3 ms·
> Zuckerberg vetoed a 2019 proposal that would have disabled Instagram’s so-called “beauty filters,” a technology that digitally alters a user’s on-screen appea
by RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
> Zuckerberg vetoed a 2019 proposal that would have disabled Instagram’s so-called “beauty filters,” a technology that digitally alters a user’s on-screen appearance and allegedly harms teens’ mental health by promoting unrealistic body image expectations, according to the unredacted version of the complaint filed this week by Massachusetts officials.
Focusing on beauty filters really undermines the narrative. If you are talking about ways that Meta harms children and the first thing you list is that they didn’t ban beauty filters, it actually makes Zuckerberg seem reasonable.
- 23B1 3y agoEspecially since kids will need all of about 3 seconds to find some other app/site to filter or modify content, and anyone with kids knows this. This article's a nothingburger (unfortunately).
- ethanbond 3y agoBut… they didn’t do that? Filters became ubiquitous when they were put into Instagram? Obviously the bad version of anything is always available at some level of effort, but also obviously “level of effort” is in fact the only deterrent that exists.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoI think Snapchat brought them to the fore first.
- whatyesaid 3y agoWe don't know what wasn't proposed or investigated to lessen issues if the initiatives were all shut down. If cursory work admits there's a problem and your profit is in the billions, where you pay engineers to mostly sit on their ass - the onus is on you to reduce harm. Rejecting all proposals indicates any harms of the platform are inbuilt fundamentally.