Dr Niamh Lynch

1
Pandakitten said:
I think Dr Lynch’s point is parents wouldn’t - couldn’t - do it if brands weren’t willing to capitalise on cute kids to flog their product and IMO she’s right. I don’t believe the parents are right to do it but the big brands are not innocent in this either. They know they’ve found an effective, relatively inexpensive marketing mechanism. They couldn’t care less about the kids.
Click to expand...
The brands couldn't care less. They've effectively gotten around child labour laws by letting the parents post their own children. It's unbelievable really!. The luvvies are getting paid alright but their days are numbered. What happens when the child gets a bit older and flat out refuses to pose anymore or better still disowns them.
 
sixonenews said:
Would you really think better of her if she double jobbed working in CUH and Bons so neither get her complete focus? New public consultant contracts are forbidding private practice so going forward they’ll have to pick their side. It’s crazy when you see the lists of consultants in Dublin private hospitals with mostly consultants from the public Dublin hospitals then everyone wonders why public waiting lists are so long?? No less capable a consultant for being private.



Yes I agree but don’t think it’s brands using the insta huns kids, the parents do that and choose to do it, therefore make them appealing to brands for freebies and income.
I think with newspapers they’re binned so quickly that it’s forgotten and gone. Online images esp on social media last forever.
Click to expand...
Yeah newspapers are binned. Social media is searchable as in if you meet someone in ten years time you can search for them and potentially see their personal history well some of it anyway

Bomfi said:
Yeah newspapers are binned. Social media is searchable as in if you meet someone in ten years time you can search for them and potentially see their personal history well some of it anyway
Click to expand...
I would hate that
 
Pandakitten said:
I think Dr Lynch’s point is parents wouldn’t - couldn’t - do it if brands weren’t willing to capitalise on cute kids to flog their product and IMO she’s right. I don’t believe the parents are right to do it but the big brands are not innocent in this either. They know they’ve found an effective, relatively inexpensive marketing mechanism. They couldn’t care less about the kids.
Click to expand...
Yes I understand but parents can be influencers without showing their kids off so much or can hide their faces at the very least. Less intrusion on a faceless photo. Brands look at followers and engagement more than how much of their kids they show imo.
 
sixonenews said:
Yes I understand but parents can be influencers without showing their kids off so much or can hide their faces at the very least. Less intrusion on a faceless photo. Brands look at followers and engagement more than how much of their kids they show imo.
Click to expand...

Is that even ok then? Parents making a living off their children even if the child isn’t identifiable? I can’t off the top of my head think of an ad I’ve seen recently in which an influencer’s child was featured but was unidentifiable.

Brands know we’ll how effective influencer marketing is and they capitalise on it. If brands didn’t pay, parents probably wouldn’t bother with public profiles and pursuing larger follower counts. You say brands look at their follower counts and engagement and not how much of their kids they show - but many of them only have the followers BECAUSE of their sharing of their children.
 
Pandakitten said:
Is that even ok then? Parents making a living off their children even if the child isn’t identifiable? I can’t off the top of my head think of an ad I’ve seen recently in which an influencer’s child was featured but was unidentifiable.

Brands know we’ll how effective influencer marketing is and they capitalise on it. If brands didn’t pay, parents probably wouldn’t bother with public profiles and pursuing larger follower counts. You say brands look at their follower counts and engagement and not how much of their kids they show - but many of them only have the followers BECAUSE of their sharing of their children.
Click to expand...
Terrie mcavoy uses her child for advertising but “hides” her face
 
Pandakitten said:
Is that even ok then? Parents making a living off their children even if the child isn’t identifiable? I can’t off the top of my head think of an ad I’ve seen recently in which an influencer’s child was featured but was unidentifiable.

