‘De-Influencers’ Want You to Think Twice Before Buying That Mascara

After years of influencers pushing cosmetics, clothes, personal tech and supplements to the masses, a rising cohort is taking a different tack: telling people what not to buy. They’re calling it “de-influencing.”

The term is being popularised in videos by people whose experience runs the gamut: disappointed consumers, savvy beauty bloggers, doctors dispelling skin-care myths and former retail employees dishing on which products they saw returned most often. Their shared guidance is a rejoinder to a seemingly endless stream of recommendations and promotional content on the platform—and a sign of growing backlash to over consumption. TikTok videos under the hashtag #deinfluencing have surpassed 68 million views.

TikTok has become one of the most powerful forces in online retail, helping to boost butt-lifting leggings, luxe lip oils and green-juice powders, among other trendy products. Brands have poured money into influencer marketing on the platform, knowing a viral video can make almost anything sell out, and videos featuring the hashtag #TikTokMadeMeBuyIt have together earned more than 40 billion views.

“The best way to think about TikTok is that it’s a vehicle that takes a consumer to the checkout line,” said Krishna Subramanian, the co-founder of Captiv8, a marketing platform that connects influencers and brands.

But a deluge of sponsored videos and hyper-enthusiastic reviews has made it harder for consumers to figure out which items are actually worth their money.

“We’re constantly being fed, ‘You need to try this product,’ ‘You will love this product,’” said Karen Wu, 25, a makeup and skin-care influencer who lives outside Los Angeles. De-influencing is an attempt to change that.

What exactly is de-influencing?

The term refers to people speaking critically about products on a platform where endorsements run rampant.

De-influencing videos may steer consumers toward cheaper alternatives, also known as dupes, or discourage them from spending money in certain categories altogether.

Maddie Wells, a beauty influencer in Lexington, Ky., was early to the trend. She began making videos in 2020 about the products she frequently saw customers return to Sephora and Ulta, where she held sales associate jobs between 2018 and 2021.

In a September video with 2.5 million views, she name-drops the Ordinary’s Peeling Solution and Too Faced’s Better Than Sex mascara as cosmetics that—despite being frequently touted by beauty influencers—often found their way back to the shelves at those stores. “I’m calling this ‘de-influencing,’” she says in the video. The Ordinary and Too Faced didn’t respond to requests for comment.

“I can’t say without a shadow of a doubt I was the first person to ever say it,” Ms. Wells said of her coinage, but it has significantly caught on since.

How did the trend start?

Though de-influencing is a relatively new term, TikTok users have been speaking candidly about products for some time now. Last year, entrepreneur and former Real Housewife Bethenny Frankel earned headlines for her unapologetic and critical reviews of popular beauty products.

“I wanted the glow. I wanted to glow like they glowed,” Ms. Frankel said of influencers promoting cosmetics. In trying out popular products herself, she’s found that some of them don’t live up to the hype. She said she’s been approached by beauty companies that want to send her products and have her post paid reviews, but she has turned them down in favour of partnering with brands she already knows and likes.

“The hill that I’m not dying on is lying about a lip gloss,” Ms. Frankel said.

In December 2021, style influencer Elise Harmon went viral after posting a video about the low-cost contents of Chanel’s $825 holiday advent calendar, including stickers, temporary tattoos and a dust bag.

“I was more upset with the fact that I wasn’t being a conscientious buyer. I bought something blindly without really looking at the quality of what was inside,” Ms. Harmon said. “I think people were excited to hear someone say they didn’t think it was worth it.”

A representative for Chanel declined to comment. In an interview with Women’s Wear Daily after Ms. Harmon’s video went viral, Chanel’s president of fashion said the company would be “much more cautious” about introducing similar products.

Why is it taking off now?

The pervasiveness of influencer marketing has put the onus on consumers to decipher which reviews can be trusted and what products are worth their money.

