264
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2025
264 points (100.0% liked)
World News
48976 readers
2003 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That's good news.
Can we also ban ads with obese people in them, too?
There are two ends to the unhealthy weight spectrum, so it's not right that only one is being targeted.
False equivalence.
Obese is not a fashion standard people pursue, being extremely thin is.
It is not just about being unhealthy, it's about not setting unhealthy standards.
I strongly disagree.
Standard people want to look healthy, fit, and maybe have some muscle. You know, the stuff that the majority would say brings sex appeal.
But nobody wants to look like a sad, malnourished bonerack, unless they have an eating disorder. I'd argue that most people find the look of gauntness, protruding bones, no muscle, etc. to be unflattering and quite disgusting. There are probably studies on this, I haven't looked.
The issue is that the fashion industry seems to like this look, and people with eating disorders find validation in that. It is a terrible cycle, no denying that.
That does beg the question, though: why not set the standard by having fit people wear your clothing? Why malnourished and sickly? Only a tiny fraction of the population has an eating disorder that causes them to be underweight, and I doubt very much that these companies are making all their profits off them.
I agree, which is why we should not be normalizing obesity, one of the top causes of death and morbidity, in advertisements. This isn't an opinion, I already linked a study showing that ads, even when intended to be positive, negatively affect obese people due to the normalization of this unhealthy standard.
That is more common than you are probably aware of. Of course they don't see it that way, they only see themselves as too big, even when they are far from it.
Unfortunately many clothes designers prefer models that are basically clothes racks. This is AFAIK the reason the standards have become so unhealthy they need to be regulated.
There are plenty horror stories about fashion houses that pressure their models to lose weight, and even provide drugs to endure not eating, despite they are already underweight. So there is 100% a widespread unhealthy attitude towards weight in the fashion industry, that needs to be regulated. The same is not the case for being fat that I have ever heard about.
Absolutely, but there also needs to be the possibility for clothes brands that specialize in clothing for "big" people to show their products in a reasonable way.
It can be very difficult for both overweight and even just tall women to find clothes that fit well. I don't think banning advertising that helps anybody.
It's very obviously not either a fashion or beauty ideal.
This is not normally nearly as much a problem for thin people. Although it can be for very small women too, I've heard of some that have to buy clothes and shoes for Children.
In fairness, the fashion industry is a circus, almost literally. The stuff you see on the runway is so ridiculous that they might as well simply be costumes and not clothes. And the models, while they do suffer real consequences, are forced to have an unhealthy look to fit the character they play in this circus.
I would much rather see positive education into how to actually be fit and healthy, so that teens have no reason to look at these circus performers as a template.
Absolutely. The reality is, people come in all different shapes and sizes, so there's a realistic expectation that they'll still need to buy clothes. But the normalization of super heavy (or super skinny) needs to go away.
The fashion industry is so much more than just the "circus" you mention. That is just the top of the iceberg. These standards have also spread to more common fashion, advertising clothes for ordinary people.
If there's a method for that, that actually works, that would be great.
No doubt.
First, block and avoid ads. They are poison to the mind. Dropping social media is also strongly suggested.
It's hard to not fall prey to marketing companies if ads surround you on a daily basis, and I can't honestly imagine how difficult it must be for any teen who uses the internet or apps unfiltered. It's a losing battle if those influences aren't dealt with first.
I have all ads blocked, I never see ads in my everyday life, not on TV, not on my phone or on my computer, and not on radio. I'm personally 99.9% ad free.
But the only reason that's possible, is because we are a tiny minority, probably about 90% of people don't care enough or don't know how to get around the advertising.
To do that for everybody would be a major shift for society, that is not possible to do without a strong legal framework to achieve it, something that is not at all realistic in the current political situation in any place in the world.
So I think for now, the best we can do, is to regulate very thin models in the situation we are debating here.
Bad comparision since the obese look is not something that young people strife for when they see an ad showing an obese person.
Normalising obesity makes it seem like less of a problem. It should not be normal to be so unhealthy that one is obese, let alone nearly half the country.
But I know that absolutely nothing will be done to improve the quality of life for people by our current government, and quality of life is a big factor in obesity as food is an easy comfort. So even if obese people were no longer shown in adverts etc, it would only mean that obese models and actors would get fewer roles.
