Week 9: Instagram Filters – Software Literacy and Digital Citizenship
Instagram filters are not just playful tools; they are software features that shape identity, visibility, and digital citizenship. Filters allow users to alter their appearance, enhance images, or add augmented reality (AR) effects. While they may seem harmless, filters embody deeper issues of representation, algorithmic influence, and cultural norms. Software literacy means not only knowing how to apply filters but also critically understanding their social and psychological consequences.
Filters are embedded in Instagram’s design as part of aesthetic labour. Fardiah et al. (2023) show that Instagram’s visual content directly impacts digital literacy, as users learn to interpret and manipulate images in ways that influence perception and engagement. Livingstone & Third (2017) adds that social media platforms like Instagram can foster digital citizenship by encouraging storytelling and identity play, but they also risk reinforcing dominant beauty standards.
From a public health perspective, filters can contribute to body dissatisfaction. Chae (2018) highlights that beauty filters often present unrealistic ideals—thinness, flawless skin, sharp noses—that younger users may internalize as reality. This illusion of perfection is linked to eating disorders and body dysmorphic disorder (BDD). Toch et al. (2018) further found that frequent exposure to filtered photos correlates with negative body image and lower self‑esteem, even if the effects vary across individuals.
Case Study: AR Beauty Filters and Identity
Augmented reality (AR) filters on Instagram, such as Bold Glamour or Perfect Face, reshape how users see themselves. These filters smooth skin, enlarge eyes, and simulate cosmetic enhancements. Marghitu and O’Meara (2024) argue that AR filters are not neutral—they reinforce gendered beauty norms while also offering spaces for queer and nonbinary identity exploration. For example, while many filters perpetuate Eurocentric ideals, some custom filters created by artists allow users to resist mainstream aesthetics and playfully experiment with identity.
The case of AR beauty filters illustrates how software literacy is about more than technical skill. Users must critically assess how filters normalize cosmetic modification and how algorithmic systems privilege filtered content for visibility. This unpaid “visibility labour” sustains Instagram’s economy, where polished images gain more likes and reach. At the same time, filters can marginalize diverse bodies by promoting homogenized ideals.
Guest Lecture Insights: Jameela Jamil
For Week 9, the lecture drew on insights from Jameela Jamil, actress and activist, who has become one of the most outspoken critics of Instagram filters. Jamil argues that filters “sell a lie,” presenting unrealistic beauty ideals that contribute to eating disorders and body dysmorphia. Through her I Weigh campaign, she highlights how filters normalize cosmetic modification and reinforce Eurocentric standards, while marginalizing diverse bodies and identities.
Her perspective reframes filters as more than playful tools; they are cultural artefacts that sustain Instagram’s economy by rewarding polished, filtered images with higher visibility. Jamil emphasizes that this cycle of “visibility labour” pressures users to curate their digital selves constantly, creating anxiety and comparison cultures. At the same time, she acknowledges that filters can be used creatively when designed by artists or marginalized communities to resist mainstream aesthetics and reclaim identity play.
Her critique underscores the importance of software literacy: users must learn not only how to apply filters but also how to question their social consequences. Jamil calls for greater platform accountability, including transparency measures such as filter usage labels and stricter regulation of influencer branding. By amplifying her voice, Week 9 highlights how famous figures can make the hidden harms of filters visible to mainstream audiences, urging digital citizens to balance creativity with critical awarenes
References
Chae, J. (2018). Explaining Females’ Envy Toward Social Media Influencers. Media Psychology, 21(2), 246–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2017.1328312
Fardiah, D., Darmawan, F., Rinawati, R., Cholifah, Y. W., & Abdullah, S. I. (2023). Instagram Content Impact on Digital Literacy Capability. Jurnal ASPIKOM, 8(1), 79. https://doi.org/10.24329/aspikom.v8i1.1219
Livingstone, S., & Third, A. (2017). Children and young people’s rights in the digital age: An emerging agenda. New Media & Society, 19(5), 657–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816686318
Marghitu, S., & O’Meara, J. (2024). Seamful Sutures: Gender Exploration and Identity Expression Using Augmented Reality Facial Filters. Global Storytelling: Journal of Digital and Moving Images, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.3998/gs.5628
Toch, H., Acker, J. R., & Bonventre, V. M. (2018). Introduction. In H. Toch, J. R. Acker, & V. M. Bonventre (Eds.), Living on death row: The psychology of waiting to die (pp. 3–20). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000084-001