Those concerns came to a head last week when Mikayla Nogueira, a makeup artist with 14.4 million TikTok followers, was accused of wearing fake eyelashes in a sponsored post for L’Oréal mascara. (Neither a representative for Ms. Nogueira nor L’Oréal responded to multiple requests for comment.)

A TikTok spokesperson said that the company “has strict policies to protect users from fake, fraudulent, or misleading content, including ads, and we remove any content that violates our Community Guidelines, Advertising Guidelines, and Terms of Service.”

As viewers become more skeptical of promotions on the platform, influencers who appear raw, honest and critical in their approaches may stand to benefit, experts say.

“Originally, influencers were very beholden to their audience, then brands came along and said ‘let’s see how we can leverage this.’ Then, influencers became super beholden to brands,” said Jenna Drenten, associate professor of marketing at Loyola University Chicago’s Quinlan School of Business. Now, she said, “influencers are swinging back to the accountability between themselves and their audiences.”

What are some other products de-influencers are calling out?

Many of the products being critiqued today are ones that owe their success in large part to TikTok influencers.

Alexandra Williams, a 25-year-old tech sales employee in San Diego, Calif., recently posted about a knockoff of the Stanley tumbler, after seeing the 40-ounce water bottle all over social media. Terence Reilly, Stanley’s global president, said that sales of Stanley’s marquee Quencher bottle increased by 275% in 2022 compared with the previous year.

“Whenever I use my water bottle it’s because I’m going on a hike, or I’m throwing it down below in my car because I’m going to a workout class,” Ms. Williams said. Like Stanley’s Quencher, the bottle has a non-collapsible straw, which she said made it prone to spills and impractical for her active lifestyle. Mr. Reilly suggested that customers looking for a leakproof Stanley alternative could buy the IceFlow Tumbler.

Lola Olson, a 23-year-old fashion and lifestyle influencer in Germany, recently posted a video naming several brands and products she didn’t like, including shampoo from hair-care line Olaplex.

“There’s always going to be those people that are like, ‘It worked great for me.’ It just didn’t for me,” she said. “So I was just being honest, and I feel like that’s what people want from influencers.” She recommended her followers try K18 Hair, an Olaplex competitor her mom advised her to try, instead.

In response to a request for comment, an Olaplex spokesperson shared reports about the brand’s popularity and data on its social-media reach. A representative for K18 said that while the company uses influencers to promote its products, Ms. Olson has not worked with the brand.

Wait, but isn’t that still influencing?

Yes and no.

While emerging influencers may not be paid to name-drop alternatives, it’s easy to see how the space can quickly get murky as those with brand deals may seek to discredit the product of a competitor.

“There’s a big difference between saying, ‘I use a product and I enjoy it and I’m not getting paid to say this,’ versus ‘I have a previous relationship with a brand, and I’m telling you this alternative doesn’t work,’” said Prem Tripathi, a facial plastic surgeon in the San Francisco Bay Area who posts videos countering popular skin-care myths.

In a recent TikTok video, Dr. Tripathi poked fun at the de-influencing trend, offering up alternatives that had no connection to the hyped-up serums and creams in question: a “Golden Girls” mug, a luxury towel warmer and a lint remover.

OpenAI says it is scrapping the release of its next-generation AI model over safety concerns that researchers raised during internal testing, in one of the clearest signs so far that agent misbehavior could stymie the industry’s rapid progression.

The move follows a summer punctuated by reports of artificial-intelligence systems industrywide going rogue, and marks a rare case of a major AI developer ditching a new release because of safety concerns.

The company had planned to launch the model, known as GPT-6.1 Astra, in the coming days or weeks, aiming for an October debut. The model was more capable than the company’s previous models in completing challenging tasks from end-to-end without human assistance, as well as writing.

The company instead will focus on improving the safety of future models, which it expects to be even more capable.

Saachi Jain, OpenAI’s head of safety systems, said in an interview that GPT-6.1 Astra regressed in two areas. Compared with its predecessor, GPT-6 Astra, the model performed poorly on tests measuring alignment, or how well the model adheres to what humans would like it to do. Specifically, GPT-6.1 Astra showed higher levels of deception: It wasn’t always honest about telling users of the actions it did or didn’t take.

