Social media thrives on approval, but rejection has its own digital language.
Ever posted on social media and obsessively checked for likes? That’s the validation economy – Miami airport check-in –100 likes. Rant about Starbucks’ new policy – tons of views. Burned lasagna – viral.
But validation isn’t the only currency online. Dislikes, snarky comments, and sarcastic emoji use fuel a new economy – the correction economy.
Validation vs rejection
Instagram's decision to incorporate a dislike button isn’t a new concept. YouTube has long had it with its thumbs-down button, as does Reddit with its downvote feature. The Instagram feature is currently being tested and would basically allow users to dislike comments they didn’t approve of.
Dislike buttons are tools for indirect rejection. I recently commented on an autotuned hip-hop star’s music video on YouTube that I preferred an alternative style of old-school rap, and another user pooh-poohed the idea with laugh emojis and no further discussion whatsoever.
One bonus, however, is that you don’t have any direct confrontation by posting a dislike. It’s an invisible burn – a kind of socially accepted negativity, a sense of feedback without accountability.
On a sports forum, for example, someone posts an opinion and often receives a similar number of likes and dislikes, with no nuance or discussion at all.
Meme wars
Perhaps the most self-aware or conscious form of passive-aggression is the meme. While often used humorously, memes frequently involve smirks and subtle digs at others.
The dog on fire with the classic “it’s fine” line is a prime example of a non-confrontational sarcastic shield – it appears humorous, but it’s backhanded.
Another classic is the “you had one job!” meme – a poster is taking the moral high ground while simultaneously adding an insulting layer. Then they claim, “It’s just a joke,” which becomes a convenient defense. When used in large numbers, it becomes an echo chamber of sentiment.
Sometimes, using a lyric or sentiment like “I’m the problem, it’s me” from Taylor Swift’s Antihero is a classic example of shifting the focus. It's a clever move of pointing the finger at oneself (or another) through a metaphorical measure. Does anyone really notice? Apparently so.
@superkeara Unfortunately unrelatable message with this one #taylorswift #swifttok #antihero ♬ original sound - Keara Sullivan
Venting frustration can be done overtly or covertly. Engaging in a form of social comparison, like a laughing emoji or a subtle dig, provides both indirect belittlement and instant gratification.
It’s a quick outlet of shallow engagement. While not necessarily wrong, it gives a veil and an option to delete, as if it never happened in the first place. It's a clever play of deflection, where resolution is delayed or never sought.
One job, you had one fkn job… 😳🤷🏼😂😂 pic.twitter.com/kV0Rx8jo2k
undefined Irish Ranger (Sevvy) (@VeteranIrish) December 6, 2024
Of course, the more extreme end of the spectrum is where you get the Wild West – people flaming each other directly. In platforms like Instagram and TikTok, the more performative aspects can become passive-aggressive when they need to be.
Weaponizing vagueness
There’s also a dark side to vague and passive-aggressive comments, even in group learning situations.
I remember being in a study group I used to belong to, where we had a WhatsApp group of aspiring teachers that was supposed to be supportive. The conversation went something like this:
A: “Some people never learn!”The comment seemed harmless at first, but the tone was hard to ignore – like it was aimed at someone, though no names were mentioned.
B: “Not sure what you’re trying to say here…”It was a subtle way of calling out the post without directly confronting it. No one wanted to say anything too blunt, so this just hung in the air, creating an uncomfortable silence.
C: “I think we should just focus on the positive, this is a study group, after all.”Now, the tone had shifted. Instead of addressing the comment, the focus moved to deflecting, with a more passive approach of steering the group back to “better vibes,” but it didn’t really address the underlying tension.
A: “Wow! Some people just can’t handle constructive criticism, huh?”This was the final straw. Rather than resolving anything, it just escalated things further. A comment that could have been a helpful conversation ended up becoming an indirect shot, fueling a passive-aggressive spiral.
Of course, a group's spirit can’t always be collaborative – sometimes, it can turn combative like a light switch. What would normally be a private disagreement is shifted into a broader arena, eventually leading to group fragmentation.
Instagram bringing back a dislike button needn’t be the end of synergistic conversation. It’s an experimental feature. Still, as people choose to choke each other online – either through sharp flames or indirect burns – perhaps mediation could be sought out through AI or other solutions.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are markedmarked