logo
In the $250B influencer industry, being a hater can be the only way to rein in bad behavior

In the $250B influencer industry, being a hater can be the only way to rein in bad behavior

Yahoo30-04-2025

Since 2020, content creator Remi Bader had accumulated millions of TikTok followers by offering her opinions on the fits of popular clothing brands as a plus-size woman.
In 2023, however, Bader appeared noticeably thinner. When some fans asked her whether she'd undergone a procedure, she blocked them. Later that year, she announced that she would no longer be posting about her body.
Enter snark subreddits. On Reddit, these forums exist for the sole purpose of calling out internet celebrities, whether they're devoted to dinging the late-night antics of self-described 'hot mess' Alix Earle or venting over Savannah and Cole LaBrant, a family vlogging couple who misleadingly implied that their daughter had cancer.
While the internet is synonymous with fan culture, snark subreddits aren't for enthusiasts. Instead, snarkers are anti-fans who hone the art of hating.
After Bader's refusal to talk about her weight loss, the Remi Bader snark subreddit blew up. Posters weren't upset that Bader had lost weight or had stopped posting about her body size. Instead, they believed Bader the influencer, who'd built her brand on plus-size inclusion in fashion, wasn't being straight with her fans and needed to be taken to account.
It worked. During a March 2025 appearance on Khloe Kardashian's podcast, Bader finally revealed that she had, in fact, had weight-loss surgery.
Some critics see snarkers as a big problem and understandably denounce their tendency to harass, body shame and try to cancel influencers.
But completely dismissing snark glosses over the fact that it can serve a purpose. In our work as social media researchers, we've written about how snark can actually be thought of as a way to call out bad actors in the largely unregulated world of influencing and content creation.
Before there were influencers, there were bloggers. While bloggers covered topics that ranged from entertainment to politics to travel, parenting and fashion bloggers probably have the closest connection to today's influencers.
After Google introduced AdSense in 2003, bloggers were easily able to run advertising on their websites. Then brands saw an opportunity. Parenting and fashion bloggers had large, loyal followings. Many readers felt an intimate connection to their favorite bloggers, who seemed more like friends than out-of-touch celebrity spokespersons.
Brands realized they could send bloggers their products in exchange for a write-up or a feature. Furthermore, advertisers understood that parenting and fashion bloggers didn't have to adhere to the same industry regulations or code of ethics as most news media outlets, such as disclosing payments or conflicts of interest.
This changed the dynamic between bloggers and their fans, who wondered whether bloggers could be trusted if they were sometimes being paid to promote certain products.
In response, websites emerged in 2009 to critique bloggers. 'Get Off My Internets,' for example, fashioned itself as a 'quality control watchdog' to provide constructive criticism and call out deceptive practices. As Instagram and YouTube became more popular, the subreddit 'r/Blogsnark' launched in 2015 to critique early influencers, in addition to bloggers.
Today the influencer industry has a valuation of over US$250 billion in the U.S. alone, and it's on track to be worth over $500 billion by 2027.
Yet there are few regulations in place for influencers. A few laws have emerged to protect child influencers, and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission has established legal guidelines for sponsored content.
That said, the influencing industry remains rife with exploitation.
It goes both ways: Corporations can exploit influencers. For example, a 2021 study found that Black influencers receive below-market offers compared with white influencers.
Likewise, influencers can deceive or exploit their followers. They might use unrealistic body filters to appear thinner than they are. They could hide who's paying them. They may promote health misinformation such as the controversial ParaGuard cleanse, a fake treatment pushed by wellness influencers that claimed to rid its users of parasites.
Or, in the case of Remi Bader, they might gain a huge following by promoting body positivity, only to conceal a weight-loss procedure from their fans.
For disappointed fans or followers who feel burned, snark can seem like the only regulatory guardrail in an industry that has gone largely unchecked. Think of snark as a Better Business Bureau for the untamable world of influencing – a form of accountability that brings attention to the scammers and hustlers.
Todays's snark exists at the intersection of gossip and cancel culture.
Though cancel culture certainly has its faults, we approach cancel culture in our writing as a worthy tool that allows audiences to hold the powerful accountable. For example, communities of color have joined forces to call out racists, as they did in 2024 when they exposed lifestyle influencer Brooke Schofield's anti-Black tweets.
Influencers build trust with their audiences based on being 'real' and relatable. But there's nothing preventing them from breaking that trust, and snarkers can swoop in to point out bad behavior or hypocrisy.
Within the competitive world of family vlogging, snarkers see themselves as doing more than stirring the pot. They're truth-tellers who bring injustices to light, such as abuse and child labor exploitation. Some of this exposure is paying off, with more and more states introducing and passing family vlogger laws that require children to one day receive a portion of their parents' earnings or restrict how often children can appear in their parents' videos.
Yes, snark can veer into cyberbullying. But that shouldn't discount its value as a tool for transparency. Influencers are ultimately brands. They sell audiences ideas, lifestyles and products.
When people feel as if they've been misled, we think they have every right to call it out.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Jessica Maddox, University of Alabama and Jess Rauchberg, Seton Hall University
Read more:
Gossip is a social skill – not a character flaw
US states are finally starting to put in place protections for the kids of family vloggers
With the end of the Hollywood writers and actors strikes, the creator economy is the next frontier for organized labor
Jess Rauchberg receives funding from Microsoft Research.
Jessica Maddox does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Woman Skipping Sister's Wedding Because She Expects Guests to Chip in and Pay for It: 'Charging Admission'
Woman Skipping Sister's Wedding Because She Expects Guests to Chip in and Pay for It: 'Charging Admission'

