Mediastreet
Tag

Instagram

Browsing
In News

Instagram is making it harder for AI-generated personas to pass themselves off as real people

No Comments

By Rob Thubron

Unlabelled AI profiles could also have their reach restricted

In a nutshell: There’s a huge number of accounts on Instagram that feature AI-generated characters, but identifying these as non-human isn’t always that simple. As such, the social media giant is changing its current “AI creator” label to the clearer “AI generated profile.” It will also limit the reach of any of these accounts that don’t use this designation.

It’s not just AI-generated slop content sweeping across Instagram these days. There are also countless personas that are entirely AI-generated – many of which appear to be influencer-style accounts – and not all of them make it clear that the person isn’t real.

Instagram previously allowed creators of these accounts to add an “AI creator” label, but it was optional and could still suggest that the persona is a real human who simply “creates” with AI.

The new “AI-generated profile” label is a lot clearer, and should help the many men who engage with AI-generated women on the site understand they’re not real.

Being optional means some account creators won’t add the disclaimer to their AI personas, of course. Instagram says that if it detects an unlabelled AI account in these cases, the account’s reach will be limited. That means non-followers won’t see the posts as recommendations in the Explore section or in Reels.

A lot of these personas are essentially influencers, selling products for legitimate brands. There are no specific rules requiring brands to tell consumers when advertising content has been created using AI, and many companies would rather go down this route than pay a real person to advertise their goods – they tend to be very defensive when they’re called out, too.

Instagram said it introduced the changes because its users “don’t like seeing a profile that seems human, only to find out later that the person featured is AI-generated.”

Unfortunately, Instagram is pretty specific about this applying only to profiles featuring an AI-generated person rather than a human. This won’t apply to the seemingly millions of accounts that pump out AI-generated content all day, every day, which Instagram pleasantly describes as “creators who simply use AI tools as part of their creative process.”

That type of AI content can still be labelled separately, though Meta’s system is hardly fool proof. Across Instagram, Facebook and Threads, the company adds an “AI info” label when an image, video, or piece of audio contains technical signals showing it was generated using AI, or when the uploader admits it. If AI was only used to edit something, the label is hidden in the post’s menu, while photorealistic images made using Meta AI are marked “Imagined with AI.”

Ultimately, both systems still depend on Meta detecting the content or the person behind an account being honest enough to label it themselves. The company admits that the technical markers it relies on can be removed, so it seems unlikely that every fake influencer is suddenly going to announce itself. But making these accounts easier to identify – and harder to push in front of unsuspecting users – is at least a start. Even if it won’t stop thousands of men from asking a collection of pixels whether she’s single.

By Rob Thubron

Sourced from Techspot

Read More
By
In News

Instagram Is Cracking Down On AI Slop In The Only Way That Matters

No Comments

By John Brandon

Reach is everything on social media. Post a thoughtful message that four people read and you might as well scream at the ocean. Recently, Instagram made a move to crack down on AI content by potentially limiting the reach of posts. That might actually work, and it could pave the way for at least addressing some of the AI slop issues we’ve been dealing with lately on social media.

As a quick summary, AI slop is the computer-generated content you might be seeing on your Instagram, X, Facebook and TikTok feeds. It looks ultra-realistic, mostly because AI content generators are now really good at making images and posts that look authentic.

The Instagram crackdown involves two seemingly minor changes. One is that AI creators, meaning the accounts that use an AI-generated profile and use AI content, must use a new label. Earlier this year, Instagram required using the label “AI creator”—the new label “AI-generated profile” is a way to identify the content more clearly.

However, it’s the second change that is the most surprising and potentially could help us all identify AI slop more easily. If an AI creator does not use the new label, Instagram can reduce the reach of posts.

According to the official statement: “Creators who proactively add the AI-generated profile label will not see a change to their profile’s reach. Creators who don’t appropriately label their AI-generated profiles may see limits to their profile’s reach.”

Why the Instagram crackdown is happening now

While a very recent Pew Research study looked at online content, it’s a good indicator of what is happening on social media as well. The study found that 10% of all content you see online is AI generated, and that’s a sharp increase since 2021 when AI slop accounted for only about 2% of all content.

