Last week, a new coined word, “Digitine,” became a trending topic on social media.
The term, an abbreviation for “digital guillotine,” went viral in the wake of the 2024 Met Gala. It has been used by many social media users as a call to unfollow or block celebrities who have not taken a stance on Israel's war with Hamas.
The term “digitine” was apparently first used by a TikTok user who slammed an influencer for referencing Marie Antoinette in a Met Gala post.
Celebrities have been advocates of digital boycotts, and in 2020 A-list celebrities such as Kim Kardashian and Katy Perry announced a 24-hour boycott of Instagram as part of the Stop Hate for Profit Campaign, which was organized to stop misinformation and hate speech in the Meta project.
But this time, the target is celebrities, their influence and how they use it.
To find out more about how the “Digital” movement started and what media experts think about how a digital boycott might affect celebrities, read on.
What inspired the start of the “Digitine” movement on social media?
The phrase “Digitine” was apparently coined by a TikTok user in response to the 2024 Met Gala in New York City.
A few days after the May 6 gala, where many celebrities walked the red carpet in lavish haute couture outfits, a woman who goes by the TikTok handle @ladyfromtheoutside posted a video criticizing celebrities for not using their platform and privilege to help those in need.
“Now is the time for the nation to implement what I would call a 'digital guillotine' – a 'digitine' if you will – to block all the celebrities, influencers and wealthy socialites who are not using their resources to help those in dire need,” she said in the video.
“We gave them a platform and now it's time to take it back and block them on all social media and digital platforms, taking away our views, likes, comments and money,” she continued.
TikTok users also named influencer and model Haley Kalil, who recently posted a video of herself wearing a Marie Antoinette-style dress ahead of the Met Gala, as the first person they would like to target with the “digital” movement.
TODAY.com reached out to Khalil but had not received a response as of press time.
Khalil's original video has since been deleted, but clips from the video posted by other TikTok users show her posing in an 18th-century-style floral gown while using an audio clip from the 2006 film “Marie Antoinette,” which includes the line, “Let them eat cake.”
(As an aside, the line “Give me bread” is widely attributed to Marie Antoinette and is often cited as evidence of her callous attitude toward starving peasants, but historians do not believe she actually said it. Marie Antoinette was executed by guillotine in 1793 during the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution.)
“Hailey: We are going to digitally punish you for your ignorant decision to do nothing on your platform with 10 million followers while people are starving and dying, then attend the $75,000 ticket Met Gala and recite 'Let them eat cake,'” TikTok user @ladyfromtheoutside continued in the video.
She ended the video with an image of Khalil being unfollowed, the sound effect of a slashing, and the message, “Long live the revolution.”
After the “Digitine” video went viral, Khalil responded in a TikTok video of her own, clarifying that she will not actually be attending the 2024 Met Gala, but rather just interviewing celebrities ahead of the event.
Khalil also pointed out that the “Marie Antoinette” audio clip he used was a popular trending sound on TikTok at the time, and that he did not intend to cause offense by using it.
“I owe you an apology. I am so, so sorry for choosing a sound that people may perceive as malicious. If I had thought for one second that it would be perceived that way, I would never, never, never ever use it,” she said.
“When I film TikToks, I like to use trending audio and sounds that people are using at the moment, and this was one of them,” she continued.
Khalil also hit back at accusations that his Marie Antoinette-inspired video represents global inequality and a lack of compassion for human suffering.
“There was absolutely no deeper meaning to the sonic choice, and I certainly did not see it as a deliberate sonic choice to highlight wealth disparity or elitism,” she said. “I was never elite enough to be invited to the Met Gala, so I never thought it would be perceived that way.”
Why do people block celebrities en masse?
TikTok user @ladyontheoutside's video quickly went viral, encouraging others on social media to name the celebrities they would like to add to their “digital” lists.
Many posts included the hashtags #digitine and #Blockout2024, criticizing celebrities for not speaking out publicly about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The conflict between Israel and Hamas began after Hamas launched attacks on Israeli civilians on October 7, killing about 1,200 and taking about 250 hostages. More than 35,000 people have been killed in Israeli attacks in Gaza since the October 7 attacks.
A TikTok user shared a video splicing together footage of celebrities on the Met Gala red carpet with footage of the bombing and Gaza protests. The video was set to “The Hanging Tree” from The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1. The Hunger Games is a video where people splice together footage of celebrities on the Met Gala red carpet with footage of the bombing and Gaza protests. From the Met Gala to the Capitolthe area where the elite lived in the fictional book.
