Kim Kardashian will likely ‘scale back’ her social media & public appearances


FFN_OHPix_Kardahsians_091616_52176509

Kim Kardashian’s is famous, at least partially, because she’s really “good” at social media. We can argue about what came first, the chicken or the sex tape, but Kim was able to stoke interest in her life and promote herself extensively because of social media. Much like her E! reality show, it’s not that Kim “reveals all” on social media, but she does interact with fans and give a certain degree of accessibility online. This, according to self-proclaimed security experts, was her undoing. This is the “reason” why she was assaulted and robbed: because she was on social media, because she flaunted her wealth online. While I think that rationale is a bunch of crap, it also doesn’t surprise me that sources close to Kim say that she’s re-evaluating her business-as-usual online and in life.

Things are going to change for one of America’s most famous families after Kim Kardashian West‘s terrifying ordeal. A source tells PEOPLE the entire Kardashian-Jenner family “is cutting down on all public appearances for the time being” after Kardashian West, 35, was robbed at gunpoint early Monday morning in Paris.

“This scared everyone,” says the source. “They’re not taking chances …. It was a really scary situation for the entire family and it’s just not worth it to put themselves out there unnecessarily right now.” Another insider tells PEOPLE the star plans on upping her security significantly. “[She will have] a much heavier security team,” says the source. “There will be a focus on security personal who aren’t in traditional clothing. There will be a lot more undercover security.”

And Kardashian West isn’t just going to scale back on public appearances — she’s also likely to pare down her public presence in general, particularly in the way that she approaches social media.

“When something like this happens everything changes,” says the source. “Everything will change. It changes the whole family — how and where they travel. [Kim] will reassess traveling for work and feeling safe.”

The source says the star “has been spending all her time with kids and Kanye” and is trying to keep things “as normal as possible.”

“She’s not ready to talk about anything other than being with family, says the source, who says Kardashian West is “very emotional. She’s barely slept. She’s had no anxiety medication or alcoholic drinks as she doesn’t do any of that stuff. She’s just got comfort from being around her kids and friends. Her best friends rushed to her side yesterday: Jonathan Cheban, Simon Huck and La La Anthony. They have been her rocks and spent the day with her yesterday.”

[From People]

It’s true, Kim has never been much of a drinker or drug-taker. It wouldn’t surprise me if some doctor does prescribe something for her in the anti-anxiety or sleeping-pill variety, because she really does sound like she’s still really freaked out. While I know she’ll take more precautions and of course she’ll have more security around her family, I also think that her best revenge might be to just live her life the same way she’s been living it. It’s like an act of localized terrorism: don’t give in, don’t change, because then the armed assailants “win” somehow.

Kim posted this just a few days before she was robbed:

wenn29449924

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet, social media, WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

85 Responses to “Kim Kardashian will likely ‘scale back’ her social media & public appearances”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Astrid says:

    We all know she’s wealthy because she waves it at us constantly. When there’s no security around and we all know where she is staying, what did she think would happen. Naive?

    • Shambles says:

      Okay, so what about everyone else who was robbed at gunpoint but was not on social media posting their location or their possessions? These types of robberies are not new things that were invented with the dawn of social media, nor have they increased as a result of social media. Most people are making this argument simply because it’s Kim. Plain and simple.

      • NAT says:

        Well, then those people make criminals work a bit harder to get to them.
        Kim Kardiashian made criminals’ work for them. The only thing they had to do was to figure out how to get in, which wasn’t that hard to do, it seems.
        We could all argue that this attack was random but it wasn’t .
        Someone knew all the details about Mrs West – her whereabouts/what she had in her possession at the time/that her husband wasn’t with her/that her entourage was gone for the night/etc…but the strangest thing is that she was alone without any security. Just like us – but the difference is – we don’t keep things that are worth millions of dollars in our homes and if we do. We do keep it secret.

      • Josefina says:

        Social media didnt enable delinquency to exist but it changed the way it works. Thieves themselves have admitted to stalking people on social media to know about their schedules and whereabouts. Everyone can get robbed, but everyone can take some cautions too to avoid it. Does this absolve the criminals? Of course not. But if you really think the robbers just got lucky that they happened to find Kim Kardashian alone that night in that random place that random night, you are very clueless about how crime works.

      • Marlene says:

        Kim regularly shows off expensive jewellery on SM. You can tell she travels with it.
        -> The gang targeted her, they had a high expectation there would be something worth stealing.

