4 ms·

This is a disgustingly bad look for Meta. I can't even begin to figure out how they are (read: Zuckerberg is) able to draw even the most tenuous of connections

This is a disgustingly bad look for Meta. I can't even begin to figure out how they are (read: Zuckerberg is) able to draw even the most tenuous of connections between _plastic surgery filters_ and profit. Nobody is going to stop using Meta products or looking at ads because they can't post selfies with artificially beautified versions of themselves.

AlecSchueler 3y ago
> Nobody is going to stop using Meta products or looking at ads because they can't post selfies with artificially beautified versions of themselves. No? But if they're anxious about posting with their own appearance then they might just look for a different app altogether.
- bastawhiz 3y ago
  If a kid is experiencing dysphoria to the point that they abandon a social network [0] because they can't use built-in tools to make themselves look like they have had plastic surgery, it's even more disgusting to suggest that keeping the kid engaged and on the platform is the most valuable outcome. If you look at that situation and say "well _someone_ is going to ruin their mental health, it had might as well be us" I really weep for our future. [0] note: they're not switching, because kids are already using all of them
brandall10 3y ago
TBF, is this not a result of being in competition with TikTok and Snap? I don't do social media but when I read about this issue I tend to think of those platforms first. https://nowthisnews.com/news/tiktoks-bold-glamour-filter-feature-and-plastic-surgery https://nowthisnews.com/news/tiktoks-bold-glamour-filter-fea... My understanding is because of things like this Facebook and Instagram were losing interest in the teen market (ie. 'legacy' social media), so it doesn't surprise me that they decided to incorporate similar functionality. I'm not saying Zuck is a saint here, but this is more of an issue with social media being a corrosive force in general... the modern version of big tobacco in a way.
- bastawhiz 3y ago
  > TBF .... I'm not saying Zuck is a saint here, but this is more of an issue with social media being a corrosive force in general... the modern version of big tobacco in a way. There's nothing "to be fair" about here; it's disgusting no matter how you frame it. Big tobacco did disgusting things to glamorize smoking and hook generations of people on nicotine. The core "issue" you're describing is a bad one: being unable to concede even the smallest sliver of your engagement metrics in the interest of not being a driving force behind children's body dysmorphia. It's just as bad as adding camera filters to let kids see themselves lighting up a Marlboro.
  - brandall10 3y ago
    Well sure it's disgusting, the "TBF" was simply saying it's unreasonable to think someone at the helm of a publicly traded ship that has employed ethically dubious means for growth to suddenly take ethical stances that hurt said business. At the corporate level it's really weighing optics vs features that drive engagement and revenue.
calmlynarczyk 3y ago
It's a really vague ask and the article doesn't explain the specifics of what constitutes "plastic surgery filters." Are you no longer allowed to have pics with those Snapchat-esque glowing faces or big eyes? Is the detection system able to differentiate between a filter and actual plastic surgery? It's also a bit of a can of worms if Meta no longer allows certain modifications to images of people on its platform "for the sake of the children." Let's not pretend like young people chasing sex and beauty is some brand new concept only concocted in the last 15 years by the evil developers at Facebook.
- bastawhiz 3y ago
  > It's a really vague ask and the article doesn't explain the specifics of what constitutes "plastic surgery filters." They had specific rules in place with a ban, then Zuck removed the ban. It's not like there wasn't a line in the sand here. > It's also a bit of a can of worms if Meta no longer allows certain modifications to images of people on its platform "for the sake of the children." That's not what's being discussed here. There's been no proposal to ban images. The proposal is to ban camera filters. Nothing would be stopping you from modifying and posting images. Nobody is having their freedoms taken away (and having Meta offer you certain kinds of camera filters by default is in no way a form of censorship). > Let's not pretend like young people chasing sex and beauty is some brand new concept only concocted in the last 15 years by the evil developers at Facebook. Let's also not pretend that Facebook doesn't advertise filters in Facebook and Instagram, pushing kids to use them. Fifteen years ago you could photoshop a picture. Today, kids are being _actively solicited_ by social media to use these filters. Researchers are actively telling us that these are harmful to kids' self-images (we've known this for many years!). They accomplish no useful outcome, and the largest net effect is harm.