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Woman Skipping Sister's Wedding Because She Expects Guests to Chip in and Pay for It: 'Charging Admission'

A woman shared on Reddit that her sister is planning her wedding and intends to — as she put it — "charge admission" to the event The bride and groom want their loved ones to chip in and help cover the various costs of the wedding, from the flowers to the catering "They're calling it a 'shared celebration' and acting like it's normal for guests to help fund it," the Redditor wroteA woman was "shocked" to learn about her bride-to-be sister's unconventional wedding scheme. She shared her story in a post on Reddit's "Am I Overreacting" forum, explaining that her older sister and her fiancé plan to charge their guests "admission" to their nuptials. The couple wants their loved ones to contribute to the costs of the celebration — or else they won't be welcomed on the big day. "Instead of just inviting people to celebrate, she and her fiancé decided that every family member needed to pay to attend. Not like buying your own dress or travel (which I'd expect), but actually pitching in for the wedding expenses — things like the catering, flowers, decor and whatever else they've got planned at this fancy hotel venue," the OP (original poster) wrote. "They're calling it a 'shared celebration' and acting like it's normal for guests to help fund it," she added. When her sister informed her of the scheme, she tried to dissuade her — but the bride-to-be was unmoved. "I brought up how uncomfortable it made me and how it felt less like a wedding and more like buying a ticket to a private party. I also gently suggested maybe going with a less expensive wedding if money was that tight, but she completely shut me down," the OP recalled of the "tense" conversation. "She got super defensive, said I wasn't being supportive." When the OP later received her wedding invitation in the mail, a note was included that said "unless I had 'contributed,' I shouldn't come." The OP went on to share why the situation has left her feeling upset and frustrated. "I love my sister, but it felt really wrong to be asked to pay hundreds if not up to a thousand dollars just to be there, especially when I wasn't even asked to be a bridesmaid or anything," she wrote. "Plus, she's not covering hotel rooms, and it's in a super pricey location. I'm still in school, I work part-time, and I just don't have that kind of money to spare." She said her parents are encouraging her to pay her share and show up to her sister's wedding to "keep the peace." But she argued that she shouldn't have to be "guilted" into forking over the money "just to prove I care about my sister." Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer​​, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. So she has decided to stand her ground and not attend the wedding. Seeking advice, the OP asked fellow Redditors if she's "being unreasonable." In the comments section, readers agreed with the OP's stance and said she's justified in not giving in to her sister's demands. "Not Overreacting. Charging an 'admission fee' for a wedding is weird and tacky," one person wrote. "This whole situation sounds incredibly entitled," another commented. "Weddings are personal choices, and expecting guests to shoulder the cost is completely out of line. If someone can't afford a big wedding, a courthouse ceremony is a beautiful, respectful option. No one should be guilt-tripped into going broke for someone else's celebration." Some commenters questioned why the OP's parents and other family members are on board with the sister's plan to charge people to attend. "What is happening in the world that couples expect guests to pay to attend their wedding — the audacity and entitlement. Don't go," one reader said. "This is just wrong, and if family are going along with it, they're just as insane. Imagine if all guests refused to attend? Guess there'd be no wedding. Family are enablers." Another person pointed out that the bride and groom are treating their loved ones as if they are paying "customers," rather than warmly welcomed guests. "If you must pay to attend, you are not a guest, you are a customer," they wrote. "As a customer, I'd want a say in what I ate, where I sat, and maybe even what music was played." Read the original article on People

Woman Labeled 'Pick-Me' for Saying Sister Should Wear 'Sexist' Dress to Rekindle Romance with Husband
Woman Labeled 'Pick-Me' for Saying Sister Should Wear 'Sexist' Dress to Rekindle Romance with Husband

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Woman Labeled 'Pick-Me' for Saying Sister Should Wear 'Sexist' Dress to Rekindle Romance with Husband

