What the Dark Mode missed

“In Filterworld, recognition becomes desire. What we’re shown, we come to want.” Kyle Chayka

The internet's been a bit obsessed with the recent 'Dark Mode Shift'. Since luxury memologist Edmond Lau coined the term earlier this year, I've watched it bounce around socials to commentary nodding along in agreement: we're toggling from 'light mode' optimism to darker, ‘mask-off’ villain vibes.

But something about this hasn't been sitting right with me.

I mean yes, I’m naturally drawn to optimism (let’s be transparent here). But beyond my personal bias, the discussion around the Dark Mode shift seems - in my opinion - to miss fundamental elements of what's also unfolding right now.

What follows is definitely not intended to pick apart Lau specifically, but rather to unpack it all and prompt us to question how we might develop better ways of understanding how we change.

So back to the Dark Mode Shift… it’s described as a "mask-off era where nihilism, hyper-capitalist ambition, and debauchery are openly celebrated". We can all agree that this is pretty astute and on-the-nose for the general mood of 2025 so far, right?

But I can't help but feel we're diving headfirst in agreement to a super superficial analysis of an in-between moment - one that focuses on vibes over substance and glosses over the big questions about power dynamics, historical patterns, and algorithmic amplification.

In a nutshell, I feel like this:

The algorithmic amplification of BatemanCore

“Everything starts to look like everything else—not because of shared meaning, but because the system demands it.” Kyle Chayka, Filterworld

A pretty major omission surrounding the dark mode shift convo is any acknowledgment of how algorithmic curation shapes our perception of cultural trends. But we could also argue that’s true for all shift-related discourse. True. In any case, what appears as a genuine trend toward darker sensibilities might also be the amplification of bait-ey content by engagement-driven algorithms.

Do people independently choose this behaviour or simply being rewarded for performing it? I’m not convinced we can proclaim a shift without addressing algorithmic bias first.

Because we all know by now how social platforms elevate content that triggers strong emotional reactions - with negative emotions often driving the highest engagement.

“what are the words that you should put into the title of your video, if you want to get picked up by the [YouTube] algorithm? They are…words such as ‘hates, obliterates, slams, destroys” Johann Hari, Stolen Focus

This algorithmic bias creates a distorted mirror of culture, one that might just magnify shitty behaviours while rendering invisible the vast ecosystem of constructive, optimistic, and community-oriented work happening simultaneously.

I’m reminded of Amy Daroukakis’ finding that 90% of trend reports come out of 10 cities. Is this ‘mask-off’ a true irl insight or just the tip of the very online iceberg?

When people act increasingly egotistical or nihilistic on socials, is this really evidence of a "mask-off" cultural shift, or just an adaptation to an attention economy that rewards such behaviour with visibility? Do people want to be villains or just be seen?

Which brings us to…

The vibe-commodification problem

From the murky pool of algorithmic bias, to repackaging it for algorithmic experiences.

It’s worth talking about how quickly this shift is being interpreted as something aspirational. The way it's packaged up to circulate on social strips away the context. When critique gets flattened into meme, this becomes yet another aesthetic to adopt. No critical thinking here, sir!

There's a line between observing a cultural drift and encouraging it.

The moment something is named a "vibe," we should be honest with ourselves that it risks becoming a commodity. Detached irony, moral ambiguity, and aestheticised decline are easy to market - and hard to resist when doomscrolling at speed. But without responsibility, commentary quickly turns into complicity.

“When people believe that society is falling apart, it results in a self-fulfilling prophecy—it leads to those people behaving in ways that do make society fall apart.”

- Read Stephanie Harrison and get anomie into your lexicon right now.

What's especially questionable is the uncritical celebration of the "supervillain mentality" without acknowledging real-world consequence i.e. the very real, very problematic babybro worship of Andrew Tate. The celebration of supervillain archetypes feels weirdly reminiscent of how certain boyos have misinterpreted all the anti-heroes from Tyler Durden to American Psycho’s Patrick Bateman – focusing on the surface-level aesthetic while missing Bret Easton Ellis's scathing critique of precisely this hollow, consequence-free embrace of destructive behaviors.

Haven’t we been here before?

There's nothing new about darkness

The central claim - that we're witnessing some major cultural pivot from light to dark - fundamentally misrepresents how culture actually evolves. Dark aesthetics, nihilistic themes, and social critique have always existed alongside mainstream optimism. We oscillate between the two. Goths, punks, and countless other subcultures have provided spaces for exploring "darker" emotions throughout modern history.

Case in point: every group of teenage goths in every town the world over. Goths are eternal. I even wrote an essay on this topic so many years ago at uni! Ted Polhemus’ Fashion & Anti-Fashion is a fantastic resource here if you want to dig deeper.

