Mi esposa está robando a nuestro recién nacido de un derecho básico. Se arrepentirá cuando nuestra hija sea mayor.

A parenting columnist addressed a dispute between a couple regarding the social media presence of their infant daughter. The father, identified as "Passé," wrote to the Care and Feeding column stating that he and his wife, "Selena," had welcomed their first child, "Opal," four months prior. The pair remained unable to agree on whether to publish images of the baby online. Selena frequently posted photographs of Opal across various platforms, describing the practice as normal and expected. The husband argued that such actions robbed the child of basic privacy rights before she could exercise them. He expressed concern that public display of a child’s life was inappropriate, noting he would dislike similar exposure during his own childhood. The columnist responded by suggesting the couple should have established boundaries before the birth. This decision belongs alongside other fundamental choices such as diaper type, feeding methods, and sleep schedules. The writer noted that the couple likely held divergent views on digital sharing long before the pregnancy. Although Selena insisted on posting, the columnist criticized her for making unilateral decisions while ignoring her partner's opposition. Conversely, the father appeared dismissive of his wife's desire to share her life online. To resolve the impasse, the columnist cited a compromise used by her own grandchildren’s parents. That couple maintains private Instagram accounts, having removed all followers who are not current real-life friends. They avoid posting close-up images where the child’s face is fully visible. Additionally, they utilize a specific application called TinyBeans, which is designed for sharing with close relatives and friends. This platform is invisible to search engines and ad trackers. Only individuals integral to the child’s future life have access to these daily updates. The columnist admitted that despite supporting the privacy stance, she felt slight sadness at being excluded from broader social media displays of her grandchild. The original letter asked who was right in the argument. The response emphasized that neither party was entirely correct in their rigid positions. Selena failed to respect the father’s feelings, while the father underestimated the difficulty of changing long-standing digital habits. The proposed middle ground allows for sharing within a trusted circle without exposing the child to the wider internet. The columnist urged expectant parents to discuss these digital footprints proactively. The final recommendation focused on limiting visibility to immediate family and close friends through dedicated, secure applications. This approach balances the mother’s desire to document milestones with the father’s commitment to protecting the child’s anonymity from the general public. The resolution relies on mutual agreement rather than one partner overriding the other’s concerns about data privacy and permanent digital records.