened to ATP since day one. My impression of Siracusa as a programmer is limited to the few apps he's released. But he could be a fantastic programmer at his "jobby-job." Or he could just be average. We have no way of telling, despite how intelligent both his writing and his speaking on the podcast might convey.

Marco is very successful with Tumblr, Instapaper, and Overcast, yet we don't know how good a programmer he is. He's made great money, and has strong opinions, but again, we don't know how good a programmer he is.

Casey used to have a "jobby-job" before leaving the corporate world. So he too might be a good, bad or excellent programmer. We don't know.

It's kind of like how you don't really know someone until you live with them. For programming, it's until you've worked with them and seen their code. All three of the hosts might be world class; or they might be average. But there's no way to determine who is the strongest programmer of the three.

We can debate who's been more successful selling their code, but we don't know where Siracusa works and code/app sales are a poor metric for code quality.

[Grustaf]

We obviously can't know, but hearing someone talk about something gives you an idea.

My impression is that Casey is quite weak (as in average), but meticulous.

Siracusa is almost certainly the one with the best understanding of theory, but hard to say how he is practically. He could be very good at what he's doing.

Marco also doesn't seem very strong in raw programming (he resisted Swift for half a decade, complains that it's hard to deal with, says that architecture is only for beginners etc) but obviously he can solve whatever problem he is faced with, even quite complex ones. And this is obviously what matters if you are an indie developer. That and product sense, which he is also very good at. He probably has the perfect skillset for an indie developer, better programming wouldn't make him any more successful.

[scarface74]

> yet we don't know how good a programmer he is

You know he is good because…

> Marco is very successful with Tumblr, Instapaper, and Overcast,

I don’t need to “see his code” to know whether he is good. He is able to produce software that people pay money to acquire without the sliminess. Software is a means to an end. Not an end onto itself.

[d3nj4l]

I think it's like a preference - I don't understand it either, but I've seen it enough times that I don't think it matters whether I understand. Some people like it.

[rchaud]

It makes total sense. I don't have kids, but I certainly understand that they aren't old enough to understand the principle of consent when it comes to being photographed for pics that will be shared online by their parents.

So blurring them out somehow protects privacy and lets parents their habitual social media posting.

[distartin]

I think it's not just US thing, I've seen parents did the same thing outside US. There's a market for this but urgency is probably low, fortunately this got viral