Understanding the Hidden Language of Emojis in Youth Culture

The following article is in response to a viral Facebook post created by Humberside Police in response to the Netflix series Adolescence.

In the digital age, emojis have become an integral aspect of online communication, particularly among young people. These symbols, which originated as simple pictograms, have evolved into a nuanced and dynamic visual language. Research in digital semiotics suggests that emojis function as paralinguistic cues, supplementing or even replacing traditional verbal communication in digital contexts (Danesi, 2016). However, concerns have emerged regarding the potential for emojis to carry hidden or harmful meanings, particularly within online subcultures. This post critically examines these claims, contextualising them within existing research on digital communication and youth culture, and provides guidance for youth workers and parents in interpreting emoji use.

Do Emojis Have Coded Meanings?

The idea that emojis hold “secret” or “coded” meanings is not entirely unfounded. Linguists studying digital language argue that online symbols can develop subcultural meanings within specific communities (Tagg, 2015). This phenomenon aligns with broader sociolinguistic theories of code-switching and contextual language variation. However, the extent to which these meanings permeate mainstream youth culture varies significantly. It is crucial to distinguish between niche internet subcultures and broader youth communication patterns to avoid panic (Boyd, 2014).

For instance, the red pill (🔴) and blue pill (🔵) emojis have been cited as examples of ideologically loaded symbols. While these terms, derived from The Matrix have been appropriated by certain online communities (Ging, 2019), their use among the general youth population is limited. Similarly, the 💀 (skull) emoji, sometimes linked to self-harm concerns, is predominantly used by young people to signify exaggerated amusement, as in "I'm dead (from laughing)."

Examining the Claims: What’s True and What’s Overstated?

The viral post suggested that several emojis have sinister meanings. Below is a brief analysis of some of these claims:

🔴 Red Pill / 🔵 Blue Pill – While these symbols are indeed used in men’s rights and incel communities (Nagle, 2017), they do not appear frequently in general youth discourse.

💥 Dynamite Emoji (“Exploding red pill”) – There is no evidence to suggest that this emoji has a recognised association with radicalisation.

🫘 Kidney Bean – The alleged connection to incel culture also lacks evidence.

💯 (100 Emoji) and the "80/20 Rule" – While the Pareto principle is referenced in online masculinity discourse the 💯 emoji overwhelmingly signifies affirmation and enthusiasm in everyday use, such as ‘I totally agree!’ 

🕳️ Black Hole / 🌪️ Tornado – Though these symbols could metaphorically represent distress, their meaning is highly context-dependent.

🐸 Frog Emoji – The association with the alt-right stems from the use of Pepe the Frog, but the standard frog emoji is widely used innocently without these undertones.

🦅 Eagle – Although eagles are prominent in nationalist imagery in the US, there is no widespread evidence of this emoji being co-opted by far-right groups.

 ❤️ 💜 💛 💗 🧡 (Heart Colours) – The notion that specific heart colours carry rigid coded meanings lacks support in studies on digital communication. These don’t seem to have established meanings beyond basic emotions (❤️ love, 💜 friendship or K-pop fans, 💛 happiness, etc.). Any deeper meaning is not widely understood or used consistently.

How Should Youth Workers and Parents Respond?

Instead of reacting with fear to claims of hidden emoji meanings, a balanced approach informed by digital literacy and youth studies is recommended.

1. Pay Attention to Context

Research in discourse analysis emphasises that symbols derive meaning from their surrounding context (Gee, 2011). A single emoji is unlikely to be a cause for alarm, but repeated patterns alongside concerning language may warrant further attention.

2. Stay Informed Without Overreacting

Youth culture is dynamic, and digital trends shift rapidly. Instead of assuming fixed meanings, engaging in ongoing digital literacy is crucial.

3. Encourage Open Conversations

Sociological research suggests that parental mediation in digital environments is most effective when it is dialogic rather than authoritarian (Mascheroni et al., 2018). Asking young people about their online communication fosters mutual understanding.

4. Recognise Real Signs of Distress

Rather than focusing solely on emoji use, it is more important to observe broader behavioural indicators of distress, such as social withdrawal or expressions of hopelessness (Twenge et al., 2019).

5. Teach Digital Literacy

Empowering young people with critical thinking skills about online communication helps them navigate the complexities of digital culture responsibly (Buckingham, 2007). Discussing the fluid nature of symbols and their potential appropriation by different groups can foster digital resilience.

Conclusion 

Emojis are an evolving component of digital language, utilised by young people in creative and dynamic ways. While certain symbols may develop specialised meanings within niche online communities, most emojis are used in mainstream contexts for humour, emphasis, and social bonding. 

Youth workers and parents should approach the topic with curiosity and openness rather than fear. By fostering dialogue, staying informed, and focusing on the broader context of young people’s digital lives, we can make sure that online communication remains a tool for positive connection rather than a source of unnecessary anxiety.

References

Boyd, d. (2014). It's Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. Yale University Press.

Buckingham, D. (2007). Beyond Technology: Children's Learning in the Age of Digital Culture. Polity.

Danesi, M. (2016). The Semiotics of Emoji: The Rise of Visual Language in the Age of the Internet. Bloomsbury.

Gee, J. P. (2011). How to Do Discourse Analysis: A Toolkit. Routledge.

Ging, D. (2019). Alphas, Betas, and Incels: Theorizing the Masculinities of the Manosphere. Men and Masculinities, 22(4), 638–657.

Mascheroni, G., Ponte, C., & Jorge, A. (2018). Digital Parenting: The Challenges for Parents in the Digital Age. The International Clearinghouse on Children, Youth and Media. Sweden

Nagle, A. (2017). Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars from 4chan and Tumblr to Trump and the Alt-Right. Zero Books.

Tagg, C. (2015). Exploring Digital Communication: Language in Action. Routledge.

Twenge, J. M., et al. (2019). Trends in Mood and Anxiety Symptoms and Suicide-Related Outcomes Among U.S. Undergraduates, 2007-2018: Evidence from Two National Surveys. National Library of Medicine. 65(5): 590-598