AR filters were first introduced to social media by the app Snapchat in September 2015 and called “Snapchat Lenses” (Inde, 2023). It was especially a hit among netizens when Lense Studios was released in late 2017 – allowing users to create custom AR filters (Inde, 2023). The pioneering technology took social media by storm with other platforms soon following suit. For the first time, you could not just do what you wanted on the platforms, you could be whoever you wanted to be. At the touch of a fingertip, users can perfect their skin, change their hair or eye colour, or even shift into an animated character. Although marketed as fun, researchers and psychologists ask: Do AR filters distort our perception of ourselves? (Javornik et al., 2021)
Studies show that they can. Arata (2016) highlights the discussions surrounding Snapchat filters usage and its effects on self-esteem. Psychologists even nicknamed this phenomenon “Snapchat dysmorphia wherein people undergo cosmetic surgeries to look as close as possible to the filtered versions of themselves (Brucculieri, 2018). These effects are seen most prominently in adolescents (Habib et al., 2022), who are still shaping their identity, leaving them more susceptible to the pressures of unconventional beauty standards.
Social media companies have responded with various mixed approaches. In 2019, Instagram’s parent company, Meta, responded by re-evaluating their policies and introducing bans on filters promoting plastic surgeries (BBC News, 2019). Snapchat on the other hand, launched the Snap’s Council for Digital Well-Being made up of teenagers (SNAP Council for Digital Wellbeing, n.d.). According to their website, this initiative was launched to receive direct feedback from the younger demographic across the world about their experiences online. Still, filters remain a key factor for user-engagement creating tension between user well-being and corporate goals.
In my opinion, AR filters as is are not the problem. When used as a means for self-expression, such as using background effects or funny distortions, they contribute to the expansion of digital creativity. It is when they enforce and influence an unrealistic and unattainable paragon of beauty that it can quickly turn psychologically harmful. The GDPR in the context of EU data privacy laws adds a compelling thought: while these strong policies limit data exploitation (Steindl, 2023), they do not address the impact of immersive technologies on the psychological well-being of users. Perhaps AR filters play a role deeper than just entertainment – a product with noticeable effects on mental health. This raises the question: Should AR beauty filters and their use be regulated to protect young users or does the responsibility lie on the hands of individuals to use them mindfully?
References:
Arata, E. (2016b, August 1). The unexpected reason Snapchat’s “Pretty” filters hurt your Self-Esteem. Elite Daily. https://www.elitedaily.com/wellness/snapchat-filters-self-esteem/1570236
BBC News. (2019b, October 23). Instagram bans “cosmetic surgery” filters. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50152053
Brucculieri, J. (2018b, February 22). “Snapchat dysmorphia” points to a troubling new trend in plastic surgery. HuffPost. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/snapchat-dysmorphia_n_5a8d8168e4b0273053a680f6
Habib, A., Ali, T., Nazir, Z., & Mahfooz, A. (2022b). Snapchat filters changing young women’s attitudes. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2022.104668
Inde, T. (2023c, May 26). The brief history of Social Media Augmented Reality Filters — INDE – the leading augmented reality agency. INDE – the Leading Augmented Reality Agency. https://www.indestry.com/blog/the-brief-history-of-social-media-ar-filters
Javornik, A., Marder, B., Pizzetti, M., & Warlop, L. (2021b, December 22). Research: How AR Filters Impact People’s Self-Image. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/12/research-how-ar-filters-impact-peoples-self-image
SNAP Council for Digital Wellbeing. (n.d.-b). https://values.snap.com/safety/cdwb
Steindl, E. (2023). Safeguarding privacy and efficacy in e-mental health: policy options in the EU and Australia. International Data Privacy Law, 13(3), 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipad009
