Influencers over-editing photos in Social Media/Cyber-bullying accusations

AndrewJRenko

Suckit wrote: »

A huge amount of their 'legit' followers are young and easily influenced.
Left to their own devices, the affects some of these idiots could have on the younger generation doesn't bare thinking about.
I am glad there are instagram accounts etc calling them out, and others watching it and helping publicise it.

I dare not think of the advice these people would give, one on one, to an 11 or 12 year old.

That's a fair point, and not one I had really thought about. Though thinking it through, there are loads things on the internet that could have negative impacts on young people - so I guess parental responsibility comes into play here.

Just for the record, from the little I know about it, I'm glad there are Instagram accounts calling them out too. I've no difficulty with this.

I won't drag off the debate any further.

Suckit

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's a fair point, and not one I had really thought about. Though thinking it through, there are loads things on the internet that could have negative impacts on young people - so I guess parental responsibility comes into play here.
Just for the record, from the little I know about it, I'm glad there are Instagram accounts calling them out too. I've no difficulty with this.

I won't drag off the debate any further.

No doubt parental responsibility does come into it, but it is impossible to monitor all of the things childen could be following and shouldn't, and a 12 year old following someone on instagram to get tips on makeup, shouldn't really be on that list.
Whilst many parents may have seen the instagram accounts and be aware of some of them by now, they may not have been aware had it not been for the ones that called them out, and these forums etc.
Other parents may have seen the accounts and without checking all of the instagram accounts their children are following every day (even if they did), it would still look innocent enough. You would have to scratch quite a bit off the surface before you see the ill affects that they could have. There is no need for me to go into those, but it is worth mentioning that it is not just a parental issue.

Also, the 'sponsors' who use them for advertising should also be culpable.

Caranica

Shamed: Former Miss Universe Ireland Lynn Kelly fights back after being bullied online

https://www.independent.ie/style/celebrity/celebrity-features/shamed-former-miss-universe-ireland-lynn-kelly-fights-back-after-being-bullied-online-37001205.html

Today the Indo give Lynn Kelly the "poor me" slot. Funnily enough only two photos and both of her choosing by the look of it.

Pistachios & cream

Caranica wrote: »

Shamed: Former Miss Universe Ireland Lynn Kelly fights back after being bullied online

https://www.independent.ie/style/celebrity/celebrity-features/shamed-former-miss-universe-ireland-lynn-kelly-fights-back-after-being-bullied-online-37001205.html

Today the Indo give Lynn Kelly the "poor me" slot. Funnily enough only two photos and both of her choosing by the look of it.

From the article 'Oh, she has Photoshopped it'. I hadn't Photoshopped it. Photoshopping, to me, is making yourself four dress sizes smaller. I hadn't done that. I don't even have the Photoshop app on my phone; I wouldn't even know how to do it. Filters, to me, are fine.”

Except you used facetune to remove every lump and bump you didn’t like. Also in another photo she managed to do so much editing she edited out one of her legs from the knee down.

EDIT: spot the disappearing leg https://www.instagram.com/p/BisWvW8lgty/?hl=en&taken-by=lynnkelly_

She’s a stunning woman so she should just own it. I saw the Instagram post she’s talking about and all it did was compare the 2 photos and say that the unedited picture was fabulous. She then used the word disgusting to describe it.

rawn

So self pitying. Basically she thinks she's being bullied because someone thinks she looks better without editing, and is splitting hairs by saying "oh i don't Photoshop, i only filter, facetune and use a photography app". She's making such a huge song and dance about it for no reason.

Stheno

rawn wrote: »

So self pitying. Basically she thinks she's being bullied because someone thinks she looks better without editing, and is splitting hairs by saying "oh i don't Photoshop, i only filter, facture and use a photography app". She's making such a huge song and dance about it for no reason.

the indo are worse imo for giving these people a platform

soiseztomabel

They way these people are going on an uninformed person may be led to the belief that ANYONE can end up on Bloggers Unveiled. People aren't been chosen at random and end up there. Its amazing that they play all ignorant and totally ignore the fact the reason they are chosen is essentially because they panhandle their wares in a very disingenuous and shady way while portraying themselves in the public sphere as something far different than who they really are. They'll never hold themselves accountable for this so its only right that others should MAKE them accountable....... and give us a good laugh at the same time.

Do they seriously not get it or are they just pretending?

