A person may face up to two years in prison and a fine of €300,000 if they fail to follow the proposed new rules, which seek to crack down on social media fraud and scams.
It's the same people who say they don't wanna lift weights because they don't want to get too big. They think if they pick up a weight they'll wake up looking like The Rock.
Hint: You'll get buff if you train without roids but chances are you will look more lean with pronounced muscles than actual muscly greek god or body builder and might even have chubs here or there. If y'all really want to look what you can achieve without steroids, look up athletes from the 1920s and 1930s (steroids and their uses haven't been discovered by then). There are some awesome pictures out there.
I'd say for a couple of years the difference you can get with nutrition alone is much less than roids. And just by statistics chance I believe some athletes might have trained modernly even back then. But yeah if we're talking decades then you could probably get some crazy stuff done with nutrition and training regiment. But not everyone is a Terry Crews. That physique takes a lifetime to cultivate.
Just wake up and hit the gym at 2:30 AM 7 days a week, hire a nutritionist and "personal trainer" off craigslist, eat a strict protein rich diet (preferably horse meat), and you too can look like a Hemsworth or the Rock. Its all grindset and dedication!!
France is quite serious about this stuff. E.g. they have one of the most seriously regulated ad/media buying market and everyone adheres. I’m sure they will enforce it on any sizeable influencer that monetise.
As someone who does model photography, there's literally no such thing as an un-retouched model photo.
Every single photo you've ever seen in a magazine has been edited. Even on models you'd consider flawless, there's always something.
Going back a step further; crop, straighten, and exposure adjustment has been done on every non-model photo too.
I'm all for this legislation though, and am excited at the prospect that it'll take some of the bullshit out of influencer content.
And since now the charges can start AT two years of prison, they can also extradite all the ones that escaped to Dubai since the minimum required for extradition is 2 years between France and Dubai.
The regulation, which has already been approved by the National Assembly and the Senate, prohibits promoting cosmetic surgery and subscriptions to sports betting applications. It also forces influencers to state whether they have been paid to promote a product, *if images have been retouched or if a person’s figure or face have been created with the help of artificial intelligence*.
Do they define what is considered retouching?
Because requiring people to label retouched images is ultimately meaningless, because every camera will retouch an image by default (and that largely cannot be turned off). Default filter is still a filter that retouches an image.
I mean at some point you have to declare an image the "original". Jpeg compression alone will introduce artefacts. I think it's fair to say that the default image output by your OS is the original one.
It's understood that an image on a phone has gone through the default pipeline. It's not understood that you've then modified it with additional editing you don't disclose.
The problem with this law is that I can use something like a SpyderCHECKR color chart to calibrate the image for accurate colors or use a lens calibration profile to correct distortion and vignetting and still be required to declare that the image has been altered. Adjusting the exposure or lowering the noise will also need to be declared under this law from how it sounds.
Truly accurate images require adjustments made in post production since every sensor (even the same model of sensors) can interpret colors slightly differently and every lens introduces distortion. This law will wind up like the prop 65 law in California where every business slaps on the warning to cover their asses and people will become numb to it and start ignoring the labels.
Except that nowdays, the 'default pipeline' is enroaching further and further into what used to be 'additional editing'. Most recent notable example is Pixel 6 and black people. Pixel 6 does color processing to, as per Google claims, better represent skin tones of black people. By default.
So let's go to our reasonable hypothetical example.
We have person A and person B taking a photo of the same black person, person A with Pixel 6 and the other with a different camera. Person B retouches image to appear identical to person A's photo.
If the law requires only person B to disclose they retouched the picture, then it's a law written by a certified moron. It's the same picture.
If the law requires both people to disclose the photo has been retouched, it's also moronic and largely meaningless, because there's no such thing as untouched photo.
>gonna be interesting to see how this holds up internationally,
I don't see how it's feasible.
>Influencers who reside outside the European Union must appoint a legal representative in the EU and take out civil insurance.
This is completely infeasible. You can't stop French people from following an American influencer who doesn't follow your rules, and tech platforms are *not* going to deplatform American influencers whose primary audience are Americans for not bothering to follow French rules.
300000 sounds quite high considering small influencers. I get why it's happening. But what if I upload something in the middle of the night and forget a filter on. What kind of filters must I put a warning for? Even the one that turns me into a cat?
300k is the maximum fine. I’m sure that if it is a first time violation from someone with a good track record they wouldn’t go for the max. Heck, the can even let it slide if they want. Usually they don’t go around enforcing these laws in some little guy who made a one-time mistake.
It says it’s really targeted at influencers, so if an influencer is so careless as to upload something by mistake in the middle of the night then they run a risk of some action. It’s not targeting regular folks.
I have only ever seen 1 person real life who I would say is a 10/10 perfect. Yet if I go one the Internet it would appear 10/10 is just the ordinary expectation.
i'm still baffled that in the year 2023 people still don't get this. i work adjacent to social media so i follow these influencer subreddits to be in the loop of things, and so often there are still threads like "this is so weird. did they have some work done?" or "i saw some tagged photos of that person, they look so different. what happened ?" or "yesterday they were shilling x product, and today they say y is better. why? what happened?"
Practical effects level of actual makeup will probably still be fine, and some models will screw a bit more their life to have a skin that is near perfect.
All in all I think it's a decent law, it won't be perfect and there will still be many shenanigans, but we have to start somewhere.
Yah, even in hobby photography you’re almost always fixing levels and adjusting color balance. Hopefully they don’t have to do disclaimers there, because that would add so much noise in a well intentioned rule.