The strong implication here is that AI content is now proliferating widely. Another study found that one out of every four posts on social media is aided by AI in some way. LinkedIn recently added a way for users to label AI content by clicking a button when they see the content.

As it happens, LinkedIn users are all over this change for Instagram users, and some have posted several insightful comments. In the posts I reviewed, most users are saying the Instagram change could help because the main reason people are using the bots is to increase reach, and this a notable penalty.

My own take on this is that Instagram has the best data on users and officials there know what works and doesn’t work. It is a balancing act, because as bots gain more reach and AI content looks more and more realistic, some of us could be fooled into thinking it’s real and that ultimately hurts the brand.

Reach is a tricky business. A post can go viral for the wrong reasons, but it can also go viral because we think fake content is legitimate and we connect on a personal level. Once we realize it’s AI generated content, we become just a bit less likely to keep clicking and sharing. It has a longterm impact on our engagement.

I feel this move by Instagram is a good step and will hopefully cause more human-generated content to surface as a way to avoid more Instagram AI slop. We’ll see in the coming months of it actually starts

Feature image credit: Photo by Robert Alexander/Getty Images

By John Brandon

Find John Brandon on LinkedIn and X. Visit John’s website. Browse additional work.

Sourced from Forbes

Read More
By
In News

You Can Now Change the Music on Any Instagram Post Without Losing Likes or Comments

No Comments

Sourced from HYPEBEAST

Users navigate to any existing post, select edit, and choose a new track from Instagram’s music library.

Summary

Instagram introduced a Replace Audio tool that allows users to swap music on published feed posts and carousels while keeping all likes, comments and reach intact

The feature eliminates the need for creators to delete and re-upload posts to update soundtracks, a process that previously resulted in the loss of all engagement data

Users can access the tool via the edit option in a post menu to keep older content aligned with current trends or evolving tastes

Instagram officially launched “Replace Audio,” a utility designed to provide users with greater flexibility over their published content. Before this update, changing the background music on a post required a full re-upload. That limitation forced creators and brands to choose between a fresh soundtrack and their existing social proof. The new tool changes the equation entirely. Creators can now update the music on their posts at any time while keeping all likes, comments, shares and reach intact.

The functionality integrates directly into the platform’s standard editing interface. Users simply navigate to an existing post and select the edit option from the menu in the top-right corner. From there, individuals can swap the original audio track for a new selection from the vast Instagram music library. Hitting the done button pushes the updated version live immediately. Meta noted that this tool intends to give users more creative control. It enables accounts to refresh evergreen content without sacrificing hard-earned performance metrics.

Audio drives modern social media culture. A trending track can propel an old photo dump back into the algorithm, while outdated song choices can make vintage updates feel out of touch. The ability to retroactively alter the mood of a digital archive offers a massive advantage for those meticulously curating their aesthetic. Users might want to align older content with current viral sounds or simply banish an embarrassing music selection from a few years ago. The update directly supports creators who want their profiles to evolve alongside shifting musical tastes.

This rollout follows a highly scrutinized period of experimentation for the app. The social giant recently introduced and subsequently removed several controversial capabilities that users actively rejected. Meta recently killed a heavily criticized artificial intelligence tool that allowed individuals to modify photos from public accounts, admitting the feature missed the mark. The platform also faced backlash over a confusing format that led to accidental photo sharing. By focusing on a straightforward quality-of-life improvement for its feed posts and carousels, the application delivers a highly requested update that actually benefits its audience.

Feature image credit: Samuel Boivin/Nurphoto Via Getty Images

Sourced from HYPEBEAST

Read More
By
In News

How the UK’s social media ban could transform graphic design hiring

No Comments

By 

An under-16s ban on TikTok and Instagram might do more than protect children – it could reshape who gets hired by agencies.

There’s a moment that’s become familiar to anyone hiring creatives over the past decade. You’re looking at someone’s portfolio. It’s solid enough. Then you spot the line: “50K followers on TikTok.” Suddenly, the conversation changes.

