Hard to imagine a legal approach that does not impermissibly infringe on the free association rights of all the various participants. The question is whether any other mechanism would be sufficient. If Twitter were interested, they could do something to inhibit the flow of the outrage mechanism, but there are strong free speech arguments against doing this. Also it is of course not in Twitter's own best interest.
If we rule out government and Twitter's action, the next idea is to convince enough mob participants themselves that it's not a good idea. This actually does seem feasible. I mean cancel culture itself is only five or six years old, at least as we think if it today. Another broad shift in perspective seems possible.
How would that work? A social norm against cancel culture might be a solution (though it's not clear how we would get there from here), but "organized mobs outraged at cancel culture"? I don't really understand what the intended effects would be -- canceling the cancellers? That doesn't seem like it would be against cancel culture, but only picking new criteria for cancellation.
I still haven't seen anyone suggest a solution to so-called "cancel culture" that doesn't involve equally Orwellian restrictions against various important freedoms (e.g. speech, what to buy, whom to employ, etc.)
If you can "cancel" someone by writing about them, refusing to employ them, refusing to buy their products, or refusing to subscribe to them, then isn't cancellation inevitable? It's certainly not new. There has always been fame and infamy.
It seems like the major difference now is that large social networks enable the amassing and coordination of groups at a speed and scale that was never possible before.
If that's the case, then Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey are essentially the only people capable of changing the dynamic without infringing on anyone's rights.
The underpinnings of the "cancel culture", the intolerance and mob mentality, were always around.
The "cancel culture" adds two news things to the picture. One is the ability for anyone to participate, not just the few on the TV screen or newspaper pages. Another is the attempts at totality: expel the victim from every social media platform, every internet hosting, every payment platform, every public venue. It's not yet as bad as it was during the fascist years in Italy, but the approach is pretty similar. There is also no formal totalitarian party to drive it; people just join the cause by reposting a tweet, and acting accordingly when in a position to ban, expel, deplatorm, etc.
There are a few reasons I’m particularly concerned about cancel culture. One is that there is a mechanism for me to change laws I disagree with. There’s lots of things I hate about the justice system that I believe are being worked on. But fundamentally, I accept I was born into a particular society, and I’ve implicitly agreed that I need to agree to certain rules.
Cancel culture is mob justice. There’s no mechanism to change it, and it’s totally irrational. In the example, blaming one person for the actions of a family member goes totally against the philosophies I believe in.
Finally, I don’t think we can trivialize the impact of tossing the idea of free speech out the window. Human history is full of particularly nasty examples of what can happen if everybody feels forced to obey a mob.
Cancel culture is a modern day equivalent of 17th century mob with pitchforks passing judgment based on rumour and questionable evidence.
The more interesting question is, even if everyone comes to the conclusion that this isn't right or just, can something be done about it? In 17th century mobs could be controlled by armed forces. Internet mobs cannot be controlled.
I am generally in favor of the idea of cancel culture being that 'cancel culture' is defined as a modern iteration of boycotting which, I believe, is an effective protest tool.
I just hope people executing or practicing 'cancellation' to be more discerning as to who or which really deserves the backlash. A 10-year-old one-off tweet should not be a cause for cancellation.
I'm not sure which part of my comment makes you think of cancel culture.
My general gist was that we should make it illegal to fire someone, penalize someone or withdraw opportunities because an online or real-life mob told you to. Mob "justice" has been a problem humanity has had to deal with for centuries/millenia, but the internet somehow made people think mobs are OK, because participating is risk-free now.
It obviously wouldn't work in the US on a national level, since both freedom of speech and freedom of association allow for it. At its core, "cancel culture" is simply a form of political activism and protest.
I wouldn't be surprised if certain states like Texas tried it, given the current environment.
Cancel culture exists because it is 100% cost-free to shitpost on Twitter when people feel like their petty political issues with some person or company are in conflict with their own personal value judgments. But this isn't an issue with the courts at all.
I wonder if the only way to meaningfully oppose cancel culture is actively cancel the proponents. It's hard to fight a movement that's willing to go to such extremes while holding on to ideals which restrict your own response.
I disagree. People can do things about cancel culture, in particular, give a thought about whether something that people are saying about somebody is really true and whether to participate in an online boycott (of an individual) based on a 2nd hand experience. Especially if you're in a position of power, consider if you should give in to the mob, which might not even relate to you.
The easiest way to confront cancel culture is to embrace it and try to get everything cancelled for the most minor of reasons. Hopefully, people will just get fed up and ignore it. The hardest part will be to stop companies bowing to the twitter mob for fear of bad publicity.
Also, twitter needs to go. Humans can't handle it.
If you are poor and have views that in some way threatens the current ruling class and it's narrative, you get cancelled.
What they mean by "cancel culture" is when the poor and marginalized use new technologies of communication like twitter to put people in power in the spotlight.
If the mob is angry, it's up to the government to find out why and resolve the issues.
If it was just a few voices on Twitter, it would be less of a problem. But it's also journalists, academics, grievance entrepreneurs of various stripes — all of whom exert an influence on the general public. It's businesses that don't want to get on the wrong side of those people. And it's employees of those businesses who don't want to get fired.
"Cancel culture" is just a new spin on scapegoating, behavioral contagion, and public shaming, all of which have a very long history.
Cancel culture is more than just getting people banned from Twitter. Consider this example of when the cancel mob got somebody fired, and then when he found another company that was willing to hire him, the mob immediately turned on it: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-20/vmware-st...
My stance was that 'cancel culture' as a term seems most often used to decry the use of the power of mob rule online. I think the criticism is fair, and we should be able to discuss the effects of such a dynamic.
I have also seen what I think you are describing, which is a sweeping under the rug of real issues underlying such an outcry, by dismissing it as 'just cancel culture'.
If we rule out government and Twitter's action, the next idea is to convince enough mob participants themselves that it's not a good idea. This actually does seem feasible. I mean cancel culture itself is only five or six years old, at least as we think if it today. Another broad shift in perspective seems possible.
reply