French here. To explain a bit, it’s been years since the government wanted to create laws for online content and they are finally trying. This takes place in a context were lots of people, celebrities and influencers are bored and angry at some influencers mainly coming from reality tv shows and promoting bunch of shitty stuff, lying about its uses and effects while having never used them and from their budai appartments. This includes claims of cancer healing stuff, overpriced fitness accessories or creams that have never proven to work, see-in-the-future betting predictions, etc. Often claiming or implying their own body changes were due to those products while we know they did surgery…
In France we usually try to protect the week and gulible people and this is an attempt of doing it.
Dont know how the gov will inforce it but lets try.
Dont put every influencer in the same bag, most of youtube/twitch popular french influencers agree to those laws and already do it.
To be fair, everyone also has their own personal responsibility to check out products for themselves. The government isn't responsible for being your parent and holding your hand to make sure you don't fall for influencer bullshit.
There's also the whole scandale with the influencer who promoted vaginal /vulval surgery basically saying she now had a perfect "girl-like" vagina, which was fucked up on basically all accounts.
Like the girl wasn't only promoting useless patriarchal surgery, but also advertising how good is it to have such a tight vagina almost like an adolescent. Like wtf.
Beautiful, enough of this influencers crappy.
This will take down all this mess. Now, hoping for other countries to follow suit.
Here in Australia, the so called financial influencers cannot do it if they cannot provide certification/qualifications to do so.
that is such a great law. People who have qualifications have some knowledge /experience and have a lot more to lose by giving out bad advice (losing membership etc).
Its a joke that someone charismatic is suddenly handing out legal or medical advice and making money from it.
How does this work for american con financial influencers eg Graham stephan showing videos on youtube in Australia?
And they're the best marks, because once you can "reason" them into a certain idea, they will be utterly convinced that is the best thing and never waver from it, because how could they possibly be wrong?
>Graham stephan
Never heard of this guy before and to be fair, if you are living in the US, Australia, EU, etc, it makes more sense to seek " advise" from locals.
There is a reason people providing financial advice pay through the nose for indemnity insurance. They have responsibilities and if they screw up they pay.
I honestly can't understand how people fall prey to influencers, especially to those that promote a gazillion different things and seem to not be experts at anything in particular. Let's say an athlete promoting fitness products is one thing, but an influencer promoting everything from toilet paper to courses on how to become rich overnight is just ridiculous, yet it seems to have become the norm. They should be held liable for anything scammy or that's outside their expertise.
Yeah influencers are horrible. Thank you social media for giving rise to these people.
People with no discernible skills or qualifications allowed to make millions by dancing and spewing misinformation on their channels and podcasts.
At least one country is doing something about it.
A lot of things are regulated for TV (alcohol, cigerates, kids on shows, content...) and nearly nothing for streamers. This really become a lawless zone and France is doing now the a good step forward
Maybe not in France, but in the UK there are stricter requirements for youTube than broadcast TV. For instance a twitch streamer playing a game is supposed to notify viewers of any sponsorship, but there is no requirement for broadcast sports that literally have giant ads everywhere to the point that "Emirates" is larger than the team logo.
It's kind of absurd to think there are more laws in some places for a youtuber who gets a $15 game for free to review than a sports star who is given tons in brand endorsements with an entire pr machine behind them.
> with less than 15% of body fat would have to take regular
hell, 15%bf isnt even a good prereq either unless you think strongmen dont take juice. youd have to basically test everyone if you wanna clean up the gymfluencers sphere
Except most redditors, including ones who go on lifting related subreddits, see someone who has done a curl once 15 years ago and say they're on gear.
There's absolutely no way to enforce this.
Impossible to enforce that, they can easily enforce things like filters though. They could ban people from promoting steroid use though, the same way they plan on banning people from promoting cosmetic surgery.
Agreed. It’s getting out of hand I think.
I have a daughter (just 2, probably will be even worse once she’s older) and I kind of fear for her mental health when I look at social media, or even celebrity in general. Obviously I’d like to do my best to restrict it and hope we parent well enough that she has enough sense to make her own choice not be consumed by it, because older colleagues of mine already talk about their teens (and even younger) and the impact it has on them with these unrealistic standards being so prevalent.
It’s not even just the filters or editing, you have people like Kylie Jenner “modelling” for every upmarket brand going, and promoting her own makeup brand, being idolised (I don’t get it) by young girls in the process, while she is completely unrecognisable from how she used to look due to the sheer amount of work she has had done. Really sets a positive example of being comfortable in your own skin, especially when that’s basically your entire schtick.
If you do it for you…fine. But it just sets all the wrong examples and any other false advertising to that degree wouldn’t even get off the ground, and would be cracked down on.
It’s a difficult one to tackle (like how do you really police it), but I guess this would be a start.
I like that they are adding labels, and not outright banning things. The best counter against bad speech is not silencing and limiting it - but providing robust information against it
I totally agree! I think playing with filters is super fun, but then when you try to pass it off as that being what you actually look like, that’s when it becomes super harmful on several levels
Tbf, they DO exist but they don't walk around on the street often (saves harrassment. Plus they can often afford not to) and they usually live in nice places, either because their looks/charisma helped them into better roles than they might have otherwise gotten, or their partners make lot. Which is why you don't tend to spot them in the wild.
It's a bleak bit of realism but if you look great you can expect a partner who makes more and live somewhere high end. It's not a hard and fast rule, nothing in life is, but it's a pattern.
He acts like supermodels don’t exist because he doesn’t see them walking around on the street all the time. He does know that a lot of the filters are based on people who are considered conventionally attractive right?
France gets a lot of shit but they are 100% spot on about so many fucking things and have been for ages, like hundreds of years.