**Not a fan of bloggers or influencer's in the slightest, i was introduced to BU by my girlfriend and think its easily the most hilarious page I've seen in years.

TheChizler

ahayes84 wrote: »

EDIT: spot the disappearing leg https://www.instagram.com/p/BisWvW8lgty/?hl=en&taken-by=lynnkelly_

She's standing with one leg in front of the other. You can see the shadow of the right leg, sunlight, and shadow of the left leg, meaning that the legs are perpendicular to the light source, in line with the camera. Seriously, why would someone photoshop their leg in flowy pants.

These bloggers take so many pictures that every so often they're bound to take some that look strange at a first glance. Just look at this website, are all of these photoshopped? URL REMOVED BY MODERATOR. At times these bloggers are due criticism but if you're not careful you're going to start criticising things that don't deserve it.

Edit: Apparently that site has a coin miner on it, so don't spend hours on it if you don't want to donate CPU time to randomers. Just Google perfectly timed photos and look at the Google images

billybonkers

TheChizler wrote: »

She's standing with one leg in front of the other. You can see the shadow of the right leg, sunlight, and shadow of the left leg, meaning that the legs are perpendicular to the light source, in line with the camera. Seriously, why would someone photoshop their leg in flowy pants.

These bloggers take so many pictures that every so often they're bound to take some that look strange at a first glance. Just look at this website, are all of these photoshopped? REMOVED LINK At times these bloggers are due criticism but if you're not careful you're going to start criticising things that don't deserve it.

That site you linked has a JSCoin miner built into it FYI

TheChizler

billybonkers wrote: »

That site you linked has a JSCoin miner built into it FYI

Clicker beware so.

Floppybits

These bloggers/influencers deserve to be called out if they are being disingenuous.  The have such inflated egos they think they are untouchable.

retro:electro

That is such an embarrassing interview. The poor pet had to leave Coppers and take to the bed for a week all because someone told the she looks better unfiltered. The Indo are worse giving these dopes a platform.

Suckit

retro:electro wrote: »

That is such an embarrassing interview. The poor pet had to leave Coppers and take to the bed for a week all because someone told the she looks better unfiltered. The Indo are worse giving these dopes a platform.

It looked way too long for me to read, especially when it started the way it did, and the article..

"Within minutes of us sitting down to talk, Lynn Kelly's eyes fill with tears and she chokes up, unable to speak."


Please.
If they think she was 'targeted' by an online bullying account, for no reason other than to bully, why hasn't that account been closed down?
Independent is pathetic.

soiseztomabel

retro:electro wrote: »

That is such an embarrassing interview. The poor pet had to leave Coppers and take to the bed for a week all because someone told the she looks better unfiltered. The Indo are worse giving these dopes a platform.

I loved the fact the afterparty to anything was in Coppers, i sense that the Indo smells revenue from giving these balloon-heads attention which the bloggers will use as some sort of weird promotional tool to shill their image.

Regardless ill be eating popcorn all summer at these poor lovelys playing the victim.

Suckit

How can the Indo be backing these. I mean, as a supposedly respectable news source it is literally promoting the bad/negative parts of social media as a business.
They should, as a newspaper stop referring to any 'calling out' accounts as bullying, and refer to them for what they are.

Next week they will be praising Ikea veils followed by a chat with caris closet owner and how she was so let down by the internet she wanted to finish up the business and let people buy their own tripe from China.

wyrn

Clari's Closet made it into the Indo. They didn't ask too many hard questions


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/we-only-sell-our-own-label-caris-closet-addresses-online-claims-questioning-quality-and-standards-of-their-clothing-37023873.html

Suckit

wyrn wrote: »

Clari's Closet made it into the Indo. They didn't ask too many hard questions


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/we-only-sell-our-own-label-caris-closet-addresses-online-claims-questioning-quality-and-standards-of-their-clothing-37023873.html

They are in the papers again today, trying to sue people apparently. The paper has a photograph of one of their dresses and the same dress on PrettyLittleThings for a small percentage of the Cari's Closet price.
I guess it is normal to buy from China and markup by a lot, but Aliexpress already have a huge mark up (if they are buying from there, which i doubt).
They didn't have to buy from China buy the looks of it.
I don't think the papers will show any Chinese prices though, as it is not considered like for like (VAT, shipping etc.).

https://evoke.ie/2018/06/24/showbiz/caris-closets-accounts-profits

It has to be asked. Why are they singled out? Why are certain influencers singled out? :rolleyes:

JaMarcus

https://www.independent.ie/style/beauty/rosie-connolly-was-misleading-with-instagram-post-using-photoshopped-picture-for-makeup-ad-37050995.html

What was the post in question?

