When she was in fifth grade, Scarlett Goddard Strahan started to worry about getting wrinkles.

By the time she turned 10, Scarlett and her friends were spending hours on TikTok and YouTube watching influencers tout products for achieving today’s beauty aesthetic: a dewy, “glowy,” flawless complexion. Scarlett developed an elaborate skin care routine with facial cleansers, mists, hydrating masks and moisturizers.

One night, Scarlett’s skin began to burn intensely and erupted in blisters. Heavy use of adult-strength products had wreaked havoc on her skin. Months later, patches of tiny bumps remain on Scarlett’s face, and her cheeks turn red in the sun.

“I didn’t want to get wrinkles and look old,” says Scarlett, who recently turned 11. “If I had known my life would be so affected by this, I never would have put these things on my face.”

The skin care obsession offers a window into the role social media plays in the lives of today’s youth and how it shapes the ideals and insecurities of girls in particular. Girls are experiencing high levels of sadness and hopelessness. Whether social media exposure causes or simply correlates with mental health problems is up for debate. But to older teens and young adults, it’s clear: Extended time on social media has been bad for them, period.

  • xiao@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 days ago

    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.

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      17 days ago

      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”.

      • unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        17 days ago

        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.

        • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          16 days ago

          Everything is complicated, but I’m not going to argue against the idea that the blame lies at least partially with the socioeconomic realities facing modern parents that result in absentee parenting. Its just, the way you presented this feels like you’re trying to argue against my point, but your argument is in agreement. I’m confused.

            • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              16 days ago

              The negative results of denying a child acess to the most common means of modern social interaction (a smartphone) are much more severe than the potential harm caused by allowing them to also have possible access to predatory apps like tiktok, and that active parenting will mitigate even that potential harm.

                • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  16 days ago

                  I was answering your question, the one you asked about what my arguments were. The one you asked in response to me agreeing with you, and asking how we were disagreeing. Hence reiterating my arguments. Thus far this hasn’t been an argument so much as it has been an agreement.

                  I have plenty of solutions, too, they just havent come up yet. Most of them center around support for parents, either financially or emotionally, and increased education/awareness both for parents and children about online advertising, critical thinking and personal due diligence. Additionally, and this is wishful thinking I admit, an expansion of protections regulating advertising content that can be shown to children.

      • emax_gomax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        17 days ago

        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.

        • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          16 days ago

          So the existance of one predatory app means smartphones themselves must be avoided…? Because I don’t think that’s what you mean but that’s what you seem to be arguing.

          • emax_gomax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            16 days ago

            Specifically this.

            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.

            I think being socially isolated is better than exposing kids to tiktok or other social media designed to farm engagement from them.

            Of course I said they should be allowed to access WhatsApp and other forms of communication so I’m not advocating for a blanket ban on phones. But it should also be stated:

            1. Phones are objectively the worst form of socialising because they remove the personal element. A good chunk of human interaction is built with facial expressions and subtlety which IMO never really comes across well through chat or video interfaces.
            2. Kids should not have free access to phones 24 hours a day every day. There is such a thing as too much socialising and at a certain point it becomes more of a distraction than a learning experience.
            • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              16 days ago

              (I swear to god I’m not trying to be antagonistic here, I just really like hearing myself talk: )

              I think what you’re saying is that, taken in a vacuum, exposure to tiktok is a net negative vs. not having access to tiktok. And I think that from a certain perspective you could very well be correct. I also think you’ve misunderstood me; when I said ‘socially isolated’ I was referring to the near-total social isolation that comes with being unable to access the internet as a modern youth, not just ‘not being able to use tiktok’, which I should perhaps have caught on to and clarified earlier. I agree that tiktok is, on the whole, better for a person not to use. I think we’re broadly in agreement here, though I’m a advocate of the ‘all things in moderation’ school of thought, and a firm supporter of harm reduction (please don’t jeer too much…).

              There’s two things I’d like to say, though. The first is that there is no possible way to objectively assess a means of socialization on a Best <> Worst scale, nor is there a way to identify what a ‘personal element’ is. I’m going to assume, hopefully correctly, that you’re in the 20+ age bracket here, and that you did not grow up with digital communication as a particularly large segment of your childhood social interaction. Assuming this lets me point to it as a very reasonable explanation of why you’ve wound up at the conclusion that human interaction has anything built-in, because alternative forms of communication were extremely niche until the “digital revolution” that the millennials and zoomers have experienced growing up.

              Human interaction is a wholly learned behavior, one that we get the foundations for during childhood and then find incredibly difficult (or nigh impossible) to re-learn as adults. The reality we are facing (haha) is that children who primarily communicate digitally have developed tone indicators and expressions wholly alien to people unused to the medium. They aren’t missing out on a chunk of human interaction, they’re just interacting differently than what used to be the norm. They may be worse at face to face communication, but that is getting less and less important as we transition to a more connected society. Wholly denying them experience with an entire segment of how people relate and communicate can, I hope you agree, be nothing but detrimental to them.

              As a real world example:

              I teach computer science (in my copious spare time…), and when I talk to my students I have to be very conscious of the background they have with a given medium. Many students, ones that did not grow up with the internet or older students especially, I have to be much more careful about communicating my meaning when sending them a message because the tone indicators I and my younger / digitally hipper students take for granted just aren’t noticed by people unfamiliar with them. By the same token, many in-person conversations I have require me to be very careful to ensure that body language cues are not missed by those less comfortable with them. It’s a careful line to walk, and overall the students who are familiar with both easily do the best in our courses.

