Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Overtonwindow 1193 days ago
I feel terrible for kids like this whose entire lives are put on the Internet and there's nothing they can do about it. Like that poor autistic kid, whose mother used him to make videos and make money, and then "re-homed" him like he was an animal.
2 comments

I think that's an unnecessarily harsh take on what happened.

People adopt. Some people purposely adopt kids that they know have special needs. Sometimes, people with the best intentions, end up in a situation where they are way over their heads. Before you're actually in the situation, there's no possible way to know how difficult it will be, nor what your limits are. (And until you've seen someone actually overwhelmed, it's hard to even imagine what that looks like.) If a child's needs are beyond your limits, you are doing them absolutely no favors to keep them in your home. Having any child, even one biologically your own, is fundamentally a risk.

So consider some hypotheses:

A. The couple in question genuinely wanted to help a child who needed help; and genuinely wanted to inspire other people to adopt by sharing the sorrows and joys; but unexpectedly found themselves in over their head, and made the difficult (and publicly embarrassing) decision to pass the child on to someone better suited to care for them

B. The couple in question thought that a good way to make a few bucks would be to adopt a difficult child for 6 months, get a large viewership, and then pass them on to someone else

I mean, I suppose B is possible, but it seems like a really dumb way to go about things. There would certainly be lots of easier ways to make money.

Whether it was right to make a public spectacle of the child's situation, even assuming the best intentions, is a different question.

I'm adding C: the couple in question wanted to feel important and thought about how nice would they appear in networks if they just adopted a difficult kid, so they did that without really thinking about the kid or even their own wellbeing. So, at the moment motivation ran out they bailed out because it wasn't worth it, but they didn't go in thinking to pass the child after a few months.

In other words, there's a third option other than "malice" and "good intentions": narcissism.

But the most important thing, as the other commenter says: making a public spectacle of the child's situation is the question that's being asked here. And it's an important question because the ability to make a public spectacle might be the difference between some people getting kids or not.

> Whether it was right to make a public spectacle of the child's situation, even assuming the best intentions, is a different question.

Um....disagree. That's literally THE question being discussed.

Overtonwindow was implying case B. I'm trying to say that case A is much more likely, without saying anything one way or another about how it relates to TFA.
And the people who adopted a disabled kid from China I think, made their content and found them a new home when stuff got too hard.
I'm not sure but I think you are referencing the same story? I looked and only really found media about this:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/202...

I really hope that you've been horribly misinformed. I have no words otherwise...
Oh man the situation with international adoptions is so much worse than even that.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/adoption/#article/part1