“A digital guillotine list of every celeb who attended the dystopian Met Gala,” she wrote in the caption, adding the hashtag “#freepalestine.”
According to NBC News, the posts were made after a group of pro-Palestinian protesters tried to disrupt the Met Gala. The “Digitine” effort comes against the backdrop of widespread protests against the war between Israel and Hamas at dozens of universities across the US in recent weeks, including Columbia University and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).
“A massive #Blockout2024 is underway to block all public figures who have not spoken out about Palestine or called for a ceasefire,” it read.The person who wrote X“This is a global movement. They live off our attention. Without our attention, they will have less impact.”
Khalil's recent video and the viral reaction it has generated appears to have sparked a new wave of protest in the digital sphere.
“'Let them eat cake' was the clincher,” a TikTok user with the username @itzkennyg said in a recent video. “The problem is, I don't think[Haley Kalil]realizes she started a revolution.”
He continued, “We gave them a platform and they spat in our faces. Stop idolizing these people.”
TikToker @adonaicaimmoloch summed it up by saying, “Block all celebrities… These people have every chance to make a difference in this world. Instead of using their platform to say important things, they're using it to make money… Our attention is giving them real-life wealth, and by ignoring them, we're denying it from them.”
One TikTok user called on others to boycott celebrities not only by unfollowing them, but also by “not watching their shows or movies or listening to their music.”
Are digital boycotts effective? Experts weigh in
Do digital boycotts like the “Digitalin” movement actually affect celebrities and influencers?
Blair Huddy, a public relations expert and founder and CEO of Hudson Davis Communications, weighed in on how losing existing followers and being blocked by non-followers can affect social media creators.
In a statement to TODAY.com, Hadi explained that many celebrities and influencers are paid based on the number of views they receive per post, so losing followers or being blocked “can prevent their content from being widely distributed, which could negatively impact their income.”
Hadi also noted that creators can negotiate the price of a post depending on the number of followers they have, meaning an influencer with 100,000 social media followers can charge more for a sponsored post than one with 5,000 or 10,000 followers, for example.
“With fewer followers, brands will have less opportunity to gain exposure to a significant audience and therefore less willingness to pay big money for that exposure,” Hadi said.
However, Hadi also noted that “it would take a significant reduction or blocking of hundreds of thousands of followers to have any impact.”
She also noted that some celebrities pay followers “to maintain their perceived audience and presence,” so being unfollowed by real fans may not affect all celebrities' revenues in the same way.
Tennise Williams, a public relations expert and adjunct lecturer at Columbia University and George Washington University, also said the massive loss of followers could send a message to celebrities.
“Celebrities often have millions of followers, so losing a few may not seem like a big deal,” Williams told TODAY.com in a statement. “But losing a significant number of followers, especially from a particular fan base, is a clear signal that people are unhappy with their behavior.”
“Digital protests can be a powerful tool to hold public figures accountable for their actions and behavior,” Williams added. “If a significant number of people participate in such protests, they can lead to a broader debate about the role of public figures in shaping societal norms and values.”
Topsy Vandenbosch, a licensed psychotherapist and emotional intelligence consultant, told TODAY.com that “follower count” often indicates a celebrity's “influence, marketability, likeability and respect” in addition to their earning potential. Losing followers is a “multi-layered problem” that can jeopardize business with brands and weaken “their moral authority and influence.”
Van den Bosch said a digital boycott could encourage them to change their views and behaviour.
“Mass unfollowing could be a catalyst for public figures to reexamine their beliefs and behaviors and realign them to align with societal expectations to avoid further scrutiny and backlash,” she told TODAY.com in an email.
Author and critic Derek Guy, while not specifically referring to the “digital” movement, Shared your opinion about X Why the Met Gala shouldn't just be dismissed as a “frivolous” event.
The Met Gala, officially known as the Costume Benefit Institute, is a fundraising event for the Metropolitan Museum of Art's Costume Institute.
In a lengthy X thread, Guy argued that while it was “fair to criticize” the “excess” of the gala, both in terms of ticket prices and the cost of the costumes, the event shouldn't be completely dismissed as an elite extravagance.
“Fashion is often unfairly criticized because it has historically been seen as frivolous and feminine,” he writes. “While 'masculine' interests such as architecture are seen as 'legitimate,' fashion is seen as 'frivolous' and 'foolish.'”
“Fashion is an integral part of culture because it has to do with how people of all genders express themselves,” he added. “It's also about craft.”
