In an age where words are scrutinized as closely as actions, sanitized language has become an instinctive cultural reflex. Sanitized language refers to using euphemisms or abstract expressions to describe unpleasant or uncomfortable events or actions to make it less harsh and easier to metabolize. Sanitizing words reframes potentially offensive language as agreeable by interchanging provocative words for more bland ones. For example, referring to “war” as “conflict” or more commonly in everyday life, saying, “I have to use the restroom,” not “I have to pee in the toilet.” It’s a part of pervasive social norms and politeness. However, the amount of words that now have sanitized alternatives is increasingly expanding due to social media. While some topics are heavy and difficult to talk about, using sanitized language to discuss them ultimately does more harm than good.
Words carry deep meaning and shouldn’t be interchanged haphazardly; replacing negative words can also change the entire connotation of what is being said or what has occurred. There is a psychological explanation for the way language affects us; according to Psychology Today, “When it comes to language, our brain produces a response to words, a process known as ‘associative activation.’ When we see or hear a word, our brain forms an idea followed by an emotion which often produces an action or reaction.”
Scrolling on social media, you’re bound to come across content that uses sanitized language to describe serious issues or topics. Those on the internet have no doubt heard words like “grape,” “pew pews,” and “global panini” used in lieu of the actual words: rape, guns, and the global pandemic. Online, mental hospital stays are “grippy sock vacations,” in reference to traditional hospital wear. Words like “sewer slide,” “unalive,” and “self-delete” all refer to suicide or murder. Abbreviations like SA (sexual assault), SH (self-harm) and ED (eating disorder) have been in use on the internet for a long time. While these abbreviations and sanitized language can be helpful in providing trigger warnings, they strip emotion and deeper meaning away from the conversations had about these sensitive topics online.
What makes this trend in language even more concerning is that it’s no longer just individuals sanitizing speech to be polite; people now sanitize their speech to avoid being punished by the algorithm. The result is “algospeak,” a kind of coded language that creators use to keep their videos from being taken down or buried by the algorithm on sites like TikTok and Instagram. Creators who don’t use this “algospeak” when discussing sensitive topics risk not being able to monetize their videos, another factor exacerbating the use of these words. The algorithm essentially promotes advertising-friendly language, suppressing real human conversation and emotion for the sake of monetary gain.
Creators have begun self-censoring themselves with this sanitized language because apps like TikTok are intentionally vague about what words are banned. As Dr. Erica Brozovsky explains, “[TikTok’s] community guidelines state that any content that it finds unsuitable for young users, like videos that contain sexual themes, violence, misinformation or even express sadness, are ineligible for promotion via its recommendation algorithms.” She goes on to explain, “The practice of self-censorship is also a moving target because TikTok does not publish an official banned words list, creators make guesses and share folk knowledge about what they think will be suppressed by algorithmic moderation, leading people to self-censor sometimes when they don’t really need to.”
While content moderation is a necessity for maintaining the safety of users on apps like TikTok, the effectiveness of this oversight has proven subpar. As Taylor Lorenz wrote for the Washington Post, “Evan Greer, director of Fight for the Future, a digital rights nonprofit advocacy group, said that trying to stomp out specific words on platforms is a fool’s errand. ‘One, it doesn’t actually work,’ she said. ‘The people using platforms to organize real harm are pretty good at figuring out how to get around these systems. And two, it leads to collateral damage of literal speech.’” If we are unable to have serious conversations about topics that are uncomfortable or hard to discuss, then we can’t deeply internalize the real harm that is happening around us. Without the ability to use direct, honest language, we lose connection. Conversations about violence, discrimination, mental health or grief can’t be reduced to cute euphemisms without stripping away the humanity behind them. Sanitized language may make topics easier to scroll past, but it also makes it easier to stop caring. To rebuild genuine empathy, we have to resist the urge to cushion every difficult truth. That means using accurate words, even when they’re heavy. It means letting language do what it’s meant to do: reveal reality, not obscure it. Hard conversations require hard words, and if we avoid them, we risk avoiding each other, too.
