I don’t know of any definition of cancel culture that would fit. That’s moderation.
Cancel culture would be if they put your profile or picture on the front page as an example of being a terrible person who has done things every right thinking person should not, and no one should think of employing or working with you - because they didn’t like your comments.
I thought cancel culture referred to the practice of reporting someone's postings and getting them taken down or even banned by the platform. It also includes doxxing people and trying to get them fired from their jobs because of their online postings.
Who said anything about cancel culture or culture wars? The original post was just posting out a bias that many people have (anti-crypto). Everyone has biases and a lot of people are somewhat aware of their bias. By pointing out the bias, it helps people keep their bias in mind.
Your original comment said it was not effective and serves against you. Now you're saying it produces a narrow "shallow" advantage. I think it effective as it forces the reader to confront their biases.
I've seen this used in nonsensical anti-FB rants. You acknowledge that many people think facebook bad and you're not disputing that. And then you can go on to say "yes, people in fact still use facebook. in fact billions use it every day". It's been very effective in my experience.
"Cancel culture" is nothing. We've long warned about how privacy online, using pseudonyms and being conscious of the data you present to others. If you're saying something that platform users dislike, they're probably going to stop engaging with it or dogpile the topic. It's a reality distortion field, a cause with no effect.
"cancel culture" is a dumb euphemism for "consequences for your actions." If you use your soapbox to cause harm to others, people are free do decide how to respond to you and vote with their IP and money.
Well this is what happens when people use cancel culture on anyone that they disagree with, especially career twitter archaeologists who dig up old tweets and put them out of context.
The result? A pioneering hacker in computer science, free software and privacy that has been shamed for wrong-thinkery, and has been financially suffocated, censored, and successfully cancelled. This cancel-culture is disgusting and is utterly unacceptable to treat anybody like this, no matter what their views are.
> "cancel culture" is a dumb euphemism for "consequences for your actions."
If by "actions" you mean "saying things you disagree with" and by "consequences" you mean "trying your hardest to permanently deprive them of their livelihood", then sure.
either the reason is weak, or you're just not important enough to cancel.
cancel culture is not just mean comment. Affecting real life in every possible way is also one of its goal. Its basically modern day witch hunt. No way ignoring Twitter gonna solve that problem
"Cancel culture" is one of the dumbest fads this year. It's a new, vague name for things that already have a name: boycott, mobbing, witchhunting, censorship, etc., depending on who or how you are "canceling".
Judging by how I've seen it used in social media, it's a loud way to band together and harass someone before bothering to research facts or context, feel morally superior, and at the same time achieve nothing of consequence.
Definitions are a little murky. "Cancel culture" also isn't threats and harassment---it's deplatforming. It's using freedom of association to deny guilt by proxy for spreading someone else's lies, threats, and harassments.
> Cancel culture are witch hunts organized
> over social media.
I can't take the teeth-gnashing over the "culture" aspect of "cancel culture" seriously, though plenty of people I respect do (eg: Yascha Mounk, Matt Taibbi, Noam Chomsky).
The actual problem is social media, much more than culture. Social media flattens all the world's events, without regard to their relevance. Does it alarm me if a professor or police officer loses their job because they say the "wrong" thing? You know, not really, in the vast majority of cases. And I'm glad that such a culture results in, for example, Twitter "mobs" reliably doxxing right-wing extremists.
Where I see an actual problem is in the scope. There's a difference between someone losing their job over an isolated incident of poor judgement, and someone losing their job and being hounded by outraged people from all corners of the globe, and gaining a life-long bad reputation.
On an ideally-designed internet, "cancel culture" would exist, but not be a problem, because its reach would scale according to the behaviour, and the importance of the person. Some random person in a tiny town does not merit as much scrutiny as an elected official, but currently, they may get it anyhow. The problem is the design of social media.
Ah, in that case, one small bit of feedback - you might find a new term, rather than "cancel culture". To my understanding, that is a rallying cry for the American right wing. Specifically, it seems to be a criticism of a situation where private businesses decide what behavior is disallowed on their platform, especially when the violating entity is a conservative.
If not, you're really straining even the most generous definition of "cancel culture" beyond the point of even minimal usefulness.
reply