Scroll, watch, burn: sunscreen misinformation, its real-world damage
'I don't trust this stuff anymore," she said to the camera, holding the bottle up like a piece of damning evidence.
The clip had been viewed over half a million times, with commenters applauding her for 'ditching chemicals" and recommending homemade alternatives like coconut oil and zinc powder.
In my research on the effect of digital technology on health, I've seen how posts like this can shape real-world behaviour. And anecdotally, dermatologists have reported seeing more patients with severe sunburns or suspicious moles who say they stopped using sunscreen after watching similar videos.
Sunscreen misinformation created by social media influencers is spreading and this isn't just a random trend. It's being fuelled by the platforms designed to host influencer content.
In my book, The Digital Health Self, I explain how social media platforms are not neutral arenas for sharing information. They are commercial ecosystems engineered to maximise engagement and time spent online – metrics that directly drive advertising revenue.
Content that sparks emotion – outrage, fear, inspiration – is boosted to the top of your feed. That's why posts questioning or rejecting science often spread further than measured, evidence-based advice.
Each second a user spends watching or reacting gives the platform more data – and more opportunities to serve targeted ads. This is how health misinformation becomes profitable.
In my work, I describe social media platforms as 'unregulated public health platforms". They influence what users see and believe about health, but unlike public health institutions, they're not bound by standards for accuracy or harm reduction.
If an influencer claims sunscreen is toxic, that message won't be factchecked or flagged – it will often be amplified. Why? Because controversy fuels engagement.
I call this environment 'the credibility arena": a space where trust is built not through expertise, but through performance and aesthetic appeal. As I write in my book: 'Trust is earned not by what is known, but by how well one narrates suffering, recovery, and resilience." A creator crying on camera about 'toxins" can feel more authentic to viewers than a calm, clinical explanation of ultraviolet radiation from a medical expert.
This shift has real consequences. Ultraviolet rays are invisible, constant and damaging. They penetrate cloud cover and harm skin even on cool days.
Decades of research, especially in countries like Australia with high skin cancer rates, show that regular use of broad-spectrum sunscreen dramatically reduces risk. And yet, myths spreading online are urging people to do the opposite: to abandon sunscreen as dangerous or unnecessary.
This trend isn't driven solely by individual creators. It's embedded in how content is designed, framed and presented. Algorithms prioritise short, emotionally-charged videos. Interfaces highlight trending sounds and hashtags. Recommendation systems push users toward extreme or dramatic content.
These features all shape what we see and how we interpret it. The 'For You" page isn't neutral. It's engineered to keep you scrolling, and shock value outperforms nuance every time.
That's why videos about 'ditching chemicals" thrive, even as posts on other aspects of women's health are shadowbanned or suppressed. Shadowbanning refers to when a platform limits the visibility of content – making it harder to find, without informing the user – often due to vague or inconsistently applied moderation rules.
The system rewards spectacle, not science. Once creators discover that a particular format, like tossing products into a bin, boosts engagement, it's replicated over and over again. Visibility isn't organic. It's manufactured.
Those who throw away their sunscreen often believe they're doing the right thing. They're drawn to creators who feel relatable, sincere and independent — especially when official health campaigns seem cold, patronising or out of touch. But the consequences can be serious. Sun damage accumulates silently, raising skin cancer risk with every hour spent unprotected.
Sunscreen isn't perfect. It needs to be reapplied properly and paired with shade and protective clothing. But the evidence for its effectiveness is clear and robust.
The real danger lies in a system that not only allows misinformation to spread, but also incentivises it. A system in which false claims can boost an influencer's reach and a platform's revenue.
To resist harmful health trends, we need to understand the systems that promote them. In the case of sunscreen, rejecting protection isn't just a personal decision – it's a symptom of a digital culture that turns health into content, and often profits from the harm it causes. (The Conversation) NSA NSA
First Published:
July 19, 2025, 11:15 IST
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
3 days ago
- News18
A to K of vitamins: what you need, where to get it
Agency: PTI Last Updated: Bristol (UK), Jul 23 (The Conversation) The late, great comedian Barry Humphries (of Dame Edna fame) once spoke whimsically about the health benefits of kale. Just one fistful, he joked, contained enough essential vitamins, minerals and trace elements to keep you in a sedentary position in the bathroom for two whole days. Apparently, it wasn't tasty enough to justify a second helping. In a world where 'superfoods" are relentlessly marketed for their supposed ability to deliver all the nutrients we need, it's worth asking: which vitamins really are essential? And aside from kale (which I actually rather like), what foods help us meet our daily needs? Vitamin A Let's start at the top. Vitamin A – also known as retinol – is found in foods like eggs, oily fish and dairy products. It plays a crucial role in keeping your skin and immune system healthy. But it's probably most famous for supporting vision. Vitamin A binds with light-sensitive pigments in the rod and cone cells of your retina, helping you to see, particularly in low light. A deficiency in vitamin A, though uncommon in wealthy countries, can lead to serious vision problems and even blindness. Another source of vitamin A is beta-carotene, found in colourful fruits and vegetables like carrots, peppers, spinach and pumpkin. Your body converts beta-carotene into vitamin A, which is why we associate carrots with seeing in the