Brands know we’ll how effective influencer marketing is and they capitalise on it. If brands didn’t pay, parents probably wouldn’t bother with public profiles and pursuing larger follower counts. You say brands look at their follower counts and engagement and not how much of their kids they show - but many of them only have the followers BECAUSE of their sharing of their children.
Click to expand...
Yes it makes a big difference as the child can’t be identified and won’t be recognised when out n about. Not all show their faces, only a few now, and some only when starting school stop but it’s a big difference. Definitely not ideal but better
 
sixonenews said:
Yes it makes a big difference as the child can’t be identified and won’t be recognised when out n about. Not all show their faces, only a few now, and some only when starting school stop but it’s a big difference. Definitely not ideal but better
Click to expand...
I saw an Instagram person during the week and it was the kids I recognised, that’s mad I think absolutely shocking
 
EllBelle said:
I saw an interesting video on tik tok calling out influencers that are using their children for content...not only look at the number of subscribers you have and are potentially seeing your video of your kid in the bath or running around in their swimsuit but look at the amount of people saving that video 😳
Click to expand...
I saw that too. There was also one about a specific kid in the US who's mom has a dedicated TikTok page for her. And the amount of times it's been saved (which is a better indication of scary stuff happening to the content than simple views)
 
sixonenews said:
Yes it makes a big difference as the child can’t be identified and won’t be recognised when out n about. Not all show their faces, only a few now, and some only when starting school stop but it’s a big difference. Definitely not ideal but better
Click to expand...
I still don’t think it’s right to have your kids earning a living for you when they can’t really understand what they’re ‘consenting’ to by going along with it but if you’re comfortable with that then…. 🤷🏻‍♀️
 
MDC said:
I saw an Instagram person during the week and it was the kids I recognised, that’s mad I think absolutely shocking
Click to expand...
It’s so unsettling recognising kids from social media, sometimes not with the influencer parent.!

Pandakitten said:
I still don’t think it’s right to have your kids earning a living for you when they can’t really understand what they’re ‘consenting’ to by going along with it but if you’re comfortable with that then…. 🤷🏻‍♀️
Click to expand...
I would never do it so wouldn’t call myself comfortable with it at all, just it is better than having kids easily recognised in public and forever more online. You have to wonder if some people would approach them thinking they know them. Wonder how it’ll all play out when they’re older.
 
Last edited:
boarddotie said:
I saw that too. There was also one about a specific kid in the US who's mom has a dedicated TikTok page for her. And the amount of times it's been saved (which is a better indication of scary stuff happening to the content than simple views)
Click to expand...

I was just reading about the little girl, Wren Eleanor. Absolutely vile when you stop and think. It sounds very sinister from the moms part too. It seems like she willingly went along with it.

I personally very, very rarely share images of my kids online. Maybe twice a year there's something on my insta. I have a tiny amount of followers who I know in person only. That is all I'm comfortable in doing atm. I used to share more when my youngest was a baby, I've since removed all those images from Facebook as it didn't feel right. In saying all that, there may very well come a time when I remove all images and stop sharing entirely.
 
I don't understand the negative comments. Niamh is one of the few I follow on Instagram because she is so real and genuine and even more so because of her fight against influencers profiting from their kids. the people being negative towards her need to invest their time in commenting on the truly disgusting people out there who take us all for a ride, make money from their kids and photoshop every post.

Actually ..I reckon half these negative comments are from said influencers who exploit their kids and want to put Niamh in a bad light to discredit her. Nothing would shock me with that lot. I have only commented on a few threads here over the past few months because I don't waste my time following the tripe we all hate....I occasionally comment if someone has come up on my feed and has irritated the duck out of me and I do read a few threads on the dopes who I like to see put in their place. But Dr Niamh is my find of lockdown. Her advice when it comes to sick kids has been a godsend for me anyway. I hope she never leaves instagram.

When I say tripe...I mean the instagram influencers content. I used to follow them but they gave me such rage so I clicked unfollow on them all...I literally only check in on a few if something has happened...hoping someday for their downfall!!
 
Last edited:
How did this woman become a doctor? She has the maturity of a toddler. Just duck off and go if you don’t want to be posting. No need for the long drawn out attention seeking goodbyes. I thought her calling out momfluencers was brilliant but it’s clear she just wants adoration for herself and sorry get in the bin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top