We are going to kill "unalive"
Social media users increasingly swap words like “suicide,” “kill,” and “rape” for euphemisms such as “unalive” or “grape,” partly to avoid algorithmic demonetization and moderation, and partly as in‑group slang. Commenters debate whether this trend is primarily about advertiser-driven censorship, mass “preemptive compliance,” or normal language evolution, and whether euphemisms actually help or instead obscure serious issues like self-harm and sexual violence. Many express broader fatigue with corporate and government influence over online speech and argue for either moving to more open, decentralized platforms or simply being less online altogether.
Origins and Historical Parallels
- Commenters note that algorithm-driven censorship echoes much older filtering: early ISP profanity filters blocking terms like “breast cancer” and “Scunthorpe,” and TV/SEO norms around “bad words.”
- Some blame search engines’ early ranking penalties for “naughty” words and link-heavy pages for narrowing what content survives and how sites link to each other.
Why “unalive” / algospeak Emerged
- Seen largely as a workaround for demonetization and soft suppression, not outright bans.
- Many believe the real driver is advertiser and payment-processor sensitivity to “brand-unsafe” topics (violence, sex, politics), not platform morality.
- Others argue a lot of usage is now imitation and in‑group slang, with younger users copying creators without consciously “optimizing for the algorithm.”
Slang, In‑Group Signaling, and Youth Culture
- “Unalive,” “seggs,” “grape,” etc. are described as youth slang and group markers, similar to older waves of slang; some expect them to fade like other fads, others think taboo cycles will persist indefinitely.
- Some older readers were unaware of the self‑censorship angle and assumed it was just ironic net-speak.
Language Change vs. Euphemism Treadmill
- Several see this as just another round of euphemism (“breast” → “chest”, “passed away,” “unhoused”), arguing language has always softened hard topics.
- Others distinguish between organic euphemism and euphemism imposed by ad-tech and moderation systems, which they find more disturbing or “Newspeak”-like.
- There is debate over better phrases for suicide: “committed suicide” (crime/sin connotations) vs. “died by suicide” vs. “killed themselves” vs. “unalived.”
Effectiveness and Harms of Censorship
- Some think people are overreacting to imagined algorithms (“mass hallucination”); platforms could trivially add “unalive” to their filters but often haven’t.
- Others counter that keyword filters, shadowbans, and demonetization absolutely change what ordinary users say and whether they participate at all.
- Self‑censorship and preemptive compliance are seen as especially insidious; people reshape speech even when actual enforcement is rare.
Free Speech, Moderation, and Alternatives
- Views split between:
- Those who want less centralized control and call for censorship‑resistant or federated platforms (Mastodon/fediverse, small instances, chans, nostr).
- Those who explicitly don’t want “censorship‑free” spaces, citing analogies like “Nazi bars” driving everyone else away.
- Many note that truly “open” spaces tend to be either fringe, unpleasant, or quickly re‑gentrified; there’s no consensus on a satisfying alternative.
Emotional Reactions and Broader Fatigue
- Some find the whole situation trivial (“don’t use TikTok”), others see it as a symptom of a wider, corporate‑driven degradation of the internet.
- Several express exhaustion with corporate, governmental, and self‑censorship, and with the way social media flattens discourse into toxic binaries.
- A recurring theme: the healthiest response may be spending less time on big engagement platforms rather than trying to “fix” them linguistically.