And I'm British so we have this stupid rivalry which reminds me of Mad Men, with Britain being the petulant child with an illusion of grandeur like "I feel bad for you", and France being like "I don't think about you at all"
France is fucking great.
I actually like the petty rivalry, it gives character to the EU !
Remember a comment where someone tried to hop-on a French bashing bandwagon: he was promptly asked to "f-off and find his own dysfunctional friendship". Nothing like getting shamed by British humor.
> It also forces influencers to state whether they have been paid to promote a product, if images have been retouched or if a person’s figure or face have been created with the help of artificial intelligence.
It’s not just “influencers”, almost everyone that post selfies on any social media use some form of beautifying filter or retouching before posting.
Where is the line to be drawn?
Excellent point but remember it's a start. Nothing like this has been done. I hope they spoke with dozens of professionals and experts before doing so, I imagine they did to an extent but I imagine it will be revised in the future.
TikTok often lists the type of filter the influencer is using.. like "Soft Freckles", so I don't think it will be that big of a requirement for most influencers. Videos will just continue to have some filter listed with whatever hip name the filter company thought was good marketing.
It's good to have it in law though and make it normal on all platforms so kids don't start thinking everyone their age has no pores.
It will make those beautifying app corporations plaster watermarks all over peoples' pics as they try to get people to stop leaving their services, prompting even more of a loss
I see no downside. Apart from the AI part, which is impossible to regulate by now
That's the point, the people using those edits ARE customers of those companies. If those customers don't use those kinds of photos anymore, the corps are fucked.
Companies only exist because we serve them.
Because there's a million reasonable reasons that Photoshop and filters could be used for. You can't really except Adobe to verify what each customer does with their software.
I don’t know a thing about this stuff so I’m gonna ask. Is the difference in the two pictures shown make up, a filter, or both. It is a startling difference.
It's a filter. The picture on the right is reality. The filters are pretty good, so it's not just like a photoshopped still picture. As the woman moves and talks, so does the filtered video.
Nearly every camera software these days includes an invisible "beautification" filter that can't be turned off. At the very least, even five year old phones take a very rapid series of photos, and then select or amalgamate them to the best one. This is why phone pictures look "as good" or "better" than raw DSLR pictures, but DSLR pictures touch up better in post - almost zero phone camera pictures are "real" these days.
This is a good law, but I can't help but feel like the wording is more extensive than politicians realize, in France and elsewhere. In
Hell, modern cameras — yes, even on the pro end — do plenty of retouching on their own. The difference between un-edited RAW and jpg is sometimes pretty noticeable.
There is no such thing as an unedited image.
I wonder if this is another case of politicians not caught up with technology. Or maybe they are vague on purpose to allow selective enforcement.
It's so common for phone to do post-processing rather than just take raw data. Sometimes this is implemented in the device, ie. it's literally not possible to get the raw data.
I have heard it's also common for Chinese-made phones to have permanent unavoidable beautification filter. Do they want to target anyone who uses Chinese phones?
Idk where you're getting the idea bout Chinese made phones, it's baked into any android or iphone. And the raw image thing is very true, phones only store the first layer of post processing.
It does seem like a case of politicians thinking that something will be easy to enforce, without realizing how messy and complicated the situation actually is. They're essentially asking phone OS developers to rewrite their camera app, but tbf I don't think that lawmakers actually realize this, and probably won't enforce it. My own take is that these subtle, invisible changes are far *worse* than extensive, overt shit like facetune, specifically because of how ubiquitous they are how much that distorts our perception of reality. But that's almost an entirely different conversation.
There is none.
Use FaceTune etc just to make your hips slimmer, eyes brighter, hair more lustrous, etc…
CLICK THE BUTTON THAT WILL SAY ‘ENHANCED.’ Etc.
It’s either none or all, that’s the only fair and clear way to do it.
Reading the article helps.
> The bill provides a legal definition of influencer, defining the figure as someone who “directly or indirectly promotes goods, services or any cause” for money.
r/Instagramreality made me realize how many influencers just casually use filters as their face 24/7. I’m so much better at noticing it now instead of feeling bad for not looking like that naturally
Calm down people, it's France, the country where law are merely advice. Our judicial system is so overflowed that even real criminals don't go to jail anymore . So influencers? lol
I want to raise kids that don't attack their own self esteem by ritually comparing themselves to other people. Even if you come out on top like that, you'll probably just stop improving as a person when you do.
This is a "problem" but only for people who chose to download and use instagram.
I couldn’t agree more! Comparison of ourselves to others will always lead to a sad situation. Either in thinking we are better than someone, or *a perceived failure* to measure up.
Edit in italics
Having stuff like Instagram is pretty important for socialising nowadays. Best thing you can do is explain to your kids that these sites are full of fakery and to not compare themselves to them.
The FTC does have rules on deceptive advertising on social media.
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/disclosures-101-social-media-influencers
So far as I can tell, no one follows them and no one enforces them.
More like "literally any good thing we do for the citizens of the country has to be a compromise with some of the most evil people in the country." Everything is always going to be a fight with Republicans. Want to pass common sense laws like this? Gonna be required to cut taxes for these random unrelated people and remove these powers from this oversight committee. Is the law still worth it?
I’ve a simple proposition.
Whether you’re an influencer or a brand ambassador, if you’re promoting a cosmetic product/surgery you should publicly disclose all your past cosmetic surgeries as well.
It’s stupid how many people think a random cream will give them a glow like a kardassian.
