The idea is closely tied to the incel (“involuntary celibate”) subculture. These are loose online communities of mostly young men who believe they are unable to form romantic or sexual relationships with women.

Within these spaces, users often rank men according to physical attractiveness and argue that dating success is largely determined by genetics. This worldview is sometimes called “the blackpill”.

Our research suggests that, by scoring faces and suggesting ways people can “optimise” their appearance, looksmaxxing tools are quietly mainstreaming a toxic view of masculinity and monetising insecurities.

Looksmaxxing is mainstreaming misogynistic incel ideology

Looksmaxxing describes an extreme physical optimisation of a person’s appearance, usually within a numerical rating system known as the PSL-scale.

Our TikTok network analysis reveals a dominant subculture around this concept, with so called “blackpill edits” at its heart. These usually show a conventionally less attractive person who is “mogged” (physically dominated based on looks) by a contrast with a person deemed attractive in the looksmaxxing community.

Such edits generate massive reach. One looksmaxxing influencer garnered more than 100 million views in 2025 alone.

Besides blackpill edits, the community also shares tutorial videos purportedly helping to improve one’s appearance. These include such dubious tips as recommending “mewing” (adjusting tongue posture) for a stronger jawline.

The looksmaxxing app economy

Within this ecosystem, we identified more than a dozen smartphone apps that promise to help users on their looksmaxxing journey. Essentially, all these apps offer the same service.

A user uploads a recent selfie, which an artificial intelligence (AI) model scans for arcane metrics such as “gonial angle”, “maxilla ratio” and “mentolabial angle”.

The user is then provided with an attractiveness score, and an associated rank on the PSL scale. Then, users receive a supposedly personalised assessment of their “potential”. The apps also offer generic fitness and dietary advice, but also recommendations of more niche practices such as mewing.

Monetising insecurity

Most apps hide their core features behind weekly subscriptions, usually priced around A$6. To attract paying customers, these apps are advertised in video descriptions (“Make your own reality @UmaxApp”), as well as in blackpill edits, for example by flashing rating screenshots between video clips.

Quantification, gamification and reframing

These apps are an active vector for mainstreaming an appealing version of formerly niche incel beliefs. While the focus on self-improvement seems to contradict the extreme fatalism present in dedicated incel forums, the apps act as a gateway, making harmful assumptions accessible through three key mechanisms.

First is quantification.

Incels believe every person has a “sexual market value”, usually expressed on a scale from one to ten. Looksmaxxing apps use the PSL-scale (running from one to eight), but the concept is identical: a user’s face is assigned numerical scores based on obscure calculations, reducing human worth to an AI assessment.

Second is gamification.

Scores are tied to specific ranks that often reflect key incel language, such as “low-tier normie” or “chadlite”. Much like a video game, the apps promise users the ability to “ascend” to a higher rank.

Unlike passively reading incel ideology in a web forum, these apps allow users to directly engage with the ideology by having their own faces assessed.

The third mechanism is reframing.

A key part of the success of these apps is that they provide a “recipe for ascension” instead of the traditional stream of blackpill fatalism. This makes these apps attractive to young men struggling with confidence. It’s worth noting, however, that alongside ordinary celebrities looksmaxxing ads sometimes include AI-generated versions of rich, famous sex abusers such as Jeffrey Epstein and Sean Coombs (better known as Diddy).

However, besides the reframing, the underlying assumptions are still rooted within incel ideology: a person’s ascension potential is limited and dictated by biology.

To illustrate, we observed young boys posting their selfies in the comment section of app advertisments, asking for others to rate them. In exchange, they were sometimes asked to “ropemax” – an incel term for committing suicide – if deemed incapable of ascension.

Looksmaxxing apps as a potential funnel to violence

Beyond the reframing, the foundation of looksmaxxing in underlying violent incel ideology can become quite explicit.

