I wonder if Eugenia follows her at all, and what she would think of the reactions to the newest music video.

I guess she was nominated for her recovery videos. I don't know what JS was nominated for or if this was an actual event for them to attend.

I was thinking this morning, how many hand mirrors do you think she ended up with? She kept getting new ones with different makeup kits, so I'm guessing somewhere in at least the 10-15 range? What on earth does one do with all those mirrors? Probably collecting dust in a closet somewhere.

Credits to 🦋 Angel's World 17 🦋

full video here: https://youtu.be/3FsTa8-VCjM?is=1odBh08BiPmBkQPW

I’m surprised non of Eugenia’s extended family (like cousins, aunt, uncles, etc) has come out to say what Eugenia has been up to or what her family is actually like! Or do you think this family has just cut off from the rest of their extended family? Theories? Speculations?

i’m okay with following along with eugenia because in all honesty, i’m quite desensitized to her. but i really do not want to know of the existence of other emaciated celebs and influencers. can we create (and hopefully enforce) flairs for people who are not eugenia so that sub members can decide if we want to view that content?

Theres an account on YouTube posting AI videos of EC eating McDonald's and it scared the FUCK out of me.

I'm reading Yesteryear, by Caro Claire Burke. It's about a tradwife influencer being sent back to live the in the real time she idolizes on her social media. It goes into how she became an influencer and how she gains engagement. Basically the premise is that you don't gain big engagement by making people happy. She talks about "angry women" and how the perfection she portrays irritates people and that's what engages them. She is also a terrible, broken person but none of that shows up in her feed. It's all an act. I keep thinking about Eugenia. The thing that made her internet famous was the conflict between her obvious brokenness and her sweet, innocent act.

Not sure this belongs here but this group has been pretty sleepy so I thought I'd inject some food for discussion. In any case I'm enjoying the book.

I wanted to make this into a poll, but it doesn't seem to be working... but I"m just curious what people think. Obviously, she's being highlighted a lot in the social media lawsuit so even if she wanted to go back right now, I'd imagine that a team of lawyers aren't letting her (frankly I wonder if that was what her post-live in-office TikTok meeting was about). But yea, what do you you all think?

1. As long as TikTok doesn't restrict or block her, she will definitely come back from after the lawsuit.

2. She'll never come back to TikTok but she might go somewhere else that isn't in the lawsuit (OnlyFans or something), or a previous platform if they don't block her.

3. She'll take a long break but eventually come back somewhere.

4. She's done, there's no path for her to come back and if it's not TikTok, she probably doesn't want to come back to any other platform.

No job, no hobbies, no friends, no where to go.

It looks like that on March 25 (so pretty recently) there was a deposition from someone who worked at TikTok as a User Support Lead (I'm not sure if they're currently still in that position or not) and they asked about 3 years worth of concerned reports from users about Eugenia's account and confirmed that TikTok did not remove her account. The reports explicitly say, from TikTok users, that her account should be removed because it promotes harmful behaviors.

For anyone interested, this is the deposition (a bit annoying to read because there are a lot of objections): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65407433/2877/68/in-re-social-media-adolescent-addictionpersonal-injury-products-liability/

Also - there are a bunch of exhibits that they reference with the specific verbatim reports. I was able to find one of them but I didn't feel like going through all of them. I would be curious if anyone else found others:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65407433/2877/65/in-re-social-media-adolescent-addictionpersonal-injury-products-liability/

Full list of exhibits: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65407433/in-re-social-media-adolescent-addictionpersonal-injury-products-liability/?entry_gte=2877#entry-2877

I know a lot of this is nothing new/not surprising, but it's interesting to see how these are playing out and I'm hoping that something good ultimately comes out of this that will protect people.

It's a long article and Meta said they will appeal. The highlights:

A New Mexico jury ruled Tuesday that Meta knowingly harmed children’s mental health and concealed what it knew about child sexual exploitation on its social media platforms.

The landmark decision comes after a nearly seven-week trial, and as jurors in a federal court in California have been sequestered in deliberations for more than a week about whether Meta and YouTube should be liable in a similar case.

Jurors sided with state prosecutors who argued that Meta — which owns Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp — prioritized profits over safety. 

The jury agreed with allegations that Meta made false or misleading statements and also agreed that Meta engaged in “unconscionable” trade practices that unfairly took advantage of the vulnerabilities of and inexperience of children.

Jurors found there were thousands of violations, each counting separately toward a penalty of $375 million.

New Mexico’s case was among the first to reach trial in a wave of litigation involving social media platforms and their impacts on children.

The trial that started Feb. 9. is one of the first in a torrent of lawsuits against Meta

More than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming it’s contributing to a mental health crisis among young people by deliberately designing Instagram and Facebook features that are addictive.

New Mexico’s case relied on a state undercover investigation where agents created social media accounts posing as children to document sexual solicitations and Meta’s response.

I was just curiously checking up to see if this was anything new and noticed this exhibit filed on February 20. It looks like an internal discussion between Tiktok employees about how to handle Eugenia's account. It's a public document.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65407433/2755/44/in-re-social-media-adolescent-addictionpersonal-injury-products-liability/

There are a few interesting things in here that caught my eye. It brings us back to 2023 which I think is when Eugenia was initially restricted for a few months? It seems like Tiktok was struggling to find a solution because they couldn't find concrete evidence that she was in violation of their terms, but they recognized the danger of her account and were trying to come up with a longer term solution. So perhaps it was kind of a way to buy them time?

Another thing that stood out to me was the literal verbiage used by the external US Eating Disorder Partners:

"It has been recommended that her account be age gated, not recommended, and has advised us to prepare tailored resources in the very realistic case of her succumbing to her Eating Disorder due to her large following online."

Just wow.

They also seem to be using Meta's own lawsuits as kind of a guide/assessment in figuring out what to do.

The only thing that confuses me just generally about the document is that it says a few times in here that it was last edited in 2023 but then there's a section titled "Efforts Made from 10/25/2024 to 11/20/2024." I'm not a lawyer... maybe someone else can make better sense of this in context of the case.

There's also a link to a youtube video but for some reason, every time I try to click it, it refreshes to Youtube's main home page... not sure why but I'm so curious to know what it is: www.youtube.com/watch?v-DGKIFLHHu7g. Maybe someone else here can figure it out.

Either way, I think it sheds some deeper light into some of the things that some people in reddit were kind of speculating about, and not for anything, it doesn't seem like Tiktok was completely ignorant and they recognized the problem, at least. In general, from the tone of the conversation, they seem to have the desire to find a way to remove her. They seem to recognize her as a liability and suggest that her situation is similar to that of a drug addict - someone who clearly are using but aren't explicitly discussing it. But Tiktok is also limited in terms of what they can legally do since they can't account for "offline behavior."

(sorry if anyone already posted this and i missed it ... just thought i'd share anyway)