When that happens, those of us of a certain age, who came up during the days of print, have felt the fear. The fear of no longer being relevant. Maybe it’s paranoia, maybe it’s realism. Either way, if you’ve not a died-in-the-wool social native, it’s tempting to feel your “old-school” skills are no longer adequate, and the algorithm has become the new resume. But what if that era is about to fade? The path to getting your first design job might soon look very different.

A close-up of a young woman looking down at her smartphone, overlaid with text in a stylized window box that reads "GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCES BAN ON SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES PROVIDING SERVICES FOR UNDER 16s."

(Image credit: Gov.uk)

Is the tide turning?

The assumption that social fluency equals creative value made sense when social media sat at the centre of cultural life. Increasingly, though, that centrality appears to be weakening.

Ofcom data published in April found that fewer than half of UK adult social media users are now actively posting, sharing or commenting, down from 61% in 2024. Meanwhile, only 36% believe social platforms are good for their mental health, and a third have deleted an app because it was affecting their wellbeing.

The mood is shifting. This week’s announcement that the UK will ban under-16s from using TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, Facebook and X feels like another sign of that change. What’s striking isn’t simply the policy itself, but how little public resistance it appears to have generated, compared with the debates that surrounded social media a decade ago.

Whether the legislation succeeds remains to be seen. But culturally, it reflects a growing willingness to question assumptions that once seemed untouchable. And that’s where things get interesting for creative industries.

Rebalancing, not revolution

Two young designers look at a a computer screen using the best graphic design software

(Image credit: Gilaxia via Getty Images)

None of this means social media skills are about to become irrelevant. Clients will still want social content. Agencies will still need people who understand how visual culture moves online. And teenagers will inevitably find ways around restrictions, just as they’ve done elsewhere. But there’s a difference between circumventing a platform and being shaped by it from childhood.

For over a decade, social media has acted as a powerful formative influence on aspiring creatives. It’s shaped not only what they consume, but how they think about creativity itself: what gets attention, what gets shared, what succeeds.

If future generations spend less of their developmental years optimising content for algorithms, they’ll arrive at design school (and eventually at job interviews) with different instincts.

They may be less conditioned by the high-stimulation, short-form aesthetics that platforms reward. They may be more willing to explore slower, deeper and more varied forms of creative practice. In some ways, it could feel a little like stepping back into the pre-2010s creative landscape (but with better WiFi).

What this means for hiring

If you’re responsible for hiring designers, it’s worth thinking now about what this shift means for the talent pipeline. The candidates you’ll see in five to ten years will have grown up differently. Their portfolios may look different too: less platform-optimised, potentially richer in other ways. The instinct to reject someone because they don’t have a strong social presence may start to look, frankly, as outdated as rejecting someone for not knowing QuarkXPress.

Maybe I’m a hopeless optimistic, but I think there’s a broader opportunity here to restate what design education is actually for. If the appetite for digital natives has put pressure on colleges to teach content creation over craft, a cultural shift away from social media could ease that pressure.

None of this is inevitable, of course. Industries don’t change hiring habits easily or quickly. But the UK’s ban challenges a long-standing assumption: that the people best equipped to navigate social platforms are necessarily the most creatively valuable.

They never were, of course. It just took a piece of legislation, and the beginnings of a cultural retreat from the doom scroll, to remind us.

Feature image credit: Galina Zhigalova via Getty Images

By 

Tom May is an award-winning journalist specialising in art, design, photography and technology. He is the author of the books The 50 Greatest Designers (Arcturus) and Great TED Talks: Creativity (Pavilion). Tom was previously editor of Professional Photography magazine, associate editor at Creative Bloq, and deputy editor at net magazine.

Sourced from CREATIVE BLOQ

Read More
By
In News

Meta projected $16 billion in scam ad revenue. Now the lawsuits are piling up.

