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.

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".