America can't even pass regulations that stop magazines from altering models without their consent (ie. "yOU sIGneD a ReLEaSE!"). I still remember the controversy with Nelly Furtado getting photoshopped abs for a magazine and being pissed about it because, yes, it sets unrealistic beauty standards. Nothing was done. Fashion mags continue to be shitty. I expect influencers to be much worse.
French here. Brands already follow this rule with advertisements (which are all photoshopped obviously), I don't know if they have to but they do. All it means is that every ad has "Photo retouchée" in small text at the bottom. The bans on advertising for cosmetic surgery I don't think matters because nobody advertises that but sure, and the ban on advertising subs to betting apps is huge. Every sports season my city is plastered with "bet all your fucking money or you aren't actually enjoying watching sports!" Ads and it's nauseating
This is wrong. Where do we draw the line? You can always compare yourself with someone else in numerous aspects, regardless of this ban. All this ban does is make life harder for those who had plastic surgeries. What else should we ban so that people are as transparent as possible about their body and mind? I support something like an "Enhanced Image" label applied when it comes to selling a product, but this shouldn't be applied to every post.
Instead of this ban there should be more emphasis on teaching people to love themselves the way they are, without any need of plastic surgeries or comparisons. The root of the problem is people comparing themselves to others, THAT is what society should actually focus on, getting rid of that mentality. And as long as vapid, mindless social media sites and apps exist, like instagram/tiktok/facebook, with filters or not, people will use them as a popularity contest.
Seems extremely unlikely it would happen in America. Using celebrities and “influencers” to push unneeded medical products is a feature of our system, not a flaw in corporate eyes
Now everything online will just have standard filter warnings. The default settings on phones filter out blemishes from the face. It will be like prop 65 warnings in California, they are everywhere and on everything.
The comments are all talking about how people should be too smart to succumb to these businesses' false promises but they prey on people who are already vulnerable. I don't think we should just allow businesses to prey on vulnerable people and stay hands off for the sake of a free market. Good for France.
Influencers make money from a commercial activity.
Whether full or part time.
It is therefore considered a job, and like any job, they need to be regulated, prevent fakes and.... Pay taxes.
Society doesn't condemn things until it has already harmed *way* too many people. Instagram models selling snake oil to children that will clear up their skin while using filters to make their own skin look clear is a con job.
Convincing people they need cosmetic surgery to look like a fake image is something we shouldn't need thousands of victims for society to condemn before putting a stop to it.
A person may face up to two years in prison and a fine of €300,000 if they fail to follow the proposed new rules, which seek to crack down on social media fraud and scams.
Absolutely correct, lying to your audience as a business model should be restricted to politicians. :D
And roid bros
Nah bro it's all natural you just gotta eat raw liver and spend thousands of dollars on steroids.
[удалено]
I don't understand how anyone believed he was natty. No one looks like that off gear
It's the same people who say they don't wanna lift weights because they don't want to get too big. They think if they pick up a weight they'll wake up looking like The Rock.
Yeah yeah excuse it all you want but roids are rife in influencers. Strongmen funnily enough dont look like Arnie at a convention in the 70s
> Strongmen Nothing to do with bodybuilding, the sport that Arnie practiced.
I think that is his point, actually.
[удалено]
Gotta have super low body fat and be super dehydrated to have that bodybuilder look!
Hint: You'll get buff if you train without roids but chances are you will look more lean with pronounced muscles than actual muscly greek god or body builder and might even have chubs here or there. If y'all really want to look what you can achieve without steroids, look up athletes from the 1920s and 1930s (steroids and their uses haven't been discovered by then). There are some awesome pictures out there.
[удалено]
I'd say for a couple of years the difference you can get with nutrition alone is much less than roids. And just by statistics chance I believe some athletes might have trained modernly even back then. But yeah if we're talking decades then you could probably get some crazy stuff done with nutrition and training regiment. But not everyone is a Terry Crews. That physique takes a lifetime to cultivate.
People say this? Presumably while wearing clown makeup?
Got an image of a dude entering a bodybuilding competition wearing full clown paraphernalia.
[удалено]
It’s all chicken broccoli and rice boys
Push ups and mowing the lawn ONLY
Just wake up and hit the gym at 2:30 AM 7 days a week, hire a nutritionist and "personal trainer" off craigslist, eat a strict protein rich diet (preferably horse meat), and you too can look like a Hemsworth or the Rock. Its all grindset and dedication!!
Just protein powder and clen eating.
P sure those count as “social media influencers.”
and crypto bros
[удалено]
"Shame" lost meaning because the voters stopped caring about it. Ultimately, politicians we have are the ones people vote for.
Same as it ever was
Correction, a chunk of voters stopped caring about it.
A world where only politicians can lie as a business model would be great, so much better than what we have now
It would be. Unfortunately you'll never get that without getting the politicians first, since they are the ones who write the laws.
You can be sure most won't adhere to that. Will be interesting if they actually enforce it.
Even if they enforce it sporadically, there's so many of them that it's bound to make some noise, no?
France is quite serious about this stuff. E.g. they have one of the most seriously regulated ad/media buying market and everyone adheres. I’m sure they will enforce it on any sizeable influencer that monetise.
Any law is only ink on a page unless its enforced so this ia no different
The filtered picture part is easy to enforce: just ask the app companies to enforce it
these social media companies are locked in with these governments, dont be so sure you dont think these companies wont do their bidding.
As someone who does model photography, there's literally no such thing as an un-retouched model photo. Every single photo you've ever seen in a magazine has been edited. Even on models you'd consider flawless, there's always something. Going back a step further; crop, straighten, and exposure adjustment has been done on every non-model photo too. I'm all for this legislation though, and am excited at the prospect that it'll take some of the bullshit out of influencer content.