No Comments

By Alina Maria Stan

In short: Meta faces a convergence of lawsuits across the US, Australia, and the UK alleging the company knowingly profited from scam ads on Facebook and Instagram, with its own internal documents projecting that 10% of 2024 revenue, roughly $16 billion, came from fraudulent advertising. The cases span a $500 million pump-and-dump scheme, deepfake celebrity endorsements, financial professional impersonation, and cryptocurrency fraud, while leaked internal assessments show Meta calculated that scam revenue would exceed the cost of any regulatory settlement.

Meta is facing a convergence of lawsuits, class actions, and regulatory investigations over scam advertisements on Facebook and Instagram that, according to the company’s own internal projections, generated roughly $16 billion in revenue in 2024, approximately 10% of Meta’s total advertising income. The legal actions span the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom, and collectively allege that Meta knowingly profited from fraudulent ads including AI-generated deepfake celebrity endorsements, pump-and-dump stock schemes, fake investment platforms, and unauthorised impersonation of financial professionals, while maintaining ad moderation systems that were structurally inadequate to prevent the fraud and, in some cases, deliberately weakened to protect revenue.

The most financially significant case, filed in February in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Meta facilitated a pump-and-dump scheme involving Jayud Global Logistics, a Chinese stock listed on Nasdaq. According to the complaint, scammers acquired 50 million shares at discounted prices in December 2024, then used targeted Facebook and Instagram ads to drive the share price to nearly $8 before dumping their positions in April 2025. Consumer losses exceeded $500 million. A California federal judge dismissed the class action on 25 March, ruling that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged Meta “co-created” the ads, though the dismissal appeared to be without prejudice.

The pattern across jurisdictions

A separate class action, filed by Scott+Scott on behalf of financial professionals John Suddeth and Sara Perkins, alleges that Meta allowed scammers to use their names, images, voices, and professional personas in paid advertisements, causing client diversion, reputational harm, and regulatory inquiries. A bipartisan coalition of US state attorneys general had warned Meta in June 2025 that impersonation ads and fraudulent WhatsApp investment groups were being used for widespread fraud. According to the complaint, materially identical impersonation ads continued running after the warning.

In December, the US Virgin Islands attorney general sued Meta in Superior Court, alleging the company “knowingly profited” from scam ads and “charged fraudsters extra for the right to advertise scams” rather than removing them. The Virgin Islands suit joined actions by 42 other state attorneys general who have taken Meta to court, primarily over child safety but with increasing overlap with advertising fraud. In April, New York attorney general Letitia James issued an investor alert specifically about investment scams on Meta platforms.

In Australia, the Competition and Consumer Commission has been pursuing Meta in federal court since March 2022 over cryptocurrency scam ads that used the likenesses of businessman Dick Smith, television presenter David Koch, and former New South Wales premier Mike Baird. A single victim cited in the complaint lost more than A$650,000. Meta failed to get the case dismissed in 2023. In the United Kingdom, the Financial Conduct Authority found 1,052 illegal financial advertisements on Meta platforms in a single week in November 2025. A leading UK bank found that 80% of its fraud cases originated on Meta’s platforms, with Facebook Marketplace accounting for 60% of purchase fraud, Instagram responsible for 67% of investment fraud, and WhatsApp impersonation scams up 300% year on year. Meta’s platforms account for 61% of all authorised push payment scams in the UK, according to UK Finance, with criminals stealing £485.2 million.

The $16 billion question

The scale of the problem is defined by Meta’s own internal documents. A Reuters investigation published in November 2025 revealed that Meta projected 10% of its 2024 global revenue, roughly $16 billion, derived from scam and fraud-related advertising. The company served an estimated 15 billion “higher risk” scam ads per day. Nineteen percent of Meta’s ad revenue from China, approximately $3 billion, was linked to scams. Internal documents showed that when enforcement staff proposed shutting down fraudulent accounts, Meta sought assurance that “growth teams would not object given the revenue impact.” A subsequent Reuters report in January found that Meta had developed an internal “playbook” to neutralise regulators and manipulated its ad library to make scam ads harder to find.