In a recent TikTok interaction we documented, a looksmaxxing influencer with hundreds of thousands of followers responded via video format to a user comment. The user’s profile picture was a photo of Elliot Rodger, the perpetrator of the 2014 Isla Vista killings, and a celebrated “saint” within the incel community. A subsequent comment pointing out this dark connection received more than 20,000 likes.

The particular danger at hand is that looksmaxxing apps, through the mainstreaming mechanisms described above, actively target vulnerable individuals struggling with self-confidence, drawing them into a harmful and potentially violent ideology.

Looksmaxxing apps might seem like an easy cash grab fuelled by young boys going through puberty. But as long as they remain openly accessible in app stores, using viral TikTok edits to reach a massive audience, they can function as a potential radicalisation pipeline into extremist incel worldviews.

The post How ‘looksmaxxing’ self-improvement apps are marketing misogyny to young men appeared first on MASSIVE News.

A lack of trust

Google has an answer for the most problematic elements of its verification plan, but anywhere there’s a gap, it’s easy to see a conspiracy. Why? Well, let’s look at the situation in which Google finds itself.

The courts have ruled that Google acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in the Play Store—it worked against the interests of developers and users for years to make Google Play the only viable source of Android apps, and for what? The Play Store is an almost unusable mess of sponsored search results and suggested apps, most of which are little more than in-app purchase factories that deliver Google billions of dollars every year.

Google has every reason to protect the status quo (it may take the case all the way to the Supreme Court), and now it has suddenly decided the security risk of sideloaded apps must be addressed. The way it’s being addressed puts Google in the driver’s seat at a time when alternative app stores may finally have a chance to thrive. It’s all very convenient for Google.

Developers across the Internet are expressing wariness about giving Google their personal information. Google, however, has decided anonymity is too risky. We now know a little more about how Google will manage the information it collects on developers, though. While Play Store developer information is listed publicly, the video confirms there will be no public list of sideload developers. However, Google will have the information, and that means it could be demanded by law enforcement or governments.

The current US administration has had harsh words for apps like ICEBlock, which it successfully pulled from the Apple App Store. Google’s new centralized control of app distribution would allow similar censorship on Android, and the real identities of those who developed such an app would also be sitting in a Google database, ready to be subpoenaed. A few years ago, developers might have trusted Google with this data, but now? The goodwill is gone.

The post Google confirms Android dev verification will have free and paid tiers, no public list of devs appeared first on MASSIVE News.

Google has been slow to provide details of the verification system. However, you can sign up for the early access program. During that process, Google does ask if you are able to pay registration fees in US dollars, which suggests there will be a cost for developers in the program. We’ve reached out to Google for more information.

A plea for regulation

F-Droid’s position is clear: if you own a device, you should be allowed to decide what software to run on it. To force everyone to register with a central authority is an affront to the ideas of free speech and thought, says F-Droid.

So what’s the solution? In the blog post, Google is accused of using security as a mask for what is really an attempt to consolidate monopoly power over app distribution at a time when its power is being suppressed by antitrust actions. F-Droid is calling on regulators from the US and EU to take a close look at Google’s plans before it’s too late.

Google is currently on the verge of massive court-mandated changes to the Play Store. After losing the antitrust case brought by Epic Games, Google went on to lose the appeal. As it explores further legal maneuvering, the firm may have to begin opening up its app distribution system by promoting third-party stores in Google Play and mirroring Google Play content in other storefronts. This will reduce Google’s monopoly power in Android apps, which is the court’s intention. However, the company’s new goal of locking down sideloading could maintain its central role in Android software.

F-Droid calls on concerned developers and users to contact their government representatives to demand action. Specifically, the site suggests invoking the European Commission’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) to keep FOSS apps free from Google’s gatekeeping.

While the pilot verification program is set to launch next month, it will be almost a year before unverified apps will be blocked. That will start with a handful of markets, including Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand. The restrictions are expected to expand globally in 2027.

The post F-Droid says Google’s new sideloading restrictions will kill the project appeared first on MASSIVE News.