A Reddit user is getting hate for supporting her sister's decision to spice up her love life with a revealing dress The sister, Becky, had asked her husband to pick out a dress for her to wear on their next date night — but Becky's friends thought her husband's tastes were "sexist" Becky's sister, on the other hand, figured it wasn't that deep and supported her sister buying the dressA woman is questioning her decision to weigh in on her sister's style. In a post to Reddit's "AITA" forum, a woman recalled a recent shopping trip with her sister Becky and some of their friends. Becky told the group she and her husband were in the "roommate phase," but has been putting in effort to get out of the rut — most recently, she asked her husband to pick out a dress he thought was "sexy," with the intention of her buying it and wearing it to their next date. Becky showed the group the photo her husband sent back, and got a slew of negative reactions. It was a clubbing sort of dress, the woman wrote — a short bodycon number with thin straps, a high slit and a deep neckline. "Like if you Googled 'generic sexy dress,' I bet it would come up," the woman added. The group of friends called her husband's choice "gross and sexist," adding it spoke to his values. Some suggested that Becky's husband thought of her as a "trophy," or that he had a sexist view of women, based on the dress. "I thought this was a huge overreaction. Like ... it's definitely not her style but I didn't think it was THAT bad," the woman said of her sister in the post. "So I told her to just get the dress and stop overthinking it." Just as they condemned the dress, Becky's friends condemned the woman for supporting it. Others in the group called the woman a "pick-me" for not thinking Becky's husband should love her as she is. The woman argued she didn't believe her brother-in-law was trying to change her sister, but the group was adamant. Now, Becky's sister is worried she said the wrong thing — she assumed it was a "support, not solutions" situation, she wrote, but is concerned she approached it incorrectly. Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer​​, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. Users in the comments widely agreed that the group of friends was overreacting, and the woman wasn't wrong. One argued that the dress was more or less a "fantasy," of which the point "is that it's fantastical." "She didn't ask him, 'How do you want me to dress?' She told him, 'Send me an example of a dress that you find sexy,' " one commenter wrote. "He never asked her to dress like that. She took that challenge upon herself. If she's not up to it, then she shouldn't do it, but that's not his fault or yours." Others noted that Becky's husband's suggestion wasn't unprompted — Becky asked for his opinion. One user said her friends should have supported Becky, who seemed to need a boost of confidence to step into the dress more than anything else. "She said she's trying to save her marriage. It's just a dress — as her friend, I would've hyped her up," another wrote. Read the original article on People

As ‘Pretty Little Baby' Goes Viral, Connie Francis Is Joining TikTok
As ‘Pretty Little Baby' Goes Viral, Connie Francis Is Joining TikTok

New York Times

time2 hours ago

  • New York Times

As ‘Pretty Little Baby' Goes Viral, Connie Francis Is Joining TikTok

Sixty-four years ago, Connie Francis recorded 'Pretty Little Baby' as one of dozens of songs in a marathon recording session that yielded three albums within two weeks. It did not, at the time, feel like a song that had the makings of a hit, so it landed on the B-side of the 1962 single 'I'm Gonna Be Warm This Winter' that was released in Britain. Since then, it was more or less overlooked. Then came TikTok and its canny ability to resurrect decades-old songs for a new generation. Over the last few weeks, 'Pretty Little Baby' has been trending on the social media app — it has been featured as the sound in more than 600,000 TikTok posts and soared to top spots in Spotify's Viral 50 global and U.S. lists — bolstered by celebrities and influencers, like Nara Smith, Kylie Jenner, and Kim Kardashian and her daughter North, who have posted videos of themselves lip-syncing to it. The ABBA singer Agnetha Fältskog used the song for a clip on TikTok in which she said Ms. Francis had long been her favorite singer. And the Broadway actress Gracie Lawrence, who is currently playing Ms. Francis in 'Just in Time' — a play about Bobby Darin, Ms. Francis's onetime romantic partner — also posted a video of herself lip-syncing to it, in her 1960s costume and hair. The song's current popularity is an unexpected twist to Ms. Francis's long and illustrious career. In 1960, she became the first female singer to top the Billboard Hot 100 and, by the time she was 26 years old, she had sold 42 million records and had two more singles top the Billboard charts. But this particular song, which she recorded in seven different languages, remained so obscure that Ms. Francis, 87, told People magazine that she had forgotten ever recording it. Amid the frenzy of the unexpected attention, Ms. Francis is trying to figure out how to turn this sudden attention into opportunities for herself. She and her publicist, Ron Roberts, enlisted Mr. Roberts's son to help them set up a TikTok account for her and, in a phone interview on Thursday, she said she had been mulling the idea of emerging from retirement to do some kind of show in the next few months. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store