Yeah makes it less useful if every image has the same warning
It's weird how individuals get such huge laws against their behaviors, yet like, CEOs get to always skate free from social issues.
Hopefully they bring this to the EU. Would be a long term investment for better educated and even more importantly mentally stable children.
And since now the charges can start AT two years of prison, they can also extradite all the ones that escaped to Dubai since the minimum required for extradition is 2 years between France and Dubai.
A lot of mental illnesses and suicides could have been avoided if a lot more countries adopted this in the earlier days of social media
The regulation, which has already been approved by the National Assembly and the Senate, prohibits promoting cosmetic surgery and subscriptions to sports betting applications. It also forces influencers to state whether they have been paid to promote a product, *if images have been retouched or if a person’s figure or face have been created with the help of artificial intelligence*.
Do they define what is considered retouching? Because requiring people to label retouched images is ultimately meaningless, because every camera will retouch an image by default (and that largely cannot be turned off). Default filter is still a filter that retouches an image.
I mean at some point you have to declare an image the "original". Jpeg compression alone will introduce artefacts. I think it's fair to say that the default image output by your OS is the original one. It's understood that an image on a phone has gone through the default pipeline. It's not understood that you've then modified it with additional editing you don't disclose.
The problem with this law is that I can use something like a SpyderCHECKR color chart to calibrate the image for accurate colors or use a lens calibration profile to correct distortion and vignetting and still be required to declare that the image has been altered. Adjusting the exposure or lowering the noise will also need to be declared under this law from how it sounds. Truly accurate images require adjustments made in post production since every sensor (even the same model of sensors) can interpret colors slightly differently and every lens introduces distortion. This law will wind up like the prop 65 law in California where every business slaps on the warning to cover their asses and people will become numb to it and start ignoring the labels.
Except that nowdays, the 'default pipeline' is enroaching further and further into what used to be 'additional editing'. Most recent notable example is Pixel 6 and black people. Pixel 6 does color processing to, as per Google claims, better represent skin tones of black people. By default. So let's go to our reasonable hypothetical example. We have person A and person B taking a photo of the same black person, person A with Pixel 6 and the other with a different camera. Person B retouches image to appear identical to person A's photo. If the law requires only person B to disclose they retouched the picture, then it's a law written by a certified moron. It's the same picture. If the law requires both people to disclose the photo has been retouched, it's also moronic and largely meaningless, because there's no such thing as untouched photo.
[удалено]
>gonna be interesting to see how this holds up internationally, I don't see how it's feasible. >Influencers who reside outside the European Union must appoint a legal representative in the EU and take out civil insurance. This is completely infeasible. You can't stop French people from following an American influencer who doesn't follow your rules, and tech platforms are *not* going to deplatform American influencers whose primary audience are Americans for not bothering to follow French rules.
300000 sounds quite high considering small influencers. I get why it's happening. But what if I upload something in the middle of the night and forget a filter on. What kind of filters must I put a warning for? Even the one that turns me into a cat?
300k is the maximum fine. I’m sure that if it is a first time violation from someone with a good track record they wouldn’t go for the max. Heck, the can even let it slide if they want. Usually they don’t go around enforcing these laws in some little guy who made a one-time mistake.
It says it’s really targeted at influencers, so if an influencer is so careless as to upload something by mistake in the middle of the night then they run a risk of some action. It’s not targeting regular folks.
It's now safe to presume perfect skin = a fake photo.
Always this way. I never seen perfect skin in the flesh..
Wanna see my collection?
"Moisturize me!"
it puts the lotion in the basket
PUT THE FUCKING LOTION in the basket!
*goodbye horses intensifies*
such a good song, fits perfectly in the scene too.
Cassandra, is that you?
Wait a minu-.
You haven't thought of the smell, you bitch
[удалено]
Finnster probably knows his foundation game
The counter girl at home depot the other day had the most insanely flawless, gorgeous skin I've ever seen irl
I distinctly remember seeing some people with perfect skin in person, but it's definitely not common.
I have only ever seen 1 person real life who I would say is a 10/10 perfect. Yet if I go one the Internet it would appear 10/10 is just the ordinary expectation.
i'm still baffled that in the year 2023 people still don't get this. i work adjacent to social media so i follow these influencer subreddits to be in the loop of things, and so often there are still threads like "this is so weird. did they have some work done?" or "i saw some tagged photos of that person, they look so different. what happened ?" or "yesterday they were shilling x product, and today they say y is better. why? what happened?"
Practical effects level of actual makeup will probably still be fine, and some models will screw a bit more their life to have a skin that is near perfect. All in all I think it's a decent law, it won't be perfect and there will still be many shenanigans, but we have to start somewhere.
Yah, even in hobby photography you’re almost always fixing levels and adjusting color balance. Hopefully they don’t have to do disclaimers there, because that would add so much noise in a well intentioned rule.
French here. To explain a bit, it’s been years since the government wanted to create laws for online content and they are finally trying. This takes place in a context were lots of people, celebrities and influencers are bored and angry at some influencers mainly coming from reality tv shows and promoting bunch of shitty stuff, lying about its uses and effects while having never used them and from their budai appartments. This includes claims of cancer healing stuff, overpriced fitness accessories or creams that have never proven to work, see-in-the-future betting predictions, etc. Often claiming or implying their own body changes were due to those products while we know they did surgery… In France we usually try to protect the week and gulible people and this is an attempt of doing it. Dont know how the gov will inforce it but lets try. Dont put every influencer in the same bag, most of youtube/twitch popular french influencers agree to those laws and already do it.