Rob Leathern, Meta’s former senior director of product management who led business integrity operations, said of the findings: “The levels that you’re talking about are not defensible.” Meta described the Reuters projections as “a rough and overly-inclusive estimate” and said the documents presented “a selective view that distorts Meta’s approach to fraud and scams.”

The economics are straightforward. Implementing universal advertiser verification would cost Meta approximately $2 billion and reduce revenue by up to 4.8%. Internal assessments reportedly noted that “revenue from risky ads would almost certainly exceed the cost of any regulatory settlement,” a calculation that treats fines as a cost of doing business rather than a deterrent.

The deepfake dimension

AI-generated deepfakes have become central to the scam ad ecosystem. Deepfake fraud attempts have surged by 3,000% as generative AI tools have become cheaper and more accessible, enabling scammers to create convincing fake video endorsements at scale. Martin Lewis, the UK’s most prominent personal finance campaigner, was targeted with a deepfake video promoting a “Quantum AI” investment scheme. Deepfakes of Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Bernie Sanders were used to promote fake government benefit schemes. In Brazil, AI-altered images and voices of prominent physicians promoted fraudulent healthcare products.

The Tech Transparency Project identified 63 scam advertisers responsible for more than 150,600 political ads and $49 million in lifetime spending on Meta. During a 90-day period in mid-2025, at least 45 scam advertisers spent over $18 million. Meta says it protects images of 500,000 celebrities and public figures through automated detection and is testing facial recognition technology to compare faces in suspected scam ads against public figures’ profile pictures. EU lawmakers have agreed to ban AI-generated non-consensual deepfakes through amendments to the AI Act, signalling increasing regulatory appetite to legislate against synthetic media that platforms have failed to police.

What Meta says it is doing

Meta recently rolled out new scam detection tools across Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger. The company says it removed 159 million scam ads and took down 10.9 million accounts linked to scam operations in 2025, with 92% of scam ads caught proactively before any user report. It disabled 150,000 accounts associated with Southeast Asian scam centre networks and partnered with the Royal Thai Police in disruption operations that led to 21 arrests. Meta is targeting 90% of ad revenue from verified advertisers by the end of 2026, up from 70%. In February, it filed its own lawsuits against scam advertisers in Brazil, China, and Vietnam, and sent cease-and-desist letters to eight former Meta Business Partners offering “un-ban” services to fraudulent advertisers.

The gap between Meta’s enforcement claims and the data in its own internal documents is the through line connecting every lawsuit. The company says it catches 92% of scam ads proactively. Its own projections estimated $16 billion in scam-related revenue in a single year. It removed 159 million scam ads. It served 15 billion higher-risk ads per day. It is investing in facial recognition to detect deepfakes. Its internal assessments concluded that scam revenue would exceed the cost of any regulatory settlement. The numbers do not cohere into a story of a company that failed to notice the problem. They describe a company that noticed the problem, measured it, calculated the cost of fixing it against the cost of not fixing it, and chose the option that preserved revenue. The lawsuits are, in that sense, not about whether Meta knew. They are about what it did with what it knew.

By Alina Maria Stan

Sourced from TNW

Read More
By
In News

Podcast: the future of platforms and marketing

No Comments

By Chris Sutcliffe, 

Social platforms like TikTok, Instagram and Facebook offer huge opportunities for marketers. They are the new de facto gatekeepers to huge audiences, and there are very few other means to reach younger audiences at scale with ease. But that access comes with trade-offs, and different platforms emerge and disappear rapidly. As part of our Predictions season, The Drum Network seeks to examine where brands and agencies fit into that environment.
To discuss that rapidly evolving landscape, and how we can ensure the primacy of brands when it comes to marketing on platforms, we’re joined by three experts from across the industry. Amy Gilbert, head of social at The Social Element; Tahir Rashid, paid media manager at UNRVLD; and Callum Gill, head of insight and innovation at DRP Group, join The Drum’s senior reporter Chris Sutcliffe to discuss all things platform-related.
The Drum Network Podcast can be found on Spotify, iTunes, Google Play and your favourite podcast app.