AlecSchueler 3y ago

> Nobody is going to stop using Meta products or looking at ads because they can't post selfies with artificially beautified versions of themselves. No? But if they're anxious about posting with their own appearance then they might just look for a different app altogether.

bastawhiz 3y ago
If a kid is experiencing dysphoria to the point that they abandon a social network [0] because they can't use built-in tools to make themselves look like they have had plastic surgery, it's even more disgusting to suggest that keeping the kid engaged and on the platform is the most valuable outcome. If you look at that situation and say "well _someone_ is going to ruin their mental health, it had might as well be us" I really weep for our future. [0] note: they're not switching, because kids are already using all of them

brandall10 3y ago

TBF, is this not a result of being in competition with TikTok and Snap? I don't do social media but when I read about this issue I tend to think of those platforms first. https://nowthisnews.com/news/tiktoks-bold-glamour-filter-feature-and-plastic-surgery https://nowthisnews.com/news/tiktoks-bold-glamour-filter-fea... My understanding is because of things like this Facebook and Instagram were losing interest in the teen market (ie. 'legacy' social media), so it doesn't surprise me that they decided to incorporate similar functionality. I'm not saying Zuck is a saint here, but this is more of an issue with social media being a corrosive force in general... the modern version of big tobacco in a way.

bastawhiz 3y ago
> TBF .... I'm not saying Zuck is a saint here, but this is more of an issue with social media being a corrosive force in general... the modern version of big tobacco in a way. There's nothing "to be fair" about here; it's disgusting no matter how you frame it. Big tobacco did disgusting things to glamorize smoking and hook generations of people on nicotine. The core "issue" you're describing is a bad one: being unable to concede even the smallest sliver of your engagement metrics in the interest of not being a driving force behind children's body dysmorphia. It's just as bad as adding camera filters to let kids see themselves lighting up a Marlboro.
- brandall10 3y ago
  Well sure it's disgusting, the "TBF" was simply saying it's unreasonable to think someone at the helm of a publicly traded ship that has employed ethically dubious means for growth to suddenly take ethical stances that hurt said business. At the corporate level it's really weighing optics vs features that drive engagement and revenue.

calmlynarczyk 3y ago

It's a really vague ask and the article doesn't explain the specifics of what constitutes "plastic surgery filters." Are you no longer allowed to have pics with those Snapchat-esque glowing faces or big eyes? Is the detection system able to differentiate between a filter and actual plastic surgery? It's also a bit of a can of worms if Meta no longer allows certain modifications to images of people on its platform "for the sake of the children." Let's not pretend like young people chasing sex and beauty is some brand new concept only concocted in the last 15 years by the evil developers at Facebook.

bastawhiz 3y ago
> It's a really vague ask and the article doesn't explain the specifics of what constitutes "plastic surgery filters." They had specific rules in place with a ban, then Zuck removed the ban. It's not like there wasn't a line in the sand here. > It's also a bit of a can of worms if Meta no longer allows certain modifications to images of people on its platform "for the sake of the children." That's not what's being discussed here. There's been no proposal to ban images. The proposal is to ban camera filters. Nothing would be stopping you from modifying and posting images. Nobody is having their freedoms taken away (and having Meta offer you certain kinds of camera filters by default is in no way a form of censorship). > Let's not pretend like young people chasing sex and beauty is some brand new concept only concocted in the last 15 years by the evil developers at Facebook. Let's also not pretend that Facebook doesn't advertise filters in Facebook and Instagram, pushing kids to use them. Fifteen years ago you could photoshop a picture. Today, kids are being _actively solicited_ by social media to use these filters. Researchers are actively telling us that these are harmful to kids' self-images (we've known this for many years!). They accomplish no useful outcome, and the largest net effect is harm.