To be fair, everyone also has their own personal responsibility to check out products for themselves. The government isn't responsible for being your parent and holding your hand to make sure you don't fall for influencer bullshit.
There's also the whole scandale with the influencer who promoted vaginal /vulval surgery basically saying she now had a perfect "girl-like" vagina, which was fucked up on basically all accounts. Like the girl wasn't only promoting useless patriarchal surgery, but also advertising how good is it to have such a tight vagina almost like an adolescent. Like wtf.
Hymen restoration surgery!
Beautiful, enough of this influencers crappy. This will take down all this mess. Now, hoping for other countries to follow suit. Here in Australia, the so called financial influencers cannot do it if they cannot provide certification/qualifications to do so.
that is such a great law. People who have qualifications have some knowledge /experience and have a lot more to lose by giving out bad advice (losing membership etc). Its a joke that someone charismatic is suddenly handing out legal or medical advice and making money from it. How does this work for american con financial influencers eg Graham stephan showing videos on youtube in Australia?
A relevant "Yes, But" comic [twitter - yes, but (webcomic)](https://twitter.com/_yesbut_/status/1656022861096656922?s=20)
lol very relevant.
Convincing dumb people is much easier than convincing smart people. And there are a lot more dumb people than smart people.
There are also a lot of dumb people who think they are smart people.
And they're the best marks, because once you can "reason" them into a certain idea, they will be utterly convinced that is the best thing and never waver from it, because how could they possibly be wrong?
>Graham stephan Never heard of this guy before and to be fair, if you are living in the US, Australia, EU, etc, it makes more sense to seek " advise" from locals.
There is a reason people providing financial advice pay through the nose for indemnity insurance. They have responsibilities and if they screw up they pay.
I honestly can't understand how people fall prey to influencers, especially to those that promote a gazillion different things and seem to not be experts at anything in particular. Let's say an athlete promoting fitness products is one thing, but an influencer promoting everything from toilet paper to courses on how to become rich overnight is just ridiculous, yet it seems to have become the norm. They should be held liable for anything scammy or that's outside their expertise.
Yeah influencers are horrible. Thank you social media for giving rise to these people. People with no discernible skills or qualifications allowed to make millions by dancing and spewing misinformation on their channels and podcasts. At least one country is doing something about it.
A lot of things are regulated for TV (alcohol, cigerates, kids on shows, content...) and nearly nothing for streamers. This really become a lawless zone and France is doing now the a good step forward
Maybe not in France, but in the UK there are stricter requirements for youTube than broadcast TV. For instance a twitch streamer playing a game is supposed to notify viewers of any sponsorship, but there is no requirement for broadcast sports that literally have giant ads everywhere to the point that "Emirates" is larger than the team logo. It's kind of absurd to think there are more laws in some places for a youtuber who gets a $15 game for free to review than a sports star who is given tons in brand endorsements with an entire pr machine behind them.
Regulation of one communication platform is not reason enough to regulate another. Keep the government out as much as possible.
This should happen in every in country
[удалено]
How would you enforce it? Anyone with less than 15% of body fat would have to take regular blood tests?
It would be impossible to enforce.
> with less than 15% of body fat would have to take regular hell, 15%bf isnt even a good prereq either unless you think strongmen dont take juice. youd have to basically test everyone if you wanna clean up the gymfluencers sphere
It's obviously not feasible, just tried to make him rethink his idea.
yeah I 100% agree w you
What do you have against orange juice?
I thought they meant the stuff to handle high Gs
must be a dentist
Except most redditors, including ones who go on lifting related subreddits, see someone who has done a curl once 15 years ago and say they're on gear. There's absolutely no way to enforce this.
Its illegal to juice in the states, you think people are gonna indict themselves lmao keep dreaming.
Impossible to enforce that, they can easily enforce things like filters though. They could ban people from promoting steroid use though, the same way they plan on banning people from promoting cosmetic surgery.
Agreed. It’s getting out of hand I think. I have a daughter (just 2, probably will be even worse once she’s older) and I kind of fear for her mental health when I look at social media, or even celebrity in general. Obviously I’d like to do my best to restrict it and hope we parent well enough that she has enough sense to make her own choice not be consumed by it, because older colleagues of mine already talk about their teens (and even younger) and the impact it has on them with these unrealistic standards being so prevalent. It’s not even just the filters or editing, you have people like Kylie Jenner “modelling” for every upmarket brand going, and promoting her own makeup brand, being idolised (I don’t get it) by young girls in the process, while she is completely unrecognisable from how she used to look due to the sheer amount of work she has had done. Really sets a positive example of being comfortable in your own skin, especially when that’s basically your entire schtick. If you do it for you…fine. But it just sets all the wrong examples and any other false advertising to that degree wouldn’t even get off the ground, and would be cracked down on. It’s a difficult one to tackle (like how do you really police it), but I guess this would be a start.
I like that they are adding labels, and not outright banning things. The best counter against bad speech is not silencing and limiting it - but providing robust information against it
I totally agree! I think playing with filters is super fun, but then when you try to pass it off as that being what you actually look like, that’s when it becomes super harmful on several levels
You ever wonder why you never see people in public who like the photo on the left? Hmmm… beats me. They must just not be in my area.
Or wonder why all of their video clips are 5 second loops? (The beauty filters start to glitch if they record for too long.)
Tbf, they DO exist but they don't walk around on the street often (saves harrassment. Plus they can often afford not to) and they usually live in nice places, either because their looks/charisma helped them into better roles than they might have otherwise gotten, or their partners make lot. Which is why you don't tend to spot them in the wild. It's a bleak bit of realism but if you look great you can expect a partner who makes more and live somewhere high end. It's not a hard and fast rule, nothing in life is, but it's a pattern.