By Chris Sutcliffe, 

Sourced from The Drum

Read More
By
In News

Instagram CEO Argues Social Media Is Not “Clinically Addictive”

No Comments

Sourced from FLIPBOARD

Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri told a court during a Los Angeles trial that he does not believe that users can be “clinically addicted” to the platform. His testimony was part of a series of significant social media trials accusing companies of intentionally designing addictive features that negatively impact young people’s mental health. Mosseri, the first executive to testify in the trials, refuted claims that the platform prioritized making money over the mental health of young users. “There’s always trade-off between safety and speech. We’re trying to be as safe as possible and censor as little as possible,” Mosseri said. He emphasized the importance of distinguishing between “clinical addiction” and “problematic use” when it comes to social media. Mosseri defines problematic use as “someone spending more time on Instagram than they feel good about.” The 43-year-old emphasized Instagram’s commitment to teen safety, noting that the platform tests new features for young users before launching them. The case centres around a 20-year-old referred to by the initials “KGM,” who claims her mental health was adversely affected by the platform’s addictive features. When asked about the plaintiff spending 16 hours on Instagram in a single day, Mosseri responded, “That sounds like problematic use.”

Sourced from FLIPBOARD

Read More
By
In News

Instagram and X have an impossible deepfake detection deadline

No Comments

By Jess Weatherbed

Platforms have until February 20th to start labelling all AI-generated or manipulated content.

The best methods we currently have for detecting and labelling deepfakes online are about to get a stress test. India announced mandates on Tuesday that require social media platforms to remove illegal AI-generated materials much faster, and ensure that all synthetic content is clearly labelled. Tech companies have said for years that they wanted to achieve this on their own, and now they have mere days before they’re legally obligated to implement it. The rules take effect on February 20th.

India has 1 billion internet users who skew young, making it one of the most critical growth markets for social platforms. So, any obligations there could impact deepfake moderation efforts across the world — either by advancing detection to the point where it actually works, or forcing tech companies to acknowledge that new solutions are needed.

Under India’s amended Information Technology Rules, digital platforms will be required to deploy “reasonable and appropriate technical measures” to prevent their users from making or sharing illegal synthetically-generated audio and visual content, aka, deepfakes. Any such generative AI content that isn’t blocked must be embedded with “permanent metadata or other appropriate technical provenance mechanisms.” Specific obligations are also called out for social media platforms, such as requiring users to disclose AI-generated or edited materials, deploying tools that verify those disclosures, and prominently labelling AI content in a way that allows people to immediately identify that it’s synthetic, such as adding verbal disclosures to AI audio.

That’s easier said than done, given how woefully underdeveloped AI detection and labelling systems currently are. C2PA (also known as content credentials) is one of the best systems we currently have for both, and works by attaching detailed metadata to images, videos, and audio at the point of creation or editing, to invisibly describe how it was made or altered.

But here’s the thing: Meta, Google, Microsoft, and many other tech giants are already using C2PA, and it clearly isn’t working. Some platforms like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn add labels to content flagged by the C2PA system, but those labels are difficult to spot, and some synthetic content that should carry that metadata is slipping through the cracks. Social media platforms can’t label anything that doesn’t include provenance metadata to begin with, such as materials produced by open-source AI models or so-called “nudify apps” that refuse to embrace the voluntary C2PA standard.

India has over 500 million social media users, according to DataReportal research shared by Reuters. When broken down, that’s 500 million YouTube users, 481 million Instagram users, 403 million Facebook users, and 213 million Snapchat users. It’s also estimated to be X’s third-largest market.

Interoperability is one of the C2PA’s biggest issues, and while India’s new rules may encourage adoption, C2PA metadata is far from permanent. It’s so easy to remove that some online platforms can unintentionally strip it during file uploads. The new rules order platforms not to allow metadata or labels to be modified, hidden, or removed, but there isn’t much time to figure out how to comply. Social media platforms like X that haven’t implemented any AI labelling systems at all now have just nine days to do so.

Meta, Google, and X did not respond to our request for comment. Adobe, the driving force behind the C2PA standard, also did not respond.