        She was in a city for an event (Paris Fashion Week) she regularly attends.
        -> Convenient, eh!?

        She was staying in a place where she has stayed several times before.
        -> The gang had plenty of time to research the place.

        She made a (paparazzi) show of coming and going to/from this place instead of using one of the secret entrances. She also posted pictures/videos on SM of herself inside the apartment.
        -> The gang had a fairly good idea if she was there or not, and if she was alone.

        It was a sort of small, secret, private apartment-y hotel so it didn’t have security guards or a large number of staff working.
        -> Just made things easier.

        She has revealed details about her personal bodyguard, Pascal Duvier, posted photos of him on SM, etc.
        -> The gang knew there was one bodyguard, knew what he looked like, and was probably aware he was out with Kendall et al. that night.

        (Though, I’m not sure the bodyguard would have changed the outcome of this case. There were 5 professional robbers, and they probably had a plan for her bodyguard if he had been present).

        Note, I’m not blaming Kim for anything. I’m just pointing out that the combination of all these things was not the wisest and safest choice. And unfortunately for her, somebody else figured that out before she did.

      • Lena says:

        Sam I that really was my first thought. The whole thing just sounded too weird
        But now I kinda believe it because she has a whole lot more to loose if it was an insurance scam. Anyway I think she shows that you really be can be too famous and it’s not worth it

  2. Brunswickstoval says:

    Am I allowed to say this is our silver lining (ie scaling back her online presence)?

    • Jules says:

      I doubt it. This family is addicted to attention.

    • Rose says:

      Came here to post exactly the same thing! Hopefully it’ll mean less stories about her and I’ll get less of my Kardashian induced Rage-y Eye Twitch

    • Jwoolman says:

      She just needs to be more careful about what she reveals and when. Real-time posting can be hazardous for someone like her- waiting until the next day would be safer and probably just as interesting to her fans.

      She might be stuck on the bling sharing, though, since that’s part of what she’s peddling. But better security might offset that, and it sounds as though she is thinking in the right direction.

      She also needs to give herself sufficient recovery time. So cutting back on public interactions for a while makes sense.

      • Bridget says:

        That’s the thing – maybe don’t post your exact whereabouts all the time. Us normal folks aren’t supposed to do it; we’re suggested not to post when we’re not home, not to make exercise route maps public, etc. It’s her right if she wants to have extraordinary objects, but then she needs to take those extraordinary steps to keep them safe. She’s lucky that all they did was steal something – would we be having the same discussion about blame if she was kidnapped?

        Just pointing out as well, this is part of why Harry Winston, Neil Lane etc always publicize sending bodyguards with borrowed high ticket jewelry. It’s to make it a less appealing target for theft.

    • Pandy says:

      Yes you are allowed to say it! Although the reality is that she will just start listing those boob and butt bathroom mirror selfies to reflect her more homebound status. You know they aren’t going away. They are like herpes these people.

    • Fl girl says:

      I wish!

      I predict nothing will change. Less exposure equals death to least Kim and PMK.

    • Amanda G says:

      I was thinking the same thing… that at least one good thing came out of this situation if we see less of the Kardashians.

    • Bee says:

      Less of these people will be a good thing. However she will only go quiet temporarily before she’ll come back as prolific as ever, just without the ring on her finger and perhaps in a less “live” manner. She won’t be able to help herself. She thrives on the attention generated by social media.

      Posting your location constantly is dangerous for anyone, let alone a wealthy celebrity, and especially one with the inclination to flaunt million dollar jewels. Next time it might be a insane person, or someone wanting to kidnap or kill her. I think that family underestimates how much people think they are a scourge on society. They’ve been blinded by all the attention and money and can’t even see clearly.

  3. Nicole says:

    I mean I think she should change something. Maybe not post about her location or snap with the geotagging on. It’s dangerous even for normal people to do so. In this day and age we have to be smart about our online presence.

    • Hannah says:

      The problem isn’t showing your wealth, it’s the fact people constantly know where you are. It’s obviously not her fault she was robbed, but she did made it very easy to anyone, cause it could be a stalker or anyone.

      • Josefina says:

        This. And here’s a series of deeply philosophical questions: What do you gain from snapchatting with the geotag on? Why is it worth the risk? What good could possibly come from telling, literally, the whole world of your specific location?

        Im not sure if Kim did that that specific day, but I know she does it very often. If you do it, go ahead, girl. Do your thing. But criminals do check social media. Keep that in mind.

