In these examples, the page is relatively harmless. I say this to mean that, in a sense, I agree with a popular argument in defense of snarking: anyone purposely putting themselves in the public eye should expect some kind of discourse surrounding their lifestyle choices. However, I do take umbrage with the argument that even the most insignificant, cruel snarks are made to spread awareness against the “irresponsible” messages these furtive influencers send.
On the rare occasion that influencers address the page’s negativity, the comments defending the snark in the name of accountability trickle in. Take Kelsey Kotzur, for example. Earlier this year, the 29-year-old Brooklynite, a popular NYC influencer “snarkee” denounced the page in an Instagram story. When you’re “straight up bullying people for their appearance, it crosses a line,” she wrote. “Please just unfollow me.”
___STEADY_PAYWALL___
Members of the snark community were divided. Some snarkers agreed that much of the discourse on Kotzur verged on bullying. One commenter collected a list of Kotzur-centered content, some blatant body shaming, that she felt encompassed none of the constructive criticism the snarkers claimed. However, it seemed the majority instead accepted another snarker’s suggestion, which read: “If people airing their annoyances with your overconsumption and thirst for gaudy labels is this painful to you, then maybe work a regular job.” As I’ve witnessed, the snarkers go to great lengths to convince themselves that their intentions behind making fun of someone’s eyebrows were morally sound.
This is not to say that the snark is a free-for-all. The page rules call for the removal of content which “has a bias against identity” and warns of “no body shaming or body snark” about body shape, size, or natural body features. This rule, though, does not protect against content discussing plastic surgery, Photoshop failures, or an influencer’s relationship to food and their body. One thread, for example, asked users to comment their opinion on the “best and worst plastic surgery – NYC influencer edition.” A response offered that one influencer has “the best lipo” but that “her entire face is botched.”
“In the world of r/NYCinfluencersnark, appealing to the supposed distaste of the proletariat is enough to separate your superior morality from that of the bourgeoisie.”
Carelessly cruel posts like this do not break the rules as a technicality. Results from elective plastic surgery are not “natural body features.” An influencer did not need to get another syringe of Botox, nor did they need to artificially alter their waist on FaceTune to appear two sizes smaller. Yet the comments are shrouded in the aforementioned false sincerity. “I wish they would stop,” a commenterpleaded, “so many young women are making themselves look terrifying.”
The r/NYCinfluencersnark subreddit is public, meaning both snarkers and influencers can see the page’s content. Therefore, public online snarking is void of the intrigue of gossiping in private. If, as I suspect, the snarkers simply enjoy talking about influencers behind their backs, why not skip the disingenuous disclaimers of accountability, and gossip in private? Likewise, if you find an influencer’s behavior so damaging, why not put forth your opinion free from anonymity? To hold someone accountable includes making someone responsible for something and demanding an explanation. Coincidentally, this goes against rule number 8 of the r/NYCinfluencersnark page: “DMing an influencer for comment or clarification on a post made here is against the rule, and posting a screenshot of that interaction here will result in being banned from the sub.”
The appeal of these snark pages isn’t difficult to understand. Gossip as a social practice is as old as time. However, as a form of criticism, as the snarkers suggest their influencer gossip is considered, it is unproductive. As author David Denby writes in Snark (2009), what separates snark from “useful social satire” is “its contempt for absolutely everyone.” To snark on everything under the guise of cultural critique is to critique nothing with any seriousness. As Denby suggests, and as I find true in the case of these subreddits, snark is better studied as a social practice than a rhetorical device.
In its “cozy knowingness,” Denby says, “snark flatters you by assuming that you get the contemptuous joke.” You’ve been admitted to a club,” Denby continues, “though it may be the club of the second-rate.” In the case of online snarking, upvotes and comments in agreement concur that a poster has adhered to the shared norms and taboos of the community. Many posts serve as pseudo-auditions for entrance into the “in-crowd” of snarkers. The genre of “Am I the only one?” posts questions and calls for shared observances from others. To snark widely and commonly is the audition with the highest acceptance rate. Suspect an influencer’s alleged photo editing or financial status or call them out of touch, and chances are your admittance will be granted.
In the world of r/NYCinfluencersnark, appealing to the supposed distaste of the proletariat is enough to separate your superior morality from that of the bourgeoisie.
Words: Brenna Hagan