Adding to the pressure in India is a mandate that social media companies remove unlawful materials within three hours of it being discovered or reported, replacing the existing 36-hour deadline. That also applies to deepfakes and other harmful AI content.

The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) warns that these imposed changes risk forcing platforms into becoming “rapid fire censors.” “These impossibly short timelines eliminate any meaningful human review, forcing platforms toward automated over-removal,” the IFF said in a statement.

Given the amendments specify provenance mechanisms that should be implemented to the “extent technically feasible,” the officials behind India’s order are probably aware that our current AI detection and labelling tech isn’t ready yet. The organizations backing C2PA have long sworn that the system will work if enough people are using it, so this is the chance to prove it.

Feature image credit:  Cath Virginia / The Verge, Getty Images

By Jess Weatherbed

 is a news writer focused on creative industries, computing, and internet culture. Jess started her career at TechRadar, covering news and hardware reviews.

Sourced from The Verge

Read More
By
In News

Why millennials are yearning for 2016 all over Instagram

No Comments

By Aditi Bharade

Get in, loser, we’re going back to 2016.

Open Instagram this week, and you’d think you were back in the early days of Tumblr and Snapchat. Think Lo-Fi selfies, thick winged eyeliner, and the dog-ear Snapchat filter — the days when “Mean Girls” quotes (which came out in 2004 but remains a quintessential millennial movie) and chunky statement necklaces reigned supreme.

People on Instagram and TikTok, influencers and regular folks alike, have been posting throwback pictures from 2016.

In some posts, millennials openly mourned for the halcyon days of 2016, when they were free to wear skinny jeans without being scorned by Gen Z co-workers, some 20 pounds lighter, and juicing up their feeds with the Clarendon and Gingham Instagram filters.

It was also a huge year for music, yielding 2010s-defining pop hits like The Chainsmokers’ “Closer,” Justin Bieber’s “Love Yourself,” and Alan Walker’s “Faded.”

No surprise, millennials are craving a walk down memory lane.

Kar Brulhart, a Mexico City-based social media strategist and coach, said 2016 is trending because of nostalgia and a broader shift toward analogue — think paperback books, flip phones, and digital cameras.

But beyond that, Brulhart said, revisiting the 2016 era provides relief.

“Especially in the US, where the political and cultural climate feels increasingly charged, people genuinely don’t know what — or how — to post anymore. Revisiting that era gives people a socially acceptable break from having to respond, react, or perform relevance,” she said.

2016 in celebrity culture

Celebrities like Charlie Puth, Eva Longoria, Lucy Hale, and Karlie Kloss have jumped on the trend, posting awkward, unglamorous selfies.

Kylie Jenner’s 2016 post on Thursday, captioned “You just had to be there,” has gotten over 2.4 million likes as of press time. The “Keeping up with the Kardashians” star posted pictures of herself wearing skinny jeans, black Converse high tops, and her iconic Kylie Lip Kit.

Makeup artist and beauty influencer James Charles revived a full 2016 cut-crease eyeshadow routine in a TikTok video on Wednesday, which has garnered about 5.6 million views.

Others used the trend to remember milestones. John Legend posted a picture of himself and his wife, Chrissy Teigen, sharing a kiss after the birth of their first child in 2016.

And brands wasted no time capitalizing on the throwback trend. LA-based fashion brand Reformation posted pictures of celebrities like Taylor Swift and Emily Ratajkowski in its 2016 range with the caption, “We miss 2016 too.”

Longing for a simpler, more authentic time

The trend reveals a yearning for a simpler time, social media and PR experts say.

Hailey Bailey, the founder of Los Angeles-based PR and talent management firm Image PR, said the trend is a result of millennials like herself “craving the innocence, promise, and naivety of our summer 2016 selves.”

“I think most millennials look at where they are at in life right now and think, ‘Wow, I thought I’d be in a different place,'” Bailey said. “Many of us can’t afford to buy a house anytime soon, or haven’t found the right partner, or are so career-focused we can’t even think about having children.”

Brulhart said that in 2016, chronological posts were the only way to experience Instagram. That was before Reels, AI-generated “slop,” and hyper-clean, aesthetic-first feeds took over the app.