Do you have any examples of ads that you would be in favor of banning?
Honestly, no, because I block all ads... and have no reason to see fashion ads at all.
Buy if I recall correctly, there have been several beauty brands that have overweight models and then frame it as "perfect" or something like that.
Like like with malnurished models, promoting obesity as "perfect" is damaging to anyone influenced by the marketing, especially teens.
I get their inclusion and body positivity mission, but neither obesity or severe malnutrition should be promoted as anything but unhealthy.
Do you have any evidence that people are striving to be obese because of these adverts? I'd rather not have people call for laws based on vibes. Especially your shitty vibes.
Yes, there is evidence. For example, this paper from 2015.
I wouldn't say they are "striving" to be obese, but conceding to an unhealthy weight is objectively just as bad.
So no, then
No to "striving to be obese", yes to "being ok with staying obese."
Does that matter if the end result is people still being unhealthy because of the messaging in these ads?
Well the law in question here wasn't made because ads were normalising being a skeleton. The law was made because people were starving themselves on purpose to become like that. The adverts set an unrealistic beauty standard and women were becoming malnourished trying to reach it. So yes it matters. It's literally why the law was created years ago.
Making an argument about "normalising" unhealthiness is a whole other ball game.
Someone who sees a bonerack and says "I want to be like them!" has an eating disorder (less than 2% of teens are anorexic). We can go after the ads to protect this segment of the population, but ads don't turn healthy people into malnourished skin bags, because healthy people view it as disgusting and unhealthy.
Consider that being dangerously underweight is almost unheard of in modern society outside of eating disorders, but obesity is extremely common and getting worse (over 22% of teens, according to the CDC).
Even the NIH makes almost no mention of being underweight as being a problem in any age group, and they also show a disturbing trend in obesity, even among kids and teens. (SOURCE)
In my opinion, these ads create the same level of harm for someone who is obese, sees a body positivity ad that normalizes obesity, and says "See, I'm perfect the way I am!", and continues with unhealthy lifestyle choices because of that (as the studies suggest).
Look, I'm bias, I hate ads. I would love to see all forms of harmful ads being banned. Including promoting undereating, overeating, gambling, driving cars, drinking, smoking, weed, religion, and medication.
Ads are designed to manipulate people, and they are especially dangerous when they target vulnerable demographics (like teenage women or the obese), so laws should be put in place to protect people. In addition, I encourage everyone to preserve their mental health and defend against these marketing companies by blocking any and all ads.
Yes the law is because of those eating disorders. Here's the report that led to it https://www.britishfashioncouncil.co.uk/uploads/files/1/The%20Report%20of%20the%20Model%20Health%20Inquiry,%20September%202007.pdf
I'd agree if you were arguing about banning all unhealthy behaviours in ads, that's a better comparison and where this sort of argument belongs. I don't think fat people need to be brought into it in this case though, this law is about the fashion industry encouraging eating disorders.
What the hell is this conclusion in the report? Their own data shows "quite heavy pressure" as 10% and "very heavy pressure" as literally 0%:
The overwhelming majority says there's "no pressure at all." With such a glaring error that is clearly just written to support their position despite their data contradicting it, this report becomes completely useless.
The report opens with a bold statement:
Oh no! Good thing we have this report to get their voices heard! What do they have to say?
I see. The purpose of the report was never to make their voices heard.
Omg stop
I'm for that.
Per the paper I linked a few replies back, it's completely relevant and urgent to bring fat people into this, because there is real harm in the messaging they receive, and it's having even greater real-world consequences (due to the greater number of people impacted).
The fashion industry does need to be addressed. But I also think that people forget that fashion models also victims. The whole thing is awful.
While one might struggle to find evidence that people are striving to become obese due to these ads, I think, these ads normalize (or at least, try to normalize) obesity which might lead to obese people not wanting to seek help (medical or otherwise) or might even discourage obese people from trying a healthier lifestyle.
The reason we target advertisements in this way is because they're saying "this is what you need to look like" which encourages young women to starve themselves as they strive to be size 4. This is a separate issue to merely "normalising" things. If you're concerned with normalisation of obesity, why are you focusing on adverts and not, say, The Simpsons or Family Guy?