dark. Vitamin B The B vitamins are a family of eight different nutrients, each with its own number and role. B1 (thiamin) helps the nervous system and aids digestion. People with chronic alcoholism are especially at risk of deficiency, which can lead to Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, a serious neurological disorder that affects memory and movement. B2 (riboflavin) and B3 (niacin) support similar functions, while B9 (folate) and B12 (cobalamin) are essential for red blood cell production. A lack of either can lead to anaemia. Folate is especially important in early pregnancy, helping to prevent neural tube defects like spina bifida. That's why it's recommended for people who are pregnant or trying to conceive. You'll find B vitamins in everything from beans and legumes to meat, fish and dairy; a wide-ranging family of nutrients in a wide-ranging variety of foods. Vitamin C The go-to vitamin when we're under the weather, whether from a virus or a hangover, vitamin C (ascorbic acid) is known as the 'healing" vitamin for good reason. It promotes wound healing, supports tissue repair and helps maintain blood vessels and bones. A deficiency in vitamin C causes scurvy – a condition once common among sailors – with symptoms like fatigue, bruising, depression and gum disease. Fortunately, vitamin C is found in many different fruits and vegetables, especially citrus fruits. That's why 19th-century British sailors were given limes to prevent scurvy, earning them the nickname 'limeys". Vitamin D Vitamin D is essential for bones, teeth and muscles. It can be absorbed through diet, especially from oily fish, eggs and meat, but your body also makes it in the skin, thanks to sunlight. In the summer, most people get enough vitamin D from being outside. But in the winter months, diet and, if needed, supplementation become more important. Deficiency is more common, especially in areas with limited sun exposure. It can lead to soft, weakened bones and symptoms like bone pain, fractures and deformities – including the classic bow-legged appearance. In children, this condition is known as rickets; in adults, it's called osteomalacia. Vitamin E Often overlooked, vitamin E helps protect cells, supports vision and bolsters the immune system. You'll find it in nuts, seeds and plant oils and it's usually easy to get enough through a varied diet. Vitamin F (Sort of) Not actually a vitamin, 'vitamin F" is just a nickname for two omega fatty acids: alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) and linoleic acid (LA). These essential fats support brain function, reduce inflammation, and help maintain healthy skin and cell membranes. Since they're technically not vitamins, we'll let them quietly bow out. Vitamin K No, you didn't miss vitamins G through J: they were renamed over the years. But vitamin K is real, and crucial for blood clotting. Deficiencies are more common in children, and can lead to bruising and bleeding that's hard to stop. Supplements are effective and given after birth. Most adults get enough through foods like leafy greens and grains. top videos View all And the winner is… All these vitamins are important – and all are found in a wide range of everyday foods. But which single food provides the widest variety? Kale, oily fish and eggs come in strong at second, third and fourth. But number one is: liver. Yes, liver. The stuff of childhood dread and overcooked school dinners. But it's also rich in vitamins A, B, D and K. So rich in Vitamin A, in fact, that it's advised to eat it only once a week to avoid vitamin A toxicity, and not at all if you're pregnant. Sometimes, you just can't win. (The Conversation) NSA NSA (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hans India
4 days ago
- Hans India
Anti-sunscreen social media posts causing real-world damage
Ona sunny afternoon, I was scrolling through social media when I came across a video of a young woman tossing her sunscreen into a bin. 'I don't trust this stuff anymore,' she said to the camera, holding the bottle up like a piece of damning evidence. The clip had been viewed over half a million times, with commenters applauding her for 'ditching chemicals' and recommending homemade alternatives like coconut oil and zinc powder. In my research on the effect of digital technology on health, I've seen how posts like this can shape real-world behaviour. And anecdotally, dermatologists have reported seeing more patients with severe sunburns or suspicious moles, who say they stopped using sunscreen after watching similar videos. Sunscreen misinformation created by social media influencers is spreading and this isn't just a random trend. It's being fuelled by the platforms designed to host influencer content. In my book, 'The Digital Health Self', I explain how social media platforms are not neutral when it comes to sharing information. They are commercial ecosystems engineered to maximise engagement and time spent online – metrics that directly drive advertising revenue. Content that sparks emotion – outrage, fear, inspiration – is boosted to the top of your feed. That's why posts questioning or rejecting science often spread further than measured, evidence-based advice. Health misinformation thrives in this environment. A personal story about throwing out sunscreen performs well because it's dramatic and emotionally charged. Algorithms reward such content with higher visibility-likes, shares and comments all signal popularity. Each second a user spends watching or reacting gives the platform more data – and more opportunities to serve targeted ads. This is how health misinformation becomes profitable. In my work, I describe social media platforms as 'unregulated public health platforms'. They influence what users see and believe about health, but unlike public health institutions, they're not bound by standards for accuracy or harm reduction. I call this environment 'the credibility arena': a space where trust is built not through expertise, but through performance and aesthetic appeal. A creator crying on camera about 'toxins' can feel more authentic to viewers than a calm, clinical explanation of ultraviolet radiation from a medical expert. This shift has real consequences. Ultraviolet rays are invisible, constant and damaging. They penetrate cloud cover and harm skin even on cool days. Decades of research, especially in countries