#I'm still shaking my head at the idea that Briana cares enough about fandom drama to stir it up

[dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram]

I totally understand your point about biological fatherhood vs. familial roles and relationships vs. the stories people tell. We simply don’t know how much Freddie knows about the situation and what he’s being told. I guess my concern is the way he’s being put on display for Briana and Louis’ benefit. Briana has used Freddie to gain followers and stir up fandom drama (remember when F had a temporary tattoo of an anchor, in the same spot Harry does?). The arcade video of Louis and Freddie appeared shortly before the Away from Home Festival. The Tomlinsons being very public about Freddie spending Christmas in Doncaster comes a few months before Louis’ first world tour as a solo artist (and maybe the release of new music). The timing is not mere coincidence. Whether Louis is the father or not, I am troubled by the way the adults in Freddie’s life expose him on social media. Compare it to the way we don’t even know what Bear or Khai’s faces look like and, well, the difference is striking. As I said, we absolutely do not know what is told to Freddie in private. But publicly, Louis is his father. And it’s this disparity that worries me. Even if Freddie is in the dark about this situation right now, it’s not going to stay that way forever. Louis paying Briana’s bills doesn’t give him the right to use a kid as some weird sort of promo. Louis being the biological father doesn’t give him the right to use a kid as some weird sort of promo. That’s my concern: This child’s exposure on social media (for the benefit of other people) when he doesn’t understand the implications and is too young to consent.

So I'm going to pull out a few different threads from here, because I think you're rolling quite a lot of things together.

First of all a general principle - I think it's a pretty shitty thing to do to make up a story about someone and blame them for your story. Therefore if you're going to get into judging people (and even more if you're going to ask other people to join in) you have to be really sure that you know what's going on. Otherwise you can say 'if this is true'.

What really stands out to me is that you're making some huge leaps. You seem to be assuming that Louis being filmed at a distance must have been something he intended and that this video that was only seen among the most engaged was somehow intentionally connected to a gig that was happening a month later.

That seems wildly unlikely to me. Not just 'there are other options', but 'there is absolutely no reason to think that's true'. I've always thought the most likely explanation for the video of Louis and Freddie in the arcade is that they did hang out, and this was just the first time it was caught on camera.

I would make similar points about a lot of other connections you're making. Just because Harry is pretty central to your world doesn't mean he's central to other people's. Why would you assume that a really common fake tattoo of Freddie's had anything to do with Harry?

As to the larger question, I do think that social media and children is very fraught. But there's nothing unique about this particular case. While some famous people hide their children's identity there are lots who don't. And in this era it's not just famous people who are risking that their children might be exposed in ways that they cannot consent to, every parent who posts about their child is taking that risk. In particular, what you see to be judging here is motivations, but you have no idea of their motivations. I'm not particularly into judging the way parents use social media, because it seems complex and hard to navigate to me. But I'm not going to argue with people making those judgements based on what they can do. I will look sideways at people who assume someone else's motivations without evidence and judge them for it.