“There was far less curation, and people weren’t trying to brand themselves with every post,” she said. “They were documenting life as it happened, not worrying about the likes or engagement.”

The trend felt like a gentle moment of reflection to her.

“It’s not about wanting to go backward, but about remembering a version of ourselves that perhaps felt lighter,” Brulhart said.

Feature image credit: Melodie Jeng/Getty Images

By Aditi Bharade

Sourced from Business Insider

Read More
By
In News

“100 likes is the new 1000”: Creators say Instagram likes have fallen off a cliff. Here’s why

No Comments
For months now, Instagram users have been complaining that their posts no longer get the number of “likes” that they used to. Photos and videos that would once easily get hundreds of hearts now only get a few dozen. The change has some content creators nervous and looking for answers.

It may have something to do with changes in both human behaviour and the algorithm.

Why aren’t Instagram posts getting likes anymore?

In 2025, posts started popping up across social media about the steady decline in likes that they can expect an Instagram post to attract. This was especially true among those who’d left Instagram for a while, in favour of platforms like TikTok, and went back months or years later.

People are calling it a “like recession.”

TikTok video of a woman stirring her bubble tea with a caption reading "Instagram is dead nobody can tell me otherwise. You post a pic, and it shows over 1,000 views with only 34 likes? Be so real with me right now. What kind of hater vibes sorcery is going on over there?"
@kimberlywhiteee/TikTok

“Instagram is dead nobody can tell me otherwise,” wrote @kimberlywhiteee in a TikTok caption. “You post a pic, and it shows over 1,000 views with only 34 likes? Be so real with me right now. What kind of hater vibes sorcery is going on over there?”

Meanwhile, @hiiibarbiee compared her single photo post likes from a year ago vs. today, showing how they’ve declined by the hundreds. It has the 21-year-old asking “chat am i UNC?”

Some long-time social media users explained this by pointing to shifts in the way people use these apps. People just aren’t liking the way they used to.

“We deada** see our loved ones get married and buy a house and look at their Instagram post like this,” said @tjr with a blank, bored face, “and proceed to not like, not comment, and scroll.”

TikTok video of a man making wide eyes at the camera with a caption reading "Instagram likes recession."
@tjr/TikTok

TikToker @sweetiebrownieee theorized that users today are more likely to be snooping than supporting.

“So you posted a picture on Instagram. No likes,” she started. “But your stories? So many views. They’re watching you, honey. They’re seeing you, but they do not want you to know they are seeing you.”

“People these days are so nosy.”

How to succeed on Instagram without the likes

Shifts in user behaviour are real, but experts also spoke on the changes to Instagram’s algorithm. In July 2024, Instagram head Adam Mosseri explained that one of the platform’s top ranking signals was “shares per reach,” meaning how many viewers shared a video regardless of how else they interacted with it.

“So out of all the people who saw your video or photo, how many of them sent it to a friend in a DM?” he said. “We want to not only be a place where you passively consume content, but where you discover things you want to tell your friends about.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Adam Mosseri (@mosseri)

With the emphasis shifting away from likes as Instagram also began showing users less content from those they followed and more from accounts the app thinks they’d enjoy, posts that quickly get a few likes from dedicated fans aren’t getting the same boost.

Social media manager Milou Pietersz (@miloupietersz) discussed what this means for creators who still want to make it on Instagram.

“We’ve officially entered a ‘like’ recession on Instagram,” she wrote. “100 likes is the new 1000, and if you are still measuring success by old metrics, it will always feel like you are losing.”

“Stop chasing the number that looks good on the outside and start paying attention to the signals that actually move your business forward.”

Feature image credit: @jackfloood/TikTok, @drainn2c/TikTok

By Lindsey Weedston

Lindsey is a Seattle area writer interested in all things society, including internet culture, politics, and mental health. Outside of the Daily Dot, her work can be found in publications such as The Mary Sue, Truthout, and YES! Magazine.

Sourced from daily dot

Read More
By
Load More