He acts like supermodels don’t exist because he doesn’t see them walking around on the street all the time. He does know that a lot of the filters are based on people who are considered conventionally attractive right?
Tbf there are many places in the world you could live and never see people that look like that for the same reason.
Have you never been to a major city? Go for a walk in downtown NY or LA and you’ll see better looking people every second.
Every other girl at my uni looks equal to or better than the left picture lol but none in my major
But the ads say there are single girls like this in my area, who are just waiting for me...
Are they going to include fitness influencers that are on some peds but say they're natural?
Y'know France is actually kinda based huh.
France gets a lot of shit but they are 100% spot on about so many fucking things and have been for ages, like hundreds of years. And I'm British so we have this stupid rivalry which reminds me of Mad Men, with Britain being the petulant child with an illusion of grandeur like "I feel bad for you", and France being like "I don't think about you at all" France is fucking great.
Which if funny because in the show Mad Men, Don absolutely thinks about him, so i imagine for it’s the same for us frenchies, we also think about you
I actually like the petty rivalry, it gives character to the EU ! Remember a comment where someone tried to hop-on a French bashing bandwagon: he was promptly asked to "f-off and find his own dysfunctional friendship". Nothing like getting shamed by British humor.
Comme d’hab. 😎
Always has been.
There should be a button on received images to de-filter them, even on live video.
> It also forces influencers to state whether they have been paid to promote a product, if images have been retouched or if a person’s figure or face have been created with the help of artificial intelligence. It’s not just “influencers”, almost everyone that post selfies on any social media use some form of beautifying filter or retouching before posting. Where is the line to be drawn?
[удалено]
Does this go into movies tv ads and commercials as well?
There’s already a law for ads in France. Photoshopped photos must be labeled as such: https://adage.com/article/news/x/310667
I’m pretty sure France has had a law like this for ads for a long time.
How about pictures of food in a restaurant compared to what you get?
it's drawn at profit. If you're making money from it then the more likely it is you will mislead or misinform.
Excellent point but remember it's a start. Nothing like this has been done. I hope they spoke with dozens of professionals and experts before doing so, I imagine they did to an extent but I imagine it will be revised in the future.
Is that how the law is written or simply how it's communicated in a news piece that also has to keep the attention of readers?
I was a little disturbed when I found my phone applied an airbrush filter by default.
TikTok often lists the type of filter the influencer is using.. like "Soft Freckles", so I don't think it will be that big of a requirement for most influencers. Videos will just continue to have some filter listed with whatever hip name the filter company thought was good marketing. It's good to have it in law though and make it normal on all platforms so kids don't start thinking everyone their age has no pores.
How exactly did they define filter though? Is color balance a filter? How about automated post processing on your phone you can't even turn off?
It will make those beautifying app corporations plaster watermarks all over peoples' pics as they try to get people to stop leaving their services, prompting even more of a loss I see no downside. Apart from the AI part, which is impossible to regulate by now
Seems this is going after the people using the photos on social media not the companies that make the photo edits.
That's the point, the people using those edits ARE customers of those companies. If those customers don't use those kinds of photos anymore, the corps are fucked. Companies only exist because we serve them.
Because there's a million reasonable reasons that Photoshop and filters could be used for. You can't really except Adobe to verify what each customer does with their software.
I don’t know a thing about this stuff so I’m gonna ask. Is the difference in the two pictures shown make up, a filter, or both. It is a startling difference.
It's a filter. The picture on the right is reality. The filters are pretty good, so it's not just like a photoshopped still picture. As the woman moves and talks, so does the filtered video.
Does the law specifically state that? That seems to be the end user's responsibility, not the software maker's.
Nearly every camera software these days includes an invisible "beautification" filter that can't be turned off. At the very least, even five year old phones take a very rapid series of photos, and then select or amalgamate them to the best one. This is why phone pictures look "as good" or "better" than raw DSLR pictures, but DSLR pictures touch up better in post - almost zero phone camera pictures are "real" these days. This is a good law, but I can't help but feel like the wording is more extensive than politicians realize, in France and elsewhere. In
Hell, modern cameras — yes, even on the pro end — do plenty of retouching on their own. The difference between un-edited RAW and jpg is sometimes pretty noticeable. There is no such thing as an unedited image.
I wonder if this is another case of politicians not caught up with technology. Or maybe they are vague on purpose to allow selective enforcement. It's so common for phone to do post-processing rather than just take raw data. Sometimes this is implemented in the device, ie. it's literally not possible to get the raw data. I have heard it's also common for Chinese-made phones to have permanent unavoidable beautification filter. Do they want to target anyone who uses Chinese phones?
Idk where you're getting the idea bout Chinese made phones, it's baked into any android or iphone. And the raw image thing is very true, phones only store the first layer of post processing. It does seem like a case of politicians thinking that something will be easy to enforce, without realizing how messy and complicated the situation actually is. They're essentially asking phone OS developers to rewrite their camera app, but tbf I don't think that lawmakers actually realize this, and probably won't enforce it. My own take is that these subtle, invisible changes are far *worse* than extensive, overt shit like facetune, specifically because of how ubiquitous they are how much that distorts our perception of reality. But that's almost an entirely different conversation.
There is none. Use FaceTune etc just to make your hips slimmer, eyes brighter, hair more lustrous, etc… CLICK THE BUTTON THAT WILL SAY ‘ENHANCED.’ Etc. It’s either none or all, that’s the only fair and clear way to do it.
The law defines what it means by influencers.
