Image courtesy of Luke via Wikimedia Commons.
Gabriella Rodriguez ’27
Opinion Editor
Content warning: the article references ableism and homophobia.
In concept, removing “dislikes” from social media platforms seems like a good idea and a practical way to reduce harassment and negativity, but it might not be in practice. In reality, this is more superficial than it seems because rampant harassment persists. While there may be no public like-to-dislike metric anymore — having since been removed on platforms like Facebook and YouTube — this change is not enough. Many times, it seems that the most that any platform does is advise members to be respectful of community guidelines, with a possibility of flagging spam comments. Due to the popularity of sharing material, moderation of sensitive material or anything that violates community guidelines is often difficult.
Despite the lack of a “dislike” option, troll accounts are still rampant, with few measures taken against them. For example, Instagram has emphasized Reels — short videos that often feature trending audios. Due to the widespread popularity of these Reels, they often amass a broad audience of throwaway accounts commenting transphobic, homophobic, racist, misogynist, ableist and body-shaming remarks. There may be no “dislike” button, but the amount of hateful comments is still proof of the rampant harassment that users face. In a Reel posted by The Female Quotient, @femalequotient, Marta Sodano — a woman with Down Syndrome — speaks about subverting stereotypes about people with the condition. Opening the comment section, however, reveals the rampant harassment and ableism exhibited by many users. Some of the top comments read as follows:
“Uh oh they’re revolting” —@/xzjmiller
“Who taught this one how to talk” —@/ederr.fi
“We getting a [r-slur] revolution before GTA6 is crazy” –@/better_call_saad
With some of these comments amassing tens of thousands of likes in support, they are propelled to the top of the comment section for all to see. It may only take a few seconds to type these cruel remarks, but their impact is profound and lasting; this negativity often prompts other users to comment in agreement or add their own degrading insults. Protected by anonymity and joining with what they perceive as the “majority,” they rally against creators.
In another instance, figure skater Zabato Bebe, @zabatobebe, made a collaborative post with @jankyes that showed the two men figure skating, with a soft April Fool’s joke about going to the Olympics. While there was no indication of anything beyond a same-sex skating duo, many users were quick to comment homophobic remarks.
“Just ruined the sport” —@/x_ankilla
“Well there goes one of the most elegant and enrapturing sports in the world. Two guys skating. Uggh. No thanks” —@/momluv
“Won’t be watching this crap” —@/rebeccacarter3224
However, some of these negative comments motivate other users to share positive responses. Fortunately, there were also more positive comments retaliating against such remarks on this particular figure skating post. This is the duality of comments; they can be neutral, positive or downright cruel. The lack of an option to dislike may not be present, but there is little moderation regarding the amount of harassment. When users engage with a certain kind of content by liking, sharing, commenting, saving or even just watching it, the algorithm will push similar content into their feed. For people looking to troll and harass, however, this only enables them to find more victims.
While users can disable comments, doing so greatly hinders their growth and reach. Comments are a metric of engagement on platforms like YouTube and Instagram, and they determine whether or not the algorithm promotes a particular post or video. In other words, creators can protect themselves from potential harassment, but at the cost of visibility and growth. In putting their work on social media for approval, creators often attach themselves to their work, and they can easily feel overwhelmed by an influx of negativity. However, while there may be vicious trolls in comment sections, there can also be encouraging supporters and genuine feedback on the media that the creator is putting forth.
Like-to-dislike ratios on music or entertainment, for example, could simply be a matter of taste. How-to videos or educational lessons, however, are forms of media that could greatly benefit from the use of a public like-dislike display, which has been removed on many platforms. Public like-to-dislike ratios could be an excellent metric for determining the consensus on a video’s usefulness. There is a balance — viewers must form their own opinions about the content they view, but it is also helpful to read about other users’ experiences. Just as products or services might be rated out of a star system or percentage metric, the same principle can help users evaluate utility videos.
In conclusion, while there may no longer be public dislikes on popular social media sites, the persistence of harassment demands further attention and moderation. It is impossible to erase all hateful forces from social media, especially when the nature of these platforms promotes sharing and rapid engagement. Even when platforms seem only to have measures of “approval” — such as likes and view counts — harassment is still present, and it must be addressed. Moreover, this makes positivity all the more crucial in supporting creators who want to share their stories and voices.