      • Hannah says:

        @Josefina They geotag so you can feel jealous they are at a fancy place in Paris or Dubai or wherever, they geotag so we know they are somewhere people can’t afford to get in.

  4. paolanqar says:

    As much as i am sorry for what happened to her, i am also very happy that we will see less of her and her family. Finally something good is coming out of this!

  5. MostlyMegan says:

    No one should have to go through what she went through. She doesn’t ‘deserve’ it. I will be surprised however if we don’t get multiple ‘daily’ updates on how she is coping, what she is doing, and daily reminders of how she is shying away from the public eye. I think her addiction to attention will outweigh her trauma from this admittedly terrifying ordeal.

  6. Kaya says:

    Continuing “to just live her life the same way she’s been living it” isn’t the best advice. Of course it wasn’t her fault and the whole situation is extremely traumatic, but just like you would invest in better locks or something after a home robbery, she should definitely take more precautions from now on. And scaling back on social media by not constantly updating your location with your wealth in full view isn’t a very difficult precaution anyway.

  7. Gabby says:

    I don’t think she will really scale back her presence on social media or public events, maybe she will stop flaunting her wealth but she won’t become a more private person because this is how she makes money. If she is not showing up constantly on media, people will find another faux celebrity to follow. She has to be on people’s mind to stay relevant. The same goes for her entire family. There’s about a million copycats online already. If they step down, someone will soon fill the void, just like she filled the Paris/Lindsay drama void left when they went to prison/rehab.

  8. Lolo86lf says:

    Revealing her lifestyle to the world is her bread and butter. Showing off her wealth to us mere mortals is what makes her famous. Becoming less conspicuous for her (and her family) would like cutting off her air supply.

  9. AlleyCat says:

    I don’t think anyone was pretending to be security experts, it’s just common sense. It’s not victim blaming to point out that it was very unsafe of her to post where she is 24/7, especially since the public is well aware of her wealth. I just don’t understand how to some pointing out how she could have better security all around is equivalent of saying she deserved it.

    • Beatrice says:

      AlleyCat. I came here to say the same thing. How on earth is it victim shaming to say that she should be more conscious of the dangers of sharing your every move on social media? Of course she has the right to do that, but it’s not safe. People have the right to do all sorts of things–that doesn’t mean it’s always smart. I just cringe when I see friends post pics of themselves on a plane with the comment: Off to a 10 day vacation in where ever. No one should be the victim of a crime, but why help the criminals target you??

  10. kibbles says:

    Whether someone is a millionaire or just middle class it is NEVER a good idea to reveal many details of one’s personal life and assets online. Many non celebs have reported being robbed by their own “friends” after posting that they’d be away from home. Greed and theft will always exist in society. I understand not wanting to victim blame, but those of us who live in a reality based world know the dangers and risks of doing certain things. Walking alone at night in a bad neighborhood, leaving doors unlocked, flashing money and assets for hundreds, thousands, or millions of people to see in Kim’s case. It’s just not smart. Kim has to decide if being famous is worth what she had to go through and if she’s willing to take that chance again she, or just live with 24/7 bodyguards both outside and inside any room she enters. That’s the price for being a celebrity like Kim who is famous for posting nude selfies and her material wealth online for the entire world to see.

    • zinjojo says:

      kibbles, I’m with you. We all have to be aware of what we’re posting on social media or how much information we give out to the world no matter who we are or where we live. My teenagers are never allowed to post when we’re going on a trip or post pics from a vacation because we don’t want to world to know we’re away — I think this is a pretty standard precaution these days. I also don’t tell people other than my next door neighbors when my husband is traveling. We all need a personal security plan that addresses how we use social media, how we secure our physical dwelling, etc, and Kim and her team really failed at this. I’m not blaming being robbed on anyone but the robbers, but Kim made it easy to know exactly where she was and what she had with her for anyone with a nefarious intent.

  11. Eric says:

    Sure. She’ll scale it back to 4000 selfies per day instead if 5000. I’m also waiting for the next reveal, as was stated earlier (yesterday?) about she wasn’t alone at the apartment.

  12. Kori says:

    I don’t think the rationale is silly at all. The average person is encouraged not to put every detail online because it’s not hard to track movements, etc. If it’s true for them it should certainly apply to a celeb. You could find out a ton about Kim–where she’s staying, when she tends to go out, what her security team looks like and how many, what jewelry she has and what it looks like, who is staying with her, etc.

