What’s a ‘LOLCow’? TikTok’s guilty pleasure flirts with bullying.

When curious minds Google “LOLCow,” a phrase making the rounds across TikTok, the first link to populate is to an outdated blog server, its mission preserved only in Google’s archived page description: “Anonymously share juicy gossip and candid opinions about foolish and bizarre people, also known as lolcows. Freedom of speech friendly.”

Urban Dictionary suggests several similar, but varying, definitions for a LOLCow. A person “who is easy/safe for the majority of people to mock. It’s a cash cow but you instead milk ‘lols’ from it,” describes one. Another: “A lolcow is a person you get extensive laughs from, who doesn’t know they are being made fun of. They can often think they are admired for what they are doing, but secretly are being laughed at constantly.” And, less to the point, “Someone who makes a fool of themselves on the internet over and over. Usually drug spurred.” A final one for the sports fans: “A term that can be used to describe a perennial factory of sadness in sports…”

The concept, while fresh in TikTok’s vernacular, isn’t particularly new, a vestige of early internet days where anonymous accounts gave users the gall to openly harass each other as part of the digital carnival. It’s a term integral to the 4Chan lexicon, and many point to Christine Chandler, a former blogger now embattled by online trolls and accusations of both illegal and unethical behavior, as one of the internet’s preeminent LOLCows.

What has evolved since the days of accepted online trolling is the general public’s access to the LOLCow. New one-stop-shop platforms like TikTok offer creators intense spikes of virality (and money) nearly overnight, often stemming from the algorithm’s crowning of a new app obsession.

No longer just fodder for a fleeting meme or an obsessive sub community, these individuals become the star of everyone’s FYP. They’re flown out to collaborate with big creators, pegged for brand deals, and given the tools to turn their online persona — which, in many cases, stems from the ability to be mocked — into a source of income. An environment rife for manipulation, TikTok obscures the modern LOLCow under the guise of love and fandom. Obsessive posters aren’t always following just to be cruel, some believe, at least according to their comments, they are building community with the internet’s underdogs.

‘Milking’ LOLCows: modern bullying or harmless fun?

In a 7-minute long video posted by user @PinkBinz on Aug. 31, TikTok’s version of a “LOLCow” is described as the target of “middle school bully” behavior, in which a user is uplifted by disingenuous engagement from viewers. To be more precise, according to the creator, the LOLCow is thinly-veiled cruelty, if not outright ableism. “LOLCows are almost always picked out by the internet because they essentially have disabilities,” she says, pointing to the rise of creator Shawty Bae, who has not identified as someone with a disability. “Ninety-nine percent of the time, if these people were never involved in the internet, their life would have been completely different. Most of the things that happen to them in their real life have happened thanks to the impact of people on the internet bullying them.”

In a comment liked more than 13,000 times, one viewer added, “lolcows are right wing pipelines to try to make it look like disabled people are dangers to society. It’s diet eugenics.” 

Another video, posted in 2023 by @GamerMagee, argues that more attention needs to be paid to the people who are baiting creators. “The level of depravity of the people who are f*cking with them is just mindboggling,” he said. Commenters likened the rise of LOLCows to the popularity of TV shows on channels like TLC, parading “unusual” behaviors, appearances, or trauma for ratings. 

Not all watchers feel that way, however, arguing they find these creators relatable or that they only want to “check in” on them out of compassion. “If you are ever wondering why you are drawn to shawtybae, it’s because she doesn’t try to be anyone but herself. In a world that wants perfection, she doesn’t take herself too seriously and she’s incredibly humble despite her fame,” wrote one user on a YouTube video featuring Shawty Bae.

“Authentic” is joined by other, less kind phrases used to describe the TikTok creators pegged as new era LOLCows: “easy targets,” “gullible,” “vulnerable,” “memeable.” Viewers on @PinkBinz’ video chimed in with dozens of examples falling under these categories, each with fervent “fanbases,” including viral pages of those like Tophia Chu, trans creator Elphaba Orion Doherty, Daniel Larson, and — one of the most controversial — @WorldOfTshirts. Joshua Block, the face of World of Tshirts, shot to popularity in the pandemic-spawned TikTok boom, known for his daily vlogs around New York City featuring spontaneous performances, verbal assails, and destructive drinking. His account, followed by 3.6 million people, boasts even more millions of views by onlookers who proclaim to obsessively watch his videos out of morbid fascination. 

Block and Chandler are examples of the bleak direction “LOL farming” can head, where incessant goading leads creators down increasingly harmful pathways and often abusive behavior, lobbed toward themselves or others. In some examples, LOLCows are outrightly doxxed or the victims of swatting. In others, they become engagement-getters for other creators, like the relationship between Block and creator Mr. Based NYC, using them to grow their own channels.

LOLing outside of TikTok

There exist more mainstream instances, too: The obsessive coverage of YouTube star Gabbie Hanna’s erratic behavior and subsequent manic breakdown, documented in its completeness on her TikTok page. Or the mass consumption and meme-ing of Britney Spears’ eccentric social media videos, especially those posted during her fight for independence from her conservatorship, that still continues today. 

Even more complicated: Some of the most popular LOLCows are, in the eyes of the internet (and often the law), “bad” people, the perpetrators of legitimate crimes, threats, or problematic behavior. Others branded with the title are right-wing, or even white supremacist, figureheads. Cancel culture thus collides with LOLCows in a flurry of retaliatory online behavior. 

Off TikTok, there are dedicated subreddits and Discord servers tasked with following the spirals of these creators, including Block, with posts oscillating between concern and mockery. This online voyeurism also includes a 15-year-old Wiki page dedicated to Chandler’s movements and an entire host of “snark” pages offering forums for widespread LOLCow discussion. 

TikTok & LOLCows: Made for each other

To many, TikTok is more than a hub for viral humor and recommendations, it’s a LOLCow factory farm. 

And where blogs of yore were more up front with their cruelty, the modern notion of a LOLCow is less on-the-nose in its detestation of difference. Instead, people say they engage out of the urge to offer advice or, more commonly, reality checks — take the incessant commentary spawning from the dating blog of lifestyle creator Molly Rutter as example. Others, for all intents and purposes, say they are genuine fans of the creator. Comments like “you know what, hell yeah” or “can’t tell the chat I f*ck with this” convey the idea that these human beings are an embarrassing guilty pleasure. But what’s even more concerning is how the modern social media landscape exacerbates these urges. Platforms harnessing endless scrolling, pushing e-commerce opportunities, and adding all-encompassing search integrations, keep people locked to their devices, a feedback loop between creator and user that promotes even more obsession.

Will internet culture grow out of LOLing at people?

In the age of online profitability — the possibilities of the creator economy not yet discovered in the early 2000s — this parasocial relationship can lead down unexpected paths. Some of the aforementioned personalities and other ridiculed creators have pivoted to adult content, linking Only Fans pages in their bios to capitalize off of their virality. In the case of ShawtyBae, explicit images taken from her Only Fans account were leaked online without consent, more fuel for the fire. Others lean into money-making ventures through brand deals, celebrity appearances, or product endorsements. Public ridicule becomes inextricably tied to their livelihood. 

At large, more and more people are reckoning with the ethical repercussions of posting on social media, from the generational trauma of family vlogging, to the platforming of people with disabilities by creators, with or without their consent. The revival of the phrase LOLCow in public consciousness, while a concerning continuation, suggests more people are becoming aware of social media’s dark side.

Alongside growing self-awareness, and a renewed love of criticism, among users, some are repositioning the phrase as a behavioral check for their peers online: Are you really engaging with a creator out of sympathy, enjoyment, or care…  or are you milking them for “LOLs”?