              The second thing is, predictably, that all things should be taken in moderation.

              Yes, society is transitioning how we primarily interact with each other. No, that doesn’t mean learning how to interact in person is no longer important. I primarily interact with my partner digitally, even though much of our time spent together is in the same room, but there certainly are discussions where it’s much easier to accurately communicate meaning face-to-face. Now admittedly she’s deeply autistic so perhaps she isn’t the best example I could use here, but still. Children spending 100% of their time on their phone or on their computer obviously isn’t healthy (I say, hypocritically), and I doubt you’d find a single person that would claim that it is. But by the same reasoning, they shouldn’t be spending 100% of their time in total digital abstinence. The times, they are a-changing, and neglecting to learn how to communicate effectively is bad no matter what the medium (I again say hypocritically, staring down a 724 word essay on a tiny lemmy thread maybe two people will ever read…)

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      16 days ago

      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.

      • DeviantOvary@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        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).

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          16 days ago

          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.

          • DeviantOvary@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            16 days ago

            It wasn’t just secretly, or that secretly at all, but it still stuck with me. When I was 10, I was texting a friend about having started periods, an extremely sensitive topic, and my father grabbed my phone to read who I was texting. It’s been very long since that happened, and I don’t have the best memory, but things like this I remember very vividly. Some kids are more sensitive, and you have to build a strong relationship with them for these things to potentially work. I think there is even a Black Mirror episode on this topic.

            There’s also a problem that if the kid does know they’re being monitored, they can and some will figure out how to get past it. I can’t offer an immediate solution, because honestly, social media scape is severly fucked nowadays, but there’s no winning scenario I can think of that doesn’t require one to have an extremely good relationship with their kid. And even then, it might not be enough.

            I’m glad I’m both old enough I didn’t grow up with tiktok and the likes, and that I don’t have kids to worry about. Being a parent in this day and age sounds absolutely exhausting and uncertain from multiple modern-world perspectives.

            Kudos to any working parent who manages to handle it well and has a kid with a good head on their shoulders.

      • u/lukmly013 💾 (lemmy.sdf.org)@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        Exactly.
        The internet is kind of like second world. You probably wouldn’t cut your children from the real world, but neither should you let them grow up in it unsupervised.

        It’s part of the life nowdays, and you can adapt to it, not deny it. Just like with book reading in 18th century.

    • ABCDE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

      Because they are necessary in the modern world? From 14 onwards it’s an essential socialisation tool.

    • FuryMaker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      16 days ago

      Because they risk being bullied or left out. Denying their kid a phone only works if all the parents do it.

      Edit: I don’t have a solution; maybe an anti-bullshit law that punishes people from spouting bullshit? (Good luck religious folks!)

      But denying a phone may just replace one problem with another.

    • Z3k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

      They think they are being nice. It was a long time ago, but my mum tried to give my kids smartphones when they were y and 4. She couldn’t understand why I made her take them back and wouldn’t talk to me for months.

  • irotsoma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    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.

    • Lupus@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

      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.

      • mzesumzira@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        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.

        • Lupus@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          16 days ago

          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.

      • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        17 days ago

        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

      • stoly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        16 days ago

        It can destroy your skin and your liver even when used properly.

        Edit:nm I’m thinking of an acne drug.

  • x4740N@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    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

    • Tyfud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      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.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      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.

      • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        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.

          • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            16 days ago

            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 certain 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 noy arguing that influence needs to be much more strictly regulated. But 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”.

        • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          16 days ago

          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.

          • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            16 days ago

            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.

            • WhatYouNeed@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              16 days ago

              Great points.

              Vaping is another example. Despite being aged restricted, kids still get their hands on vapes.

    • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

      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.

      • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        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.

        • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          16 days ago

          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?

        • blargbluuk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          16 days ago

          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.

      • WIZARD POPE💫@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        17 days ago

        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.

            • Rosoe@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              16 days ago

              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.

              • DeviantOvary@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                16 days ago

                Not in detail, but it actually does:

                “Often the mothers are saying exactly what I am but need their child to hear it from an expert,” says Dr. Dendy Engelman, a Manhattan dermatologist. “They’re like, ‘Maybe she’ll listen to you because she certainly doesn’t listen to me.’”

                While younger kids may be reasoned with, teenagers aren’t as easy to handle as some say. Puberty is a hell of a drug.

        • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          16 days ago

          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

          • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            16 days ago

            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 demographic to treat what you’re saying with reasoned consideration.

            • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              16 days ago

              Yes they will. Banning them from something is not discussing the pros and cons with them tho.

  • VerbFlow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    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!

  • BleatingZombie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    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

  • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    Kids are becoming incredibly dumb, that’s a problem. Why are kids so dumb nowadays and what can be done ?

    Maybe send bad parents to prison for being so bad at parenting that they allow 10 year olds to touch computers and watch poisonous advertisements ?

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    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

      • casmael@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        16 days ago

        “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 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”

  • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    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

    • Malidak@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      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.

  • Anderenortsfalsch@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    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?

    • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      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).

      • Rev3rze@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        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.

  • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    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?