437
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2024
437 points (98.7% liked)
News
23409 readers
1725 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This falls solely on the parents for letting her do that to herself.
This is also the fault of gov'ts who don't crack down on businesses and advertisers who target kids.
At this rate unfettered capitalism is gonna kill us all, sooner rather than later.
I guess. But if the parents just explained why doing that is bad and maybe prohibited her from doing it, it would not have gone this badly. Sure the cause is not the parents fault directly. But by their inaction they contributed more than tiktok.
You have no idea how kids work.
I know that doing literally anything is better than inaction when your kid is destroying themselves.
The article does not mention what interventions the parents tried. But no, just doing something is not always better than being patient - especially with kids.
Not in detail, but it actually does:
While younger kids may be reasoned with, teenagers aren't as easy to handle as some say. Puberty is a hell of a drug.
Yeah, banning a kid from doing something 'everyone else is doing' is a sure-fire way to find out if they follow orders.
Hint: 90% won't
Man have you ever worked with kids? They're not some unreasoning automatons that treat "rebel against authority" with the same overriding obedience as "kill all humans". If you explain things to them like rational actors, out of all demograpics, they are by far the most likely to treat what you're saying with reasoned consideration.
Yes they will. Banning them from something is not discussing the pros and cons with them tho.
No sick of that shit. This 100% on her parents. No way a 10 year old was buying all that junk. Government doesn't need to police every goddamm thing.
Darwinsim needs to make a come back. Probably why we have so many stupid fucking people in this world. Because we have to me warnings and Government over reach.
Who ever her Guardians are should have warned her or not provided these products.
Maybe they did warn her, or didn't directly provide the products, kids are a bit more complicated most of the time.
You don't want the government to police advertisements to kids, like we already do with television.
Instead, you think Darwinism should police them with death? Really?
Not solely. Kids shouldn't have such an unhealthy image and mindset pushed by the array of social media influencers out there. It's always easier to blame the parents, and they certainly have some responsibility here and shouldn't be absolved; but it's a symptom of a much deeper problem in our society that lets this happen.
Kids will get things from other kids to do/try behind their parents back, tale as old as time. We need to fight against the portrayal of beauty standards being equated to the value of a woman.
After we do that, then it's solely on the parents. But not until then.
10-year-olds have allowances. They can walk down the street to the drugstore or supermarket if they live in a city. The parents may not have known.
Aww man, squiddy you know this argument is specious. Yes children have allowances, but popular beauty products are expensive even by adult standards. For a kid to have access to the beauty products in question in the referenced quantities suggests a serious lack of parental oversight coupled with an undue and unchecked influence from predatory apps like tiktok. While yeah it's not toally in the realm of the X-Files for a child to develop a makeup addiction, I think it's much more likely that this is a case of severe parental neglect being overblown for clickbait than a serious social epidemic.
well there is always a cheap and crappy version of whatever beauty product you are looking for and those are even more likely to cause harm. But I imagine if a kid is trying to apply ten different skin care products a day, even a slightly attentive parent would notice in time.
Sure, and I won't deny that there's a problem to be addressed here. I just don't think it's the problem that's being implied in the article. When I was in highschool, several classmates had severe skin problems caused by trying to use a homemade clorox paste to 'erase' their freckles. Another guy was hospitalized for trying to use 'comet' as a tooth whitening solution (my highschool also had a problem with cows from the neighboring pastures wandering in to eat the flowers in the planters, though, so maybe it's not the best example to use here. They learned how to use the wheelchair buttons. The ranhers eventually dug a ditch to stop them, which didn't stop the cows wandering but did provide a place for people to go and have sex during school hours. Yeah, it was a 'sex ditch' highschool. What was I talking about.)
My point is that children are idiots, have always been idiots and are always going to be idiots. I love them, and they're much smarter than most people give them credit for, but still. The real issue here isn't that they're finding new and different ways in which to be idiots, but that parents aren't willing (or more likely, aren't able due to time, money or social pressures) to provide enough oversight to prevent said childhood dumbassery. The underlaying issues here are way more complex than 'tiktok bad', and those are what need addressing. Confiscating smartphones from kids (as some people here seem almost gleeful to advocate) is just a socially convenient way to not take responsibility for actually parenting your children, and denies them a vital tool for interacting with the modern world. It does far more harm than good. A fifteen minute conversation about the strategies tiktok uses to influence them will have more positive benefit on their lives than taking away their phones ever, ever would.
Great points.
Vaping is another example. Despite being aged restricted, kids still get their hands on vapes.
I honestly have no idea how much they cost.
A container of Hydramoist is $30 at my local Sephora, though you can get it cheaper (and more likely to be counterfiet!) online. Most of the other stuff referenced I couldn't find the exact products (I didn't try super hard) but they're in the $10-$20 each range. It's not bank breaking, but it's certainly more money than the average ten year old has laying around.
I think this article raises very valid concerns about the extreme influence the beauty industry is having on younger and younger people, and I have no doubt the girls referenced here were subject to that influence, and I am not arguing that influence needs to be much more strictly regulated. In this case, it seems extremely sensationalized to claim that its common for ten year olds to have the resources needed to develop a serious addiction to popular skincare products. Really, it feels like something from the DARE era, but with "marajuana" replaced with "sephora".