not enough people in this thread are condemning the actual root problem, which is the socially constructed bullshit standard of "if you look like you're over 35, then no one wants anything to do with you." especially if you're a woman. it's been this way for many generations. way before social media or influencers.
While you're right about the beauty standards the actual root problem here is
By the time she turned 10, Scarlett and her friends were spending hours on TikTok and YouTube
Thank your shitty parents, girl. They don't give a shit what you do.
I'll get abuse for this, but there's no escaping the fact that the other root problem in this is seriously shit parenting
I agree with your points here but i think access to social media is exposing youth to that standard and the aceess to the products at an earlier age. This effect could also bleed into men in the sense of their standards for beauty become more unrealslistic as the top models are all they want on their screens.
wtf
Could not have said it better
“My dear fellow, having thoroughly and carefully read the missive above, I remain at once incredulous and scandalised regarding the weight and severity of not only the perilous issue at hand, but also, moreover, the brief and tender youth of those involved. I would like to make it known to the assembled, that this is a state of affairs I cannot long endure - and I would like, nay hope, to consider that all those in this room (sic) with me here, now, would join me in condemning such practices, utterly, and in the most damning and contemptuble fashion - to wit, the only gloss remaining uncharted is an utteration of the simplest kind, crass in its execution, that reminds me somewhat of a dear friend of mine who - in the latter days of nineteen ninety eight, a fine year, when involved in some damnable tussle at a considerable height, cast another gentleman from the parapet and himself plunged a scarcely believable sixteen feet through an announcers table”
This is the danger of allowing unregulated media, entertainment and advertisement towards children. She didn’t come up with these ideas on her own. She was actively pursued and encouraged to do this by YouTube children entertainers and advertisers. They did it for profit and will do it again, then blame parents and governments for letting them do it.
Never before have businesses had this much direct access to children. They see it as a great market. They are easy to manipulate, uniformed and highly sensitive. These are the reasons we limited who, when and what could be advertised to them in the past. It was much easier with TV.
Knowing how expensive these products are, how can a ten y.o. afford them? And on top how can parents not have a clue what she is spending her money on?
Kids should be allowed a level of privacy and should be allowed to make mistakes. Otherwise we're raising kids who don't understand what conseqences really are.
That said, the parents don't seem to be discussing important things with their daughter here ... like how fucking stupid and dangerous TikTok really can be (and often is).
Don't know about you, but preteen me wouldn't be very impressed by an adult saying something as vague as "it can be dangerous". We understand the danger and even then fall victim to it in some way or other, how can we expect a child to navigate that landscape of insecurities and marketing in any healthy way.
The answer is we can't and we're all suckers for letting predatory marketing techniques such as influencers and highly targeted ads run rampant in our daily lives.
reminds me of that brain rot drink Prime. Still surprised to this day how a fucking energy drink became a sensation among 10 year olds. probably wonders of social media.
You got Cred!?
Poor girl. Nobody using that stuff looks young. People are manipulated so heavily that they are not able to see that it’s BS.
It's not social media that is the problem. It's capitalism. Social media is no different from the snake oil sales person, door to door sales people or Avon parties of the past. The problem is that kids aren't educated about how to deal with capitalistic greed that will do everything to convince you something is wrong with you in order to sell you the cure and are then allowed access to the Internet without that education. And the sales people don't face any consequences for marketing to children because they just pretend not to know and don't have to look them in the eye, so it's easier to be unethical without consequence.
Both things can be a problem simultaneously 🌈
Isnt the only actual good shit retinol?
The only good shit is coming to terms with the inevitable passage of time and to not stigmatize the process of aging. We'll all get wrinkles eventually, get used to it.
I'm fine with getting wrinkles and I still keep my skincare going. When I don't, my skin gets very dry and fills with pimples.
There's a middle ground here.
Oh yeah, i'm not talking about stuff for a healthy skin, dry skin is massively annoying, I have a skincare routine for that too. But the obsession with everlasting young skin is unhealthy.
It seems like a crazy vanity project to actually spend a lot of time/money/resources on buying time for this crap. If someone doesn't have some crows eye thingies, it often means they basically never smile and laugh
Fuck that haha
My plan is to rock the short gray hair and cute shirts when I get old shrug
Retinol and sunscreen.
This worldwide obsession with anti-aging is a plague. It has to fucking stop. Everytime I hear someone calling women over 30 "old hags", I can't help the feeling that they're pedophiles. Just let girls age normally, for fuck's sake!
The algorithm is working as intended.
