The majority of individuals on platforms like Lemmy—and social media more broadly—engage almost exclusively as passive consumers. Their involvement often begins and ends with the simple act of upvoting or downvoting content. This limited interaction speaks volumes about the nature of digital engagement, where consuming information or entertainment takes precedence over meaningful interaction or contribution. The absence of deeper engagement is not a failing of the platform itself but a reflection of broader societal tendencies.

People, in general, tend toward passivity, a trait that extends beyond online spaces and into areas like civic participation. In the United States, for example, voter turnout remains notoriously low. People express their dissatisfaction with the status quo, they crave change, and they criticize institutions, yet they shy away from taking the minimal steps required to enact that change, often hiding behind a hand-waving comment about “structure” and “institutions,” a transparent way of excusing their unwillingness to actually act. The same individuals who will upvote or downvote content online without a second thought are often the ones who abstain from voting in elections, an “upvote/downvote” that directly impact their lives.

What is even more concerning is that this passivity is not merely a result of laziness or apathy, but something ingrained and encouraged by the structure of modern society. Our institutions—whether educational, political, or corporate—tend to value compliance over initiative. Decision-making, once seen as a marker of personal agency and responsibility, is increasingly viewed as a burden. People have been conditioned to prefer being told what to do rather than take responsibility for their choices.

If a decision goes wrong, there’s an inherent comfort in being able to place blame on someone else. This social conditioning makes being passive, fading into the wallpaper, not only acceptable but desirable for many. And yet, these same people will often feel deeply dissatisfied with their lives. But, rather than do something about it, they continue to be helpless, wishing someone would decide for them to improve their lives and then forcing them to do it.

While it’s easy to express frustration with the passive nature of online participants, it is also, sadly, understandable. They are products of a society that rewards inaction more than action, where engagement is often reduced to the simplest and least effortful gestures. These platforms reflect the broader societal trend toward disengagement from real, consequential decision-making, reinforcing and reflecting a vicious cycle of passive impotence while they wait for someone or something to fix things for them.