Looks like Independent have realised there's interest in this topic - they've been reporting on this line of stuff a lot more.

wyrn

JaMarcus wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/style/beauty/rosie-connolly-was-misleading-with-instagram-post-using-photoshopped-picture-for-makeup-ad-37050995.html

What was the post in question?

Looks like Independent have realised there's interest in this topic - they've been reporting on this line of stuff a lot more.

I think this was the image. I remember seeing it on Facebook and the blur tool on Facetune (or something similar) had pretty much removed the shape between her nose and cheek.
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/ads-watchdog-upholds-first-complaint-against-a-blogger-851214.html

Gwen Cooper

Why are all these Irish influencers so artificial looking? I thought that this was the fashion in the 90's and now we are more into natural beauty? Don't get me wrong, to each their own, I'm just wondering when this fake look with a ton of make up and puffy lips came back.

dee_mc

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Why are all these Irish influencers so artificial looking? I thought that this was the fashion in the 90's and now we are more into natural beauty? Don't get me wrong, to each their own, I'm just wondering when this fake look with a ton of make up and puffy lips came back.

Is it the 'Instagram make-up' thing? They seem to go for full glam all day, everyday.

Suckit

JaMarcus wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/style/beauty/rosie-connolly-was-misleading-with-instagram-post-using-photoshopped-picture-for-makeup-ad-37050995.html

What was the post in question?

Looks like Independent have realised there's interest in this topic - they've been reporting on this line of stuff a lot more.

They seem to be defending them unless the Social Media Person has been found guilty by the ASAI.
Rimmel are just as bad in that instance, publishing it on their Instagram.
There should be heavy fines for all of them. Removing the post after it has already done its job is pointless. Well worth the risk for both of them.
How long ago was it posted? hundreds, if not thousands of her followers could have already purchased it because of that photo.

The Crowman

dee_mc wrote: »

Is it the 'Instagram make-up' thing? They seem to go for full glam all day, everyday.

She looks more like a blow-up sex doll than a human being. Is that whats considered "glam" these days.

dee_mc

The Crowman wrote: »

She looks more like a blow-up sex doll than a human being. Is that whats considered "glam" these days.

I forgot to put heavy, sarcastic quotes around the word 'glam' :pac:
But yea, the plastic look seems to be what most of the teens are going for. I'm glad I was a teen in the 90's and early 2000s when coloured mascara, skinny eyebrows and questionable coloured foundation was as bad as it got.
I don't follow any Irish bloggers/vloggers/'influencers' because the plastic look isn't for me.

silvervixen84

Will she or Rimmel get fined for it?

whiskeyman

silvervixen84 wrote: »

Will she or Rimmel get fined for it?

Who'd impose the fine?
What laws have they broken?
There's very little or no regulation here.

The worst they'd fear is the bad PR and a backlash from their 'loyal' followers.

Sunny Dayz

silvervixen84 wrote: »

Will she or Rimmel get fined for it?

I don't think so. I think they just get a slap on the back of the hand and told not to do it again.

Suckit

She photoshopped it and then tried to push the blame on to Rimmel for approving it.

In response, Ms Connolly said that as Rimmel had approved the images, the complaint should be addressed to them.
Rimmel acknowledged the image had been filtered using an in-built camera feature and said while this practice was not covered by ASAI guidelines it had nevertheless taken steps to “avoid any future issue”.
The post was not intended to mislead and they had removed it because it did not reflect their values as a brand, it told the ASAI.

http://www.thejournal.ie/first-advertising-complaint-about-blogger-upheld-for-misleading-public-rosie-connolly-rimmel-ireland-4092582-Jun2018/
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/photoshopped-rimmel-ad-by-beauty-blogger-was-misleading-1.3544463

No mention of any fine in any of the articles that I read, so it looks like that's that.

Floppybits

What a sad world we live in that some people are influenced by these people.

GingerLily

Floppybits wrote: »

What a sad world we live in that some people are influenced by these people.

The world has had influencers for a long time! They just went by a different name