Skin care was not on Mia’s radar until she started eighth grade last fall. It was a topic of conversation among girls her age — at school and on social media. Girls bonded over their skin care routines.
The beauty industry has been cashing in on the trend. Last year, consumers under age 14 drove 49% of drug store skin sales, according to a NielsonIQ report that found households with teens and tweens were outspending the average American household on skin care.
What the fucking fuck are parents doing? Encouraging this shit?
Wow, that tops the most dystopian headline… for the day.
I don't understand why parents (or guardians) let their children have a smartphone when everyone is aware of the many threats that can be encountered on these devices.
Oh get a grip. There's repercussions to being socially isolated from your peers, as well. I'd argue the consequences to denying a child a fundemental means of social interaction is more harmful than tiktok, even with the latter's long history of bastardry. The blame for these problems lies far more at the feet of absentee parenting than it does "children having smartphones".
Oh, hard disagree. Tiktok isn't used just to connect with peers and any child claiming it is is lying. It's a global app tailored to feed you content that keeps you engaged and challenges your self worth until you start responding to the ads and sponsored content forced on you. If kids need to socialise they don't need tiktok, they need messaging apps like whatsapp or imessage or signal. Ways to stay in touch exclusively with people who you actually do socialise with.
I'm sorry, I'm confused what you're hard disagreeing about. So the existance of one predatory app means smartphones themselves must be avoided? Or just that parents should be restricting their kids access to tiktok? Because if it's the latter than I very much agree, my point is that denying kids access to smartphones as a whole does more harm to them (by preventing them social interaction with their peers) than the harm done by possibly allowing them to also see tiktok.
so you think it's complicated, but also it's just absentee parenting. have you always been this way, or were you ever a teenager? getting away from the parents is what kids want. some parents are super successful at avoiding this, so good on them. some parents are working all the damn time to feed their kids, so yeah. they're absent.
You can give a kid a smartphone and monitor their use of it. There's even software that can help you out if you don't want to just do it the old-fashioned way by looking with your eyes.
IMHO, this is a very sensitive topic, and I'm glad I don't have kids for this to be a worry for me.
Smartphones became a big thing when I was already in high school, and social media at the time still wasn't this aggressive, but my father did monitor my activity on the PC, mostly secretly, and it made me feel anxious. This violation of privacy damaged my already shit/barely existent relationship with him. It's also why I'm so paranoid of secretly being monitored. You have to already have a pretty good relationship with your parents for this not to potentially mess you up, at least in my experience.
What the solution to this is, I don't know. Better digital/tech education in schools and at home would be a good step in that direction, but strict ad and product regulations should also be implemented, which - unfortunately expectedly - is being fought against (at least in the USA, according to the article).
The secretly part is the issue. We did not make it a secret. When my daughter was 11, she got a cell phone because at that point all of her friends had them. But we told her that we would monitor her use. She knew about it, so she didn't feel anxious about it (and she has major anxiety problems). At this point, at 14, we feel we can trust her to be responsible and don't monitor anymore. But we do still talk to her about what she sees.
Were we able to block her from absolutely everything that might have been risky? Probably not. But I think we avoided most of it while trying to educate her on safe behavior.
They think they are being nice. It was a long time ago, but my mum tried to give my kids smartphones when they were 6 and 4. She couldn't understand why I made her take them back and wouldn't talk to me for months.
I like crow's feet. I like smile wrinkles. I like gray hair. I like stretch marks.
Just because people say these are bad doesn't mean there aren't an abundance of people who like them
This is why you patch test things, everyone's skin is unique
But she shouldn't be using them in the first place at that age
Also is it confirmed that I was a skincare product and not a coincidentally timed medical issue, because medical issues should be ruled out instead of going unnoticed
Why would someone aged 10 or 11 ever think, even for one moment, that anti-aging products (any, whatsoever, at all!) are something they might need?!
"kids shouldn't be on the Internet" "we need to regulate social media" "we need to ban the sale of this or that to young people" blahblahblah - no, we apparently need to teach kids basic common sense, such as that if you aren't even fully grown yet, you definitely do not need anti-aging products
Of course kids don't have basic common sense. It develops with experience and from the things we teach them. That's why you don't leave them on social media completely unsupervised. They learn stupid shit from influencers because they don't have any filters yet.
There is a reason kids don't have full rights. Don't judge them like they're adults. It's our responsibility to protect them.
Vanity doesnt have an age limit. Kids are the most impressionable members of society no matter how jaded they act. It is our adult duty to shepherd them as they learn and not condemn them for the experience or lack thereof
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.