Facebook’s Newest Content Blocker Replaces Baby Photos With…. CATS?

A new Google Chrome add-on blocks photos of babies, replacing them with jokes or political posts or photos of cats.

Unbaby.me is like… well, it’s like “Virtual Contraception.”  According to MSN’s Tech and Gadgets blog, GeekTown, the add-on will replace baby photos on Facebook, the world’s most popular social network, with pictures of cats and whatever else it thinks is “awesome stuff.”

My son is of an age when many of his friends are settling down, marrying and starting a family.  Still a bachelor, he hasn’t yet discovered that newborns are the most beautiful, most interesting topic in the world; so he installed the baby blocker.  Now, when a proud mama posts photos of her beloved Clarice taking her first steps, Unbaby.me replaces it with a funny post.  A user of the add-on plug can choose to look, instead, at cute kittens  or fancy cars or pithy sayings from Walt Whitman, or any custom image-based RSS feed—whatever it is that floats his [virtual] boat.

The program relies on word cues:  giveaway phrases like “first tooth” or “first steps” or “new baby.”  Then, it replaces the photo with something that’s more likely to elicit wows from the registered baby-avoider.

According to Unbaby.me, babies are to be enjoyed and loved when you choose, and should be invisible to the disinterested the rest of the time.  “They’re cute and wonderful, but sometimes the baby photo posting can get excessive and sickening. For many younger users on Facebook, they’ve gone from posting photos of themselves chugging kegs to posting pictures of their kids sucking on milk bottles….  We just wanted to bring the obvious baby problem to light,” explained Chris Baker, one of the founders.

Unbaby.me is not the first blocker to prevent undesired objects from displaying on your feed.  Earlier content blockers have stopped fan photos of the mopheaded Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga, Nickelback and the Kardashians.   


  • Mothman454

    I like cats better than babies; at least we know kittens wont grow up to be anoying, insensitive, arrogant, snobish, evil, selfish, moronic, stupid, etc.

    • Merck

      Derp. You clearly don’t know anything about cats….or people. Or was that a self assessment?

  • John

    So do all people fall in those categories Mothman or just the ones that disagree with you?

  • MaryS

    Sandra Fluke and Cecile Richards will be happy to get this blocker. But I hope Sebelius doesn’t force us all to buy it for them.

  • Margaret

    I saw this thing recently being promoted on slate.com, a prominent advocate of “child-free” lifestyles, perversion and the culture of death. How depressing.

  • Aaron

    Not all people become as such. It depends on at where and to whom you focus on. A loving child is very much possible: cynicism in the household won’t help, unlike consolation, understanding, and compassion.

  • Merck

    They need this product for commercials, ads, half naked people, porno, pop ups…am I forgetting anyone the truly annoying nonsense we have to deal with on the Internet….comments from mothman. Sorry couldn’t resist.

  • http://www.youtube.com/mariomusicmadness Nick

    This isn’t “Virtual Contraception”, this is a way to get annoying baby photos off Facebook.
    Quit seeing the world through your political lens and quit judging people by your politics.

  • Sarah M

    This is ageism! People would rightly see the offense of attempting to block photos based on race, ethnicity, or class… why is it acceptable to discriminate on the basis of age? I say there needs to be one in reverse, to keep it equal– I’d much rather see any random baby picture than another cat photo on my feed. Is there a “cat that has been used to replace human relationships in a friend’s life” blocker too?

  • Sean

    People who dislike babies or find them annoying or unwanted are the sickest people there are. Crawl back into your hole, come out when you’re ready to join the rest of civilized society.

  • Mary Rose

    Frankly, Kathy, I am surprised that someone your age (and I am 55 so I am around your age) would be on Facebook at all. I am not on Facebook, so I don’t visit my children’s Facebook pages. For peace of mind and out of respect for your grown sons’s privacy, you may want to consider getting out of this overblown social media site. I find that the real world is more interesting than the virtual one.

  • Lalis

    When they come up with an UnObama.me, let me know!

  • Amanda

    I am very, very pro-life, and I adore babies and children…but, I am suffering with infertility. Some days I would rather not be bombarded with 800 perfect, adorable baby pictures and posts. It’s totally selfish, I know this, but that’s how it is. I just scroll past them quickly when I’m having a “bad baby day” but I know some friends dealing with infertility that have to “hide from newsfeed” all of the pregnant and new moms, because some times it’s just too much. Now, I’m not going to install this and start using it, because most days, I can handle it. I can see, however how this might be good for someone like me…I know that’s not who it’s intended for, but I know some women that would greatly benefit from something like this.

  • Pepin the Short

    I love babies and I’m not going to instal this baby-blocker BUT some parents (and yes, mothers especially) can only talk about their babies, about the whole birthing experience, about breastfeeding, breast-umps etc, etc… all the livelong day! Maybe this baby-blocker is just a natural reaction to boring parents inflicting their progeny on others. Over and over and over again… The planet is populated by several billion ‘babies’ people. Hardly a unique experience!

  • Matt

    I second Amanda’s comment. My first child was stillborn. and for a while my wife couldn’t stand to see a baby or a pregnant woman since it brought her grief to the surface. As with just about any technology, there are legitimate and illegitimate uses. Only God knows the heart.

  • Pingback: Catholic News Roundup 09-05 « ChurchMilitant.TV Blog