like Australia with high skin cancer rates, show that regular use of broad-spectrum sunscreen dramatically reduces risk. And yet, myths spreading online are urging people to do the opposite: to abandon sunscreen as dangerous or unnecessary. The 'For You' page isn't neutral either. It's engineered to keep you scrolling, and shock value outperforms nuance every time. That's why videos about 'ditching chemicals' thrive, even as posts on other aspects of women's health are shadow banned or suppressed. Shadow banning refers to when a platform limits the visibility of content – making it harder to find, without informing the user – often due to vague or inconsistently applied moderation rules. The system rewards spectacle, not science. Once creators discover that a particular format, like tossing products into a bin, boosts engagement, it gets replicated. Visibility isn't organic. Sunscreen isn't perfect. In the case of sunscreen, rejecting protection isn't just a personal decision – it's a symptom of a digital culture that turns health into content, and often profits from the harm it causes. (The writer is associated with King's College London)
Indian Express
6 days ago
- Indian Express
Scroll, watch, burn: sunscreen misinformation, its real-world damage
By Rachael Kent On a sunny afternoon, I was scrolling through social media when I came across a video of a young woman tossing her sunscreen into a bin. 'I don't trust this stuff anymore,' she said to the camera, holding the bottle up like a piece of damning evidence. The clip had been viewed over half a million times, with commenters applauding her for 'ditching chemicals' and recommending homemade alternatives like coconut oil and zinc powder. In my research on the effect of digital technology on health, I've seen how posts like this can shape real-world behaviour. And anecdotally, dermatologists have reported seeing more patients with severe sunburns or suspicious moles who say they stopped using sunscreen after watching similar videos. Sunscreen misinformation created by social media influencers is spreading and this isn't just a random trend. It's being fuelled by the platforms designed to host influencer content. In my book, The Digital Health Self, I explain how social media platforms are not neutral arenas for sharing information. They are commercial ecosystems engineered to maximise engagement and time spent online – metrics that directly drive advertising revenue. Content that sparks emotion – outrage, fear, inspiration – is boosted to the top of your feed. That's why posts questioning or rejecting science often spread further than measured, evidence-based advice. Health misinformation thrives in this environment. A personal story about throwing out sunscreen performs well because it's dramatic and emotionally charged. Algorithms reward such content with higher visibility: likes, shares and comments all signal popularity. Each second a user spends watching or reacting gives the platform more data – and more opportunities to serve targeted ads. This is how health misinformation becomes profitable. In my work, I describe social media platforms as 'unregulated public health platforms'. They influence what users see and believe about health, but unlike public health institutions, they're not bound by standards for accuracy or harm reduction. If an influencer claims sunscreen is toxic, that message won't be factchecked or flagged – it will often be amplified. Why? Because controversy fuels engagement. I call this environment 'the credibility arena': a space where trust is built not through expertise, but through performance and aesthetic appeal. As I write in my book: 'Trust is earned not by what is known, but by how well one narrates suffering, recovery, and resilience.' A creator crying on camera about 'toxins' can feel more authentic to viewers than a calm, clinical explanation of ultraviolet radiation from a medical expert. This shift has real consequences. Ultraviolet rays are invisible, constant and damaging. They penetrate cloud cover and harm skin even on cool days. Decades of research, especially in countries like Australia with high skin cancer rates, show that regular use of broad-spectrum sunscreen dramatically reduces risk. And yet, myths spreading online are urging people to do the opposite: to abandon sunscreen as dangerous or unnecessary. This trend isn't driven solely by individual creators. It's embedded in how content is designed, framed and presented. Algorithms prioritise short, emotionally-charged videos. Interfaces highlight trending sounds and hashtags. Recommendation systems push users toward extreme or dramatic content. These features all shape what we see and how we interpret it. The 'For You' page isn't neutral. It's engineered to keep you scrolling, and shock value outperforms nuance every time. That's why videos about 'ditching chemicals' thrive, even as posts on other aspects of women's health are shadowbanned or suppressed. Shadowbanning refers to when a platform limits the visibility of content – making it harder to find, without informing the user – often due to vague or inconsistently applied moderation rules. The system rewards spectacle, not science. Once creators discover that a particular format, like tossing products into a bin, boosts engagement, it's replicated over and over again. Visibility isn't organic. It's manufactured. Those who throw away their sunscreen often believe they're doing the right thing. They're drawn to creators who feel relatable, sincere and independent — especially when official health campaigns seem cold, patronising or out of touch. But the consequences can be serious. Sun damage accumulates silently, raising skin cancer risk with every hour spent unprotected. Sunscreen isn't perfect. It needs to be reapplied properly and paired with shade and protective clothing. But the evidence for its effectiveness is clear and robust. The real danger lies in a system that not only allows misinformation to spread, but also incentivises it. A system in which false claims can boost an influencer's reach and a platform's revenue. To resist harmful health trends, we need to understand the systems that promote them. In the case of sunscreen, rejecting protection isn't just a personal decision – it's a symptom of a digital culture that turns health into content, and often profits from the harm it causes.