Another issue was what OpenAI calls “scope authorization,” meaning that GPT-6.1 Astra would push ahead on a task without asking the user for permission, and would at times reach for external tools and services even if it might be unsafe.

“For anything regarding safety and alignment, there’s a trade off,” Jain said. “You really do need to find what’s the right line between staying within scope, but also avoiding laziness in terms of how the model actually pursues tasks even when it hits friction.”

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman attended a United Nations Security Council meeting about AI last week. Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images

While GPT-6.1 Astra improved in areas such as “model laziness,” Jain said it didn’t quite meet OpenAI’s bar for safety and alignment, so the company decided not to launch the model publicly.

The announcement comes one day ahead of OpenAI’s annual developer conference in San Francisco. In the past, OpenAI has used the conference as an opportunity to launch new models and services that reduce costs for software developers—a segment the ChatGPT-maker competes with rival AI company Anthropic to win over.

In recent weeks, OpenAI and Anthropic have called on industry partners to slow down the development of cutting-edge AI models and invest in safety standards, noting they will temper the pace of their own internal AI progress.

OpenAI says it is working to investigate a range of agent security incidents that it has discovered in recent months, and address the safety issues underneath them. As part of the work, the company has implemented a new monitoring system to catch AI-agent misbehavior more quickly, and started requiring engineers to use stronger security guardrails for testing its AI systems.

Earlier this summer hundreds of OpenAI’s internal agents, which were tasked with completing a cybersecurity test, ended up hacking into the AI company Hugging Face. Since then, high-profile organizations such as the Australian government and United Nations discovered that OpenAI’s agents used similar, but less extensive, techniques to gain access to their websites.

Many of the publicly known agent-security incidents involved OpenAI’s internal AI models that were never slated for public release.

Last week, OpenAI said it paused training on its most capable AI models after an AI agent slipped through a gap in the company’s internet restrictions to query a public chatbot. The company said its new monitoring systems flagged the incident within 15 minutes, and training on these models remains paused.

GPT-6.1 Astra isn’t one of those models, but a different case, the company said.

“We want to make sure our model development is safe no matter whether that’s in the company, or when we ship it to users,” Jain said. “But when we ship it to users, we have an extremely high bar in terms of safety and alignment.”

While the company decided not to ship GPT-6.1 Astra, it hopes to use the same base model to do additional reinforcement learning runs, and create future generations of its GPT-6 models.

OpenAI plans to conduct several deep dives to identify the root cause of the problems identified in GPT-6.1 Astra, Jain said. The work includes ensuring that OpenAI’s reinforcement learning environments are rewarding the right type of behavior, Jain added, though she noted the company would investigate all stages of model development.

AI companies have begun to draw scrutiny from policymakers and public officials, who are paying attention to the rapid development of the technology. Later this week, a Senate subcommittee is holding a hearing with third party AI researchers titled, “Rogue AI: Securing the Homeland Against AI Agent Attacks.”

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, a Republican, sued OpenAI in June, claiming that the company and Chief Executive Sam Altman knowingly released an unsafe product and ignored warnings that it could harm users.

In a motion for temporary injunction filed Monday, Uthmeier sought to prevent OpenAI from developing new AI models without third-party approved safeguards, stop ChatGPT from soliciting user engagement and limit the company’s ability to advertise ChatGPT as safe.

Tech companies claim they “cannot stop barreling forward with their potentially civilization-ending endeavors unless they are forced to do so by the government,” Uthmeier said in the filing. “The Florida Attorney General is answering your cry for help.”

An OpenAI spokeswoman said that people want to know AI is being developed safely, “and that starts with what companies like ours do ourselves.”

“Governments have an important role to play in setting robust safety standards for AI, and we’re committed to working with Florida and other states on advancing pragmatic AI policies that apply to the entire AI industry—not just one company,” she said.