    • Dominique says:

      Good point, Kori. I never thought about it this way. I follow her Snapchat (don’t judge me, haha) and all day she documents what is she doing, where, and who she is with. It’s on a whole other level than her social media presence.

  13. Chisom says:

    Is it weird to think that this is all staged? Also, I am shocked at my lack of empathy for Kim. Maybe because I know that my empathy will be milked for whatever it’s worth to for her own gain. I really don’t understand how she does it.

  14. Taiss says:

    I hope she really changes her ways, especially with her kids. Sometimes north is out with her nanny and paparazzis are waiting for her. I mean this is a 3year old, that’s not safe at all.

    We can go months without seeing blue ivy, Jolie-Pitts kids, and we’ve never seen other celebrity kids but north is always in people faces that’s not right.
    That child didn’t ask to be famous but she’s one most photographed people in the klan.

    • Jwoolman says:

      What’s worse, Kim calls the paps and tells nannies to not interfere in the pap shots. That’s why we see so many pics of her without anyone around her, the nannies are deliberately hanging back. So they are not protecting Nori at all from something that increasingly disturbs the child. We shouldn’t really know what their kids look like and how expensive Nori’s earrings are. It just has never seemed safe to me.

  15. Brunswickstoval says:

    I’ve never looked at her Instagram before (her official one). I doubt she’s even posting the photos. The captions are terrible and seem to be written by someone very bored. Kim is never bored of Kim so would make more effort I think.

    Would make sense really how would she have time with all the snapchatting as well? So no I doubt she’s going away for long.

  16. aenflex says:

    Robbery aside, that photo she posted with her diamond mouthpiece, giant rock and cleavage symbolizes everything I cannot stand about her. Not her wealth, but her ideals. It’s so sad. And gross.

  17. MissMerry says:

    does this seem like a calculated bow-out from the way she’s been living and working?
    (like shes aware that the public and internet are starting to get sick of her, and her diamonds, and her fake butt, so she’s looking for a way to bow out while also looking like it’s her choice, not the fact that her schtick is so so so old that it needs to end)

    Like, instead of ‘nothing’ happening for her to decide ‘oh, i’m going to scale back on what I did to make myself rich and famous’…she elaborated on a robbery that is the ‘reason’ she’s now scaling back?

    It all seems like trickery still.

  18. Jade says:

    Soia media can be so dangerous, it’s s stalkers dream. Some people put everything right out there which unfortunately can make you vulnerable.

  19. Mamunia says:

    Dare I hope she’s true to her word? Could they really go away? Please!

  20. Dominique says:

    This won’t last longer than a month.

  21. Kay Dozier says:

    I foresee that lasting all of two weeks.

  22. Rachel says:

    t’s not Kim’s fault that people knew she was in Paris – I’ve yet to see any evidence that she gave out the address of her apartment via geotagging on Snapchat or the like – as her job is to be photographed at the fashion shows there. It’s also not Kim’s fault that she assumed she would be safe in a private apartment with a concierge, a friend sleeping downstairs and security on call.

    So, for me, to try and pin blame on Kim – or even just state concerns for how visibly she lives her life on social media – is kind of counterintuitive. Her general location is always pretty much known, as it ties into her job representing her brand and others, even if her specific location isn’t known. Whether a gang of professional jewel thieves then start some kind of inside job with staff in the apartment, follow the paps that are chasing you, and end up robbing you, isn’t just dependent on them knowing she was in Paris.

    • Bridget says:

      It isn’t just the geo data part, though. She shares so much that I’m guessing it was easy for the robbers to deduce what her security regime is, where she and Kanye live in Paris (remember, all they needed to know was that she was in the city, and they’d know exactly where she was staying), what her daily schedule is like, all of it. I’ve said it before, but she’s really lucky she was only robbed – stories like this can also end with the person being kidnapped or killed, and at that point it doesn’t matter who’s to blame, dead is dead and her family would have to live with the fact that the crime could have possibly been prevented. It’s her business if she wants to own extraordinary objects, but then she needs to take extraordinary measures to keep them safe.

      • Rachel says:

        But surely it’s not her problem that the thieves followed the paparazzi to her apartment and consequently learned her location – I’m unsure how otherwise they would instinctively know ‘exactly where she was staying’ – ? Or, for that matter, developed a relationship with people on the inside of her apartment complex? How is that her fault, when I’ve sure she would prefer not being followed home by barrages of cars with photographers?

      • Bridget says:

        She’s the one who tells the paparazzi where to meet her. The runway walks out to the car? Totally staged. She’s not the only one, either. But how do you think they know where to photograph her? When? What she’ll be wearing?

