Comment by jrflowers

> Well, I already have an opinion on them.

That was the impression I got from your previous post.

> There are a limited number of venues where a preteen girl can credibly earn money on social media.

… ???

> my shock was really over the fact that the mother is basically saying "I want to sell access to my daughter online but I'm surprised that the biggest spenders are adult men with questionable intentions."

This article is about how Instagram enables [sometimes paid!] access to children. It is good that we both agree that that is what happened here, on Instagram, in this case. You also agree that the people buying access to this child, in this case, on Instagram, are adult men.

Somehow you have an issue with the mother and the child doing something but in the same breath say

> The article entirely fails to do that. [“That” being enabling child predators]

If Instagram didn’t facilitate access to child predators then… what happened here?

And finally (this is a question for literally any person reading this other than akira2501) how did you read this article and arrive at “I should post that I would want to see the pictures before I render judgment about the platform”? If it is uncharitable to notice that that’s a weird post, how do you interpret that specific point?