We welcomed a bonny wee addition to our family this week.
Mum has that many followers on Facebook she's practically a local celebrity.
So I was intrigued by her surprise decision not to post photos of her pride and joy.
She announced the birth, but added that she wished to respect her daughter's privacy. There was a photo, only partially showing baby in mum's arms.
Most parents do post photos of their children online and, for many, it's not even an issue. But should it be?
One study reports that by the time an average child turns five, its parents have posted 1500 images, some even starting with pregnancy scans.
Imagine what a school bully might do armed with a history of potentially humiliating growing up photos. That photo of two-year-old Johnny wearing a "I love beer and boobs" T-shirt may have several unhappy consequences in later life.
There are parents who don't post images of their children online.
Sharenters, they're dubbed, raise such arguments as the right to privacy and about security, among others with varying degrees of compulsion.
It's worth reminding ourselves that privacy, our private information, is the currency of the online world. It is what we surrender in exchange for access to news, entertainment, banking - and particularly to social media where we can stay in touch with those things and people we're interested in.
But what we share with a select group of family and friends may be used in ways we never imagined or intended. And it stays out there forever. Perhaps we have become so used to signing up for Gmail and Facebook accounts that we overlook that.
I applaud new mum in her stance to protect her daughter. But with a window to the digital world in every pocket, and the technological realities of the modern age, I imagine her battle may have only just begun.
Emergency services went to SH3, near Blueskin Rd in Westmere, about 10.15am today.