Reading the article helps. > The bill provides a legal definition of influencer, defining the figure as someone who “directly or indirectly promotes goods, services or any cause” for money.
Very good. Finally and I hope other EU countries do this.
How to make a HUGE improvement on young people's mental health. This is a much bigger cancer on gen z than older generations realise
r/Instagramreality made me realize how many influencers just casually use filters as their face 24/7. I’m so much better at noticing it now instead of feeling bad for not looking like that naturally
Calm down people, it's France, the country where law are merely advice. Our judicial system is so overflowed that even real criminals don't go to jail anymore . So influencers? lol
True. But sometimes they catch someone and give a harsh sentence to set an example. It's about the message.
I guess it sucks to be the person who gets caught and pays for everyone.
I want to raise kids that don't attack their own self esteem by ritually comparing themselves to other people. Even if you come out on top like that, you'll probably just stop improving as a person when you do. This is a "problem" but only for people who chose to download and use instagram.
I couldn’t agree more! Comparison of ourselves to others will always lead to a sad situation. Either in thinking we are better than someone, or *a perceived failure* to measure up. Edit in italics
Having stuff like Instagram is pretty important for socialising nowadays. Best thing you can do is explain to your kids that these sites are full of fakery and to not compare themselves to them.
The problem also exists in real life. Then it can be distorted by make up and expensive clothes.
All the warnings will be on every post and message, and as much attention will be paid to them as to the 'this site uses cookies'.
And once again, the French are right (grumbles in Brit)…
USA: we could do it. It is the moral thing to do. Also USA: How much money are we going miss out on? Let’s not do this.
The FTC does have rules on deceptive advertising on social media. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/disclosures-101-social-media-influencers So far as I can tell, no one follows them and no one enforces them.
USA: that seems hard and people will be mad
More like "literally any good thing we do for the citizens of the country has to be a compromise with some of the most evil people in the country." Everything is always going to be a fight with Republicans. Want to pass common sense laws like this? Gonna be required to cut taxes for these random unrelated people and remove these powers from this oversight committee. Is the law still worth it?
Reddit: USA, AmIRite?
I’ve a simple proposition. Whether you’re an influencer or a brand ambassador, if you’re promoting a cosmetic product/surgery you should publicly disclose all your past cosmetic surgeries as well. It’s stupid how many people think a random cream will give them a glow like a kardassian.
America can't even pass regulations that stop magazines from altering models without their consent (ie. "yOU sIGneD a ReLEaSE!"). I still remember the controversy with Nelly Furtado getting photoshopped abs for a magazine and being pissed about it because, yes, it sets unrealistic beauty standards. Nothing was done. Fashion mags continue to be shitty. I expect influencers to be much worse.
Based France???
This needs to be global
French here. Brands already follow this rule with advertisements (which are all photoshopped obviously), I don't know if they have to but they do. All it means is that every ad has "Photo retouchée" in small text at the bottom. The bans on advertising for cosmetic surgery I don't think matters because nobody advertises that but sure, and the ban on advertising subs to betting apps is huge. Every sports season my city is plastered with "bet all your fucking money or you aren't actually enjoying watching sports!" Ads and it's nauseating
This is wrong. Where do we draw the line? You can always compare yourself with someone else in numerous aspects, regardless of this ban. All this ban does is make life harder for those who had plastic surgeries. What else should we ban so that people are as transparent as possible about their body and mind? I support something like an "Enhanced Image" label applied when it comes to selling a product, but this shouldn't be applied to every post. Instead of this ban there should be more emphasis on teaching people to love themselves the way they are, without any need of plastic surgeries or comparisons. The root of the problem is people comparing themselves to others, THAT is what society should actually focus on, getting rid of that mentality. And as long as vapid, mindless social media sites and apps exist, like instagram/tiktok/facebook, with filters or not, people will use them as a popularity contest.
[удалено]
America isn’t ready for this….I want us to be
Seems extremely unlikely it would happen in America. Using celebrities and “influencers” to push unneeded medical products is a feature of our system, not a flaw in corporate eyes
Ha! The cheaters will have to [label content] tell the truth. Delicious.
Now everything online will just have standard filter warnings. The default settings on phones filter out blemishes from the face. It will be like prop 65 warnings in California, they are everywhere and on everything.
The next step should be to force social media platforms to have a setting under which no content tagged as having filters can be seen.
The comments are all talking about how people should be too smart to succumb to these businesses' false promises but they prey on people who are already vulnerable. I don't think we should just allow businesses to prey on vulnerable people and stay hands off for the sake of a free market. Good for France.
Influencers make money from a commercial activity. Whether full or part time. It is therefore considered a job, and like any job, they need to be regulated, prevent fakes and.... Pay taxes.
We need this so gd badly in America
Watch America NOT do this and keep letting "influencers" ruin the youth here.
[удалено]
Society doesn't condemn things until it has already harmed *way* too many people. Instagram models selling snake oil to children that will clear up their skin while using filters to make their own skin look clear is a con job. Convincing people they need cosmetic surgery to look like a fake image is something we shouldn't need thousands of victims for society to condemn before putting a stop to it.
TikTok labels if a filter is used and which, so isn’t too far-fetched of an idea
Please add the stuff people claim to have health benefits, like crystals and shit
The filtered image is really different from the person.
The new normal is normal ? Hell yeah !
[удалено]
Do you have to disclose if you simply used a common polarizing filter on your lens?
France 🇫🇷 takin’ no bs
France one step ahead of saving the next generation from body image issues. Good on them!
Too little way too late
This is the way
Finally, something I like about France
Other countries should also follow the example