Point two: Mainstream brands have been referencing and partnering with Uglyworldwide since before Covid and isn’t referencing Gaga and FKA twigs akin to forecasting minimalism and referencing Calvin Klein?

Horror as response, not trend

That’s not to say there’s little interest in the macabre right now. Horror is definitely booming, and gothic themes are everywhere from beauty to interiors and everything in between. But it seems more of a deeper emotional response than a trend cycle. Goth never goes away. It's in the shadows, always offering a way to live outside the cookie-cutter expectations of the 9-5, nuclear family-esque mainstream. That’s not because it's oh-so-rebellious but because it creates space for grief, obsession, decay and transformation. Emotions that we might be more likely educated to suppress but really need to explore right now.

What if this dark mode energy is not so much about emulating villainy, but refusal. Maybe we don't want to be the bad guy - we just want to be anything but the blondes with blow-outs of modern authoritarianism. Maybe we're drawn to the dark because it offers something seemingly honest: not answers to recreate 1:1, but a different tone worth exploring.

The fashion reality check

So how are we exploring all the ugliness?

If we really look at what people are wearing through a ‘bubble up’ lens (from irl to Vogue level PFW street style) there’s clearly a marked difference vs. the past decade, but beyond Berghain the mood isn't slick or seductive villain aesthetics irl. Sure, the massive 80s suit is heavily in the mix but it's overall much more grounded. Awkward, ugly even. Earthy tones of oxblood and suede tan have taken over. The silhouettes are also gigantic and unsleek: parachute, slouchy, tactile - as though we’ve mashed-up four decades into one. This isn't nostalgia for only the shiny parts of the past exclusively. It echoes the murkiness of the 70s - less so in the silhouettes but surely in the economic instability, Cold War anxiety, and the crumbling of utopian ideals. Fashion got weird during that time too. See also: Miu Miu and the Endcore energy. For me, ANU’s Boho vs. Boom Boom is a perfect - and much deeper dive - into the context here.

Meanwhile, the really interesting aspect overlooked is all the medieval references surging over recent years.

As Vogue recently observed about Fall 2025 collections: "Resistance was a word that came up again and again... What came down the runways were armor-like clothes for brave knights and their off-duty tights and tunics."

Vogue's analysis cuts to something the Dark Mode misses:

"In a manosphere that seems especially welcoming to toxic villains, my guess is that there is a collective longing for the reappearance of valiant heroes and heroines who believe that, 'like it or not, right must prevail.'"

What might appear as aesthetic "darkness" often contains within it a moral clarity and yearning for justice that transcends nihilism. Without heading off into an entirely fun tangent, let’s just say pull on BURN AFTER READING to continue that thread.

What people actually want

Ok, let’s zoom out a bit now.

According to the World Economic Forum's 2025 Global Cooperation Barometer, "despite strong voter backlash last year against sitting governments, there are signals that constituencies are looking to accelerate rather than derail solutions." The report finds that across many domains - from climate finance to technology sharing - cooperation continues and is even growing despite geopolitical headwinds.

This suggests what appears at surface level as nihilistic backlash might actually reflect impatience for meaningful action. What's changing isn't people's desire for solutions but their tolerance for too much talking, shitty approaches and a prioritisation of populism over practical action.

What if the cultural shift isn't toward darkness but toward urgency.

Maybe people aren't giving up on cooperative values; they're stressed about how to get the ball rolling from demanding better, to realising faster, more effective manifestations of them.

Full credit to Samar Younes for the rationally minded perspective that later got rolled into the dark mode shift discourse.

Beyond the binary

So I don’t think that what's emerging is a quick-flip toggle from light to dark mode, but a messy rediscovery of meaning in a world where previous structures have proven subpar - or simply no longer exist. Like when you start tidying up a room only to make it even messier first - that’s where we are right now. A more accurate framing would acknowledge multiple, sometimes contradictory responses to shared challenges. Such as Beth Bentley’s fantastic Meh-ification series and Interregnum which addresses this weird in-between monster moment - highly recommend.

Some turn to nihilism, others to renewed spirituality; some embrace goth ideologies, others seek refuge in nostalgia; some retreat into individualism, others build new forms of community. Maybe this isn’t the topic for a meme?

Ultimately, the limitations of the Dark Mode shift discussions I think must remind us of the responsibility that comes with creating and sharing cultural analysis (same goes for me here). It’s good to simplify the complex in pursuit of accessibility but less so when it gets reductive to the point of glorification.

At its core, the dark mode vibe shift feels less like cultural commentary and more like marketable cultural detachment. It suggests we’re past the point of collective ethics, past the point of ideals. That all we can do now is aestheticise decline, play with power, and retreat into ambiguity.

There’s no vision, no responsibility, no forward movement. Just vibes.

If this is the shift, who’s it actually serving?