In May, The New York Times ran a story about a young influencer with Stage 4 cancer who’d become the fixation of a Reddit ‘snark’ community. The subreddit’s members didn’t believe she was sick. They combed through her Instagram posts and created timelines tracking her hospital visits and medical details. They called it research. When the Times confirmed her diagnosis with her doctor and reached out to Reddit for a comment on its inaction, the platform banned the forum. By then, though, its members had already produced something that looked unsettlingly like journalism.
On Reddit, there are entire subcultures devoted to watching influencers and public personalities a little too closely. It’s called ‘snark’ — a mix of mindless gossip, genuine critique and obsessive commentary about the daily lives of people who have built followings online. There’s a subreddit for Los Angeles influencers, another for New York City ones, several for family vloggers, a few for former Christian fundamentalists. Many of these pages have over 100,000 members.
At their best, these snark pages do what most big-name journalists don’t have time for: They dissect the mechanics of influence, tracking when a ‘casual’ Instagram story is actually a paid ad, or when a brand deal crosses an ethical line. Some threads read like mini case studies in influencer marketing, showing exactly how someone’s lifestyle content converts into sponsorship money. It’s tedious, detail-oriented work — the kind that requires patience and a slightly obsessive temperament. In that way, snarkers aren’t so different from reporters.
There is a minor caveat: They operate in the dark underbelly of anonymity in comment sections and lengthy threads rather than reputable newsrooms in the daylight.
Where did snark come from — and why? You could argue that these communities emerged because traditional media failed — or still doesn’t yet know how — to cover the world of influencers and social media seriously. Snark subreddits filled that gap; they became a place where users could point out contradictions, uncover undeclared partnerships or call out manipulative editing — a citizen fact-checking operation, occasionally doused in raging sarcasm.
However, though this space is seemingly built on accountability, it is no newsroom. These threads are long and obsessive, intensively detailing an influencer’s life. In one notable case, lifestyle creator Lily Chapman revealed that multiple Reddit ‘snark’ forums had been dedicated to her, ostensibly to hold her ‘accountable.’ She says that, in reality, their primary purpose was to tear down every aspect of her being — from criticism of her looks and her posture, to disparaging comments about her family and fiancé, to judgment on the way she cooked meals.
On the one hand, snark is driven by a genuine desire to see behind the curtain. But on the other hand, it can’t resist the emotional payoff of tearing someone down. Within these subreddits, even well-intentioned critique is heavily doused in negativity. Disagreement is rare, and the top-voted responses are usually the sharpest, meanest takes. Over time, this creates an echo chamber — a kind of toxicity where intense speculation becomes fact — and normal — simply because it’s shared often enough.
Many users are drawn to Reddit’s snark subreddits because of the sheer scale of scrutiny available. In some communities, daily threads dissect influencers’ posts, parenting choices, wealth displays and relationship drama. Some members describe the forums as a way to keep themselves in check when it comes to being influenced by the curated images influencers present online. Yet even as users defend the space as accountability, the commentary often turns bitter — threads frequently have to be removed for violating subreddit rules because the criticism ‘went too far.’
Reddit does have moderators, but they’re mostly volunteers or users themselves — overwhelmed, inconsistent and sometimes just as biased as the threads they’re managing. Without structure and adequate oversight, free reign can lead to a pit of chaotic toxicity.
All of this said, the appeal makes sense. People want transparency in an online world that runs on illusion. They don’t want to be deceived. And in the absence of reliable reporting on influencer culture, Reddit offers the next best thing. It’s messy, reactive and often unfair, but it can uncover cleverly hidden sponsorships and contradictions that traditional media might overlook.
Reddit snark pages highlight both the potential and the danger of unmonitored reporting. They show that audiences can uncover hidden truths, fact-check public figures and challenge polished narratives in ways traditional media sometimes cannot. But they also reveal what happens when accountability and ethics are removed from the equation: Speculation can become harassment, critique turns into doxxing and suddenly what was simply transparent reporting is actively harming individuals.
True journalism is not just about uncovering information — it requires ethics, integrity and respect for its subjects. What can we learn from snark? Discovering information is not enough — truly responsible reporting demands accountability and moral judgment.