        This is literally one of the things that Kim K is famous for.

  23. Stella says:

    Can someone explain to me what’s in her mouth? Is that some new form of “grill”?

    I am not hip to the latest jewelry.

  24. thaisajs says:

    I’m not surprised she’s rethinking things. That sounded terrifying. If she’s going to flaunt her wealth, she needs serious security around her. Not former bar bouncers or whatever.

  25. Jwoolman says:

    Is it my imagination or is Kim beginning to look more and more like her old self? There’s more expression in her face. Has she decided to stop certain procedures, maybe? Or medication? I don’t think it’s just makeup, something is letting her face move more naturally recently.

  26. Mar says:

    Kim is so important.
    More important than the President.

  27. me says:

    She won’t change a thing. Social media is her addiction. She’s not going to stop.

  28. Lis says:

    I haven’t read all the posts on this story, but has anyone speculated that the whole thing is a hoax just to get Brad and Angelina out of the top headlines and the KK bunch back on top of fame-whore central? Just Kim trying to “break the internet” again?

  29. Adele Dazeem says:

    Yes she is! and monkeys MIGHT fly out of my butt too.

  30. Jane.fr says:

    Was she robbed by robin hood ? No ?
    Sorry, but not sorry.
    This is NOT the “reason” WHY she was assaulted and robbed. This is HOW, partially, she was assaulted and robbed.

  31. Anna says:

    I am in the minority here. I’m very skeptical. Things don’t add up. What I do worry about, is the safety of those innocent, adorable kids of hers. Kourtney too. Not just their location, but their exposure to media and their possible exploitation. Kris Jenner won’t hesitate to cash in on these kids and that leaves them with no choices in life. Their privacy is robbed from them before they can make decisions for themselves. I truly believe it ruined Kylie Jenner. Time will tell.

  32. Erica_V says:

    I don’t get what’s wrong with saying that flashing her money/jewelry/whereabouts online was a reason for her being targeted for a robbery. It seems very obvious that it was a reason she was targeted. Criminals knew where she was and what she had with her.

    What am I missing here?

  33. detritus says:

    @Kaiser
    Thank you. Your coverage is always clear, logical, and presented with a feminist perspective. I appreciate it so much, and CB is a place I’ve had the opportunity to practice writing out how I think, to receive criticism, and to grow. The writers at CB do such a great job covering these topics, with humor, with compassion and with a logic that cannot be denied. CB brings the topics of celebrity, publicity and gossip together with a solid dose of critical thinking and broadens the topics by linking the social trends in fashion and celebrity to larger social issues.
    Please never stop.

  34. Sam uk says:

    Hi. I thought it was a hoax or an insurance scam at first
    Especially when she flew out of France a few hours later. Just saw online that her fridge of a bodyguard filed for bankruptcy 10 weeks ago. He has over a million in debt. Might he have something to do with this?
    (UK reader of a long time. Love this site and all the discussions )

  35. Calla says:

    I wouldn’t be surprised if she never uses Snapchat again. She must have PTSD after what happened, and she may associate it closely with Snapchat. Putting myself in her shoes, I can imagine starting to do a Snapchat, and then thinking about who is watching me on Snapchat and getting creeped out and canceling. Even though the vast majority of people watching her on Snapchat are harmless, she’s going to feel like her enemies out there spying on her.

  36. Jeanette says:

    I feel like people are making the parallel that saying “she shouldn’t flaunt her wealth online,” is the same as “she invited this.”

    Saying that she could have been more cautious does not mean one is saying she deserved it. It means be sensible, and put some security between yourself and those who mean to do you harm. They are out there, and they will steal, rob, rape or worse if you are available to them.

    Saying that it would have happened anyway, to me, says why lock the door to your house when you go to bed then. Or why you have to protect your kids when they are online. There are things that she could have done that she did not, it does not mean she deserved them. It also does not mean she should not listen to those who are talking to her about protecting herself.

  37. what's inside says:

    I absolute hate what happened to her. Hate it. However, there are lessons to be learned here and I hope she is paying attention. Now is it possible that we won’t see as much of her?

  38. AuntSass says:

    It is absolutely ludicrous to blame HER for being robbed at gunpoint. My gosh the girl is a daughter, sister, aunt, wife, mother and human being- and NO ONE deserves to be violated that way. Don’t blame the victim because you don’t like her. That’s so cruel and insensitive.