Content Warning: discussion of eating disorders and body image

Social Media influencers have entered the stratosphere and firmly taken root. It can be incredibly difficult to avoid the products and platforms of these media personalities. Thrusting them further into the public consciousness creates the potential for advertisement. Mass producing clothing companies, Flat Stomach supplements and hand-drawn stickers are cohabiting on the internet, and can probably be found somewhere on your timelines by even the most unsuspecting supporters. From your secondary school lab partner who models the contents of her wardrobe to the Love Island stars shooting content in Dubai – there is little room to avoid the Social Media Influencer. A scroll through Instagram finds Love Island winner Amber Gill promoting FourNine Beauty from the UAE in January 2021, one of many adverts displayed on her profile.

Admittedly it is the very definition of an influencer’s job to influence, to encourage, to promote. The influencer raises profits and awareness. To a certain degree, their name or their face or their product does have to be seen, to be discussed, to be reposted and complained about. The extent of this public depiction is in question, particularly if it is inauthentic. Instagram feeds across multiple demographics have the potential to be reached by false, potentially toxic images. 

People of all ages can prove impressionable and can experience body dysmorphia. It is not simply teenage girls who wish to look like supermodels, or young men who seek to make implausible gains in the gym. A report from the Mental Health Foundation in 2019 found one in four young people aged 18-24 comment on their inability to cope as a consequence of pressures on their body image, on maintaining appearances.  This affects not only young adults; influencing can reach someone of any age and gender, and have a profound, sometimes devastating, impact.

First and foremost, the images captured are of an isolated moment in time. Each shot may be one of dozens, carefully constructed with the optimum light and angles. Somebody external might be behind the photographs. Essentially, the pictures are composed for a purpose. In taking individual photos, one might find luck and be immediately happy. This is ultimately rare. Several attempts are usually taken, angles assumed, clothing adjusted. Even then, one might go on to delete every single photo. 

This is without even considering digital alterations. These can manifest in several ways. Common culprits largely include adjustments to skin tone and colour, muscle definition or augmentation, altering proportions, and the slimming of body parts, often the waist, legs, face and arms. Resizing can regularly be identified around the chest, hips and rear. These attributes may also be changed with implants and other injected fillers or steroids. The original body is always modified in a way that, if not properly disclosed, offers consumers a warped perception of how that body was attained. 

Any hard-work the celebrity has undertaken is not being questioned. The focus is not on their decision to make these edits, though indirect criticisms might arise. People are at liberty to present their best self to the internet. Sharing a photo from the gym, for example, gives the impression that one’s body has been sculpted authentically. Displaying muscles that have been defined in an app, or a waist that has not been slimmed entirely by the trainer being advertised is a distortion of reality. People might be enticed to purchase these gym memberships and pieces of equipment for the purpose of looking similar, but by omission are being lied to about how such tools achieved these results. 

Influencers are making money by selling a product. For this to be fairly bought into and appreciated, it seems logical that they sell honestly. The cynic might argue that people ought to recognise the disparity and the falsity. Comparisons, however, are an innately human fact. People constantly compare themselves to others, compare what they have, what they desire. This is a constant cycle, one in which sense and perspective often does not factor. Anybody can fall prey to this, celebrities included. 

Myself and my peers are regularly affected by this, and the hold influencers seemingly have. I have little doubt that, on a more personal scale, my own years-long struggle against diagnosed eating disorders has been heightened directly by the presence of false narratives on social media. Seeing isolated dream bodies and hearing celebrities achieving them by promoting specific diets and exercise programs that are not at all applicable to their own situations can cause lasting heartache and strain. Aspiring to be physically healthy is entirely possible, but it is unfair to strive for a dream body when it is an unattainable aspiration. 

The Digitally Altered Body Image Bill is the brainchild of Conservative Member of Parliament for Bosworth, Dr. Luke Evans. It would require advertisers and broadcasters to specify when the human body has been edited for commercial settings. This would be akin to the UK Code of Non-Broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (The CAP Code), which applies to content creators who have been paid or directed to publicise specific products. Failure to disclose these transactions as #ADs can result in severe consequences. Evans’ bill would place body altering on par with the requirements and repercussions of The CAP Code. 

Influencers are human, and have the right to cultivate their content and build their brand as a career. However, such a bill would be beneficial to many, particularly impressionable young people on the internet like myself. It might not rectify or circumvent all damage, but it could prove a pivotal aid in challenging the pressure of trying to replicate something painfully impossible.  

If you enjoyed this, you can read more from Comment here:

Universal Dyslexia Screening with Matt Hancock

‘Partygate’: Can the Government Really Regain Our Trust?

Homelessness: A Seasonal Crisis