media namedropping eating disorder spaces
A while ago, during my blog hiatus, I came across an article in a popular and reputable (online) magazine that shed light on the disordered eating displayed by certain corners of social media and some influencers, and how their content and group chats are essentially encouraging each other to starve. It was pro-ana content.
And sure, I have seen this strategy countless times before: Report on it while naming and shaming, therefore increasing pressure on the tech companies behind the social media site to take action against that content. It has been successful so many times to get Meta and others to take down all kinds of content (about drugs, non-consensual deepfake porn, election misinformation and more). I just think the decision should be carefully considered each time and for eating disorder content, it’s not worth it. Not to mention that Meta has been reacting less and less to this type of journalistic pressure because they know they can get away with it and are running on a “free speech/no censorship” kind of train now.
Objectively, you’d think “Oh, it doesn’t matter, the few that will seek it out are nothing against the number that will come across it if it’s not taken down, which this article probably will!” but it assumes they even will take it down, and it assumes that you can take these communities down at all. Yes, Meta or TikTok can ban individual accounts, or disable subscription opions for these influencers, but they always pop back up with second accounts. The articles also always mention the specific name of communities and specific hashtags that are not restricted, and once you click on or even follow those accounts, the damage is done, even if Meta or TikTok restrict hashtags. It alters people’s algorithm when they go looking for it, so they’ll start getting it suggested anyway. If one hashtag is restricted, they’ll get creative escaping the letters anyway and a new one is used. Even though the piece did get an account restricted and functionally demonetized, the content is still there.
It’s difficult to explain to non-disordered people, but so many people come across this type of stuff thanks to journalists and YouTubers and dig in because of entertainment, curiosity, or “I just wanna lose a few pounds, that’s not bad, maybe the community can motivate me and give me good tips, I won’t get sick like them though.” but then they do get stuck in it. It’s “I’ll only check because it’s so weird.” “I only check for the drama.” “I only consume that content ironically.” “Just keeping up with some interesting people in the community.” until you literally can’t go without that content and it warps your own thinking and self-perception. It’s addictive and weirdly comforting.
It doesn’t have to happen every time, of course; seeing pro-ana content on Tumblr as a teen didn’t phase me at all, for some reason. I was just able to ignore it with no effect. But I did get me in 2020, over the silliest path possible: I was reading a news article where a tweet was linked, I clicked on it to see the profile and aside from normal tweets they also retweeted ed content. I checked that out because I was curious, and that plus a pandemic and lockdown is all it took to manifest in my head. The endless physical issues with food that I had thanks to undiagnosed Crohn’s disease aided in that.
It’s easy to say “If you don’t like it don’t click it or go looking for it”, harder to do in practice, because as if you have never kept reading or looking at something that was ultimately harmful but also in that moment, intriguing and weird? Have you never ended up in an odd internet rabbit hole? It’s like how others get addicted to snark pages. Not to mention that you get this particular stuff forced down your throat right now everywhere with the rise of Ozempic etc.? A ton of lifestyle, fitness, health and wellness content online is now actually extreme orthorexia content.
So no, I don’t think naming names, accounts, hashtags, calories numbers, weights, and methods and all that does any good, but they keep doing it and cause an influx of new members in these communities each time. Report the content, write articles in a more vague way, censor names. Your video about “Oh my god look at what these disordered people are posting! So mean and fatphobic!” is not worth the damage you’re doing. There’s like multiple TikToks or so a week that are like “Bullying the people of (community) by telling them they’re fat!” but all they do is lead people to (community).
It has nothing to do with education either. There is plenty of educational content about eating disorders and recovery out there and you can leave that to them. No linking to triggering content will heal anyone or make them immune to that stuff.
It broke my heart when the author of the article I read admitted that she had a history of disordered eating, still pursued writing and researching that story, and ended up relapsing because of it despite almost 10 years of therapy. Yes, she was stupid for doing that, but it also shows what this type of content will do. She didn’t draw a boundary for herself and now her article also draws thousands of eyes to this content and make not just her but also other people sick or relapse. She even detailed how exactly her behavior changed and what she swapped for what, which also: you should know better than let that competitive, performative part speak. At least your editor should have removed it.
Where are the ethical reporting guidelines for this?
Reply via email
Published 14 Jun, 2025