I’m sure I could find some exception, but I essentially agree with you. I don’t think the current status quo is in any way ideal. I just view it as symptomatic of a root problem and unlikely to go away until that problem is addressed.
The issue of course is what to do when you are presented with such accusations anyway. And you find them credible. Well, we are all doing the best we can, I suppose. I can’t go back in time to an era where I enjoyed Chris Hardwick, unfortunately. It’s nonsensical for me to force myself through another Whedon run. I’m still going to participate in these discussions. And people are still going to generally believe whatever is most convenient and less contradicting to their experience and worldview.
That still sounds like if there is no way that social media actually intervenes when the reverse takes place. That was the state of affairs before the internet, when the powers that be had it easier to sweep their extrajudicial retribution under the rug, not so easy now. If social media was not there, it is very likely there would had been no justice for Ahmaud Arbery.
(Interesting case here, one of the friends of the ones that killed Ahmaud, gave the video to a lawyer who hoped the video should show the clients innocence, the lawyer gave it to a radio show, and the radio host posted it to the web, realizing that the video was not quite what the perpetrators expected it would do. It did go viral. And then the authorities after months of inaction, finally made arrests)
Point being that, sure, you have some good arguments there, but before one goes to declare all as being a mob and acting as bullies, take into account that many are in reality people rising against the bullies.
We’ve always been that society. What’s different now is simply that, as individuals and as mobs, we’ve got so much more immediate access to information about people’s actions, and so much more immediate access to communication with those people themselves, and those around them.
It has always been the case that people publicly accused of bad actions got hate mail, public shunning, even bricks through their windows and worse. The difference now is just that all the accusations, vilification and outrage propagate so much more easily and quickly online.
Ok, if you want to split hairs and call it “tyranny” when the government does it, the thing that I’m pointing out is that when the government, especially when there is a president with a cult following, is leading the charge in cancelling, erm persecuting, people, then that president’s cult following is only going to follow suit. And that’s exactly what is happening.
So when my MAGA neighbors are refusing to allow the pro-Palestinian couple have any voice in our HOA, that is an action that is directly traced back to the President.
This all started with the argument that the far left (which doesn’t exist in any organized capacity in America) and the moderate left were the ones cancelling pro-Palestinian protests the most. I find this to be absurd when the federal government is leading the charge, and the cult followers of the President are merely copying their leader.
Yes, his employer isn’t reviewing his employment because he may be an adulterer. They are reviewing his employment because he appears to be dating his underling. And their evidence has nothing to do with social media or cancel culture, and everything to do with what was broadcast on that “kiss-cam”.
I didn’t think this was ever the case. I think it has been predominantly the right doing the cancelling from the start.
Yeah, we seem to forget that. Biggest difference as pointed out was “back when” it tended to stay localized unless it was an especially violent act or gained widespread tabloid notoriety.
You’re right, and I already acknowledged here that this wasn’t a great example of cancel culture. But I also said in that same post, “what struck me as significant and ominous was how incredibly quickly it went viral. It’s the same force that powers the spread of false rumours and innuendo. It is, in fact, the same force that drives the rapid spread of disinformation in general”.
It’s also noteworthy that what social media did here was it took what ordinarily would likely have been an internal investigation and turned it into a global spectacle. The hysteria basically destroyed any chance that he could have been reprimanded, learned from the experience, and kept his job. It indeed destroyed any chance he could get a similar job anywhere else, either. He’s now internationally infamous! The impact of social media accusations, true or not, is lifelong and unforgiving, and tolerates no possibility of rehabilitation.
Nonsense. Nothing I said here could be materially damaging to Dykstra’s career, whereas what she published obviously was damaging to Hardwick’s. This is the essence of my view:
That is hardly libel!
Unless they’re celebrities or notable in some other way, sadly most of these cases never make the news. And no, I’m not going into details about cases of which I have first-hand or indirect knowledge, and it would be pointless anyway, since you’d just declare them probably guilty.
Because, you know, nothing false has ever been said on social media.
In today’s digital age, where information spreads rapidly through social media and news platforms, a single claim—whether true or not—can ruin a person’s image within hours. Public opinion often forms quickly, fueled by sensationalized headlines and emotional reactions, making it difficult for the accused to receive a fair chance at defending themselves. Unlike a courtroom, where evidence and due process matter, social media thrives on outrage, often convicting individuals in the court of public opinion before the truth is fully explored.
The psychological toll of being falsely accused is severe. Many individuals experience extreme stress, anxiety, and depression, with some even developing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The fear of being judged, losing respect, or facing legal punishment can lead to social isolation and feelings of helplessness.
I’m sure you know that’s not what I meant. As I noted above, what I said about Dykstra could have been published on the front page of the New York Times and not affected her career one iota.
This is just your opinion. It’s not self evidently true. I think what you said about Dysktra is a very small but real addition to the big pile of crap that women already get, no matter their honesty, for speaking out about their experiences of abuse. And this, in a small but real way, it could impact her, as could any non-fact-based criticism she got if it were to spread in the internet.
On the Coldplay couple - sure, it spread fast online, but it wasn’t about shame or canceling, it was because it was fucking hilarious. Things that are fucking hilarious often go viral for reasons unrelated to cancel culture.
Objection! Conjecture! (sorry, watching a courtroom drama these days :p).
But seriously, I doubt this. Maybe no one is going to hire him next week, but presuming he’s actually good at his job? He’ll be working in the C-suite again.
Aah, the “They’re Canadian girlfriends cases, you wouldn’t know them, they live in another town” gambit.
And just how many people who’ve been falsely accused and cancelled do you know personally? If it’s indeed “many”, that’s quite the company you’re keeping.
Gotcha. So in fact you do believe that nothing false has ever been said on social media, ever.
And the article I linked about the plague of defamation on social media and how harmful it is, is just made-up bullshit. And the hundreds of law firms specifically offering their services to defend against defamation on social media are all still waiting for their first client.
Right, because anyone accused of anything in a social media post is, of course, guilty, because of the exquisite honesty of social media, as just noted.
Social media has made lots and lots of bad things easier, including trying to harm someone by spreading lies.
But the problem there isn’t “cancel culture” - it’s that some people spread lies, some people don’t adequately analyze and confirm what they see online, etc. As is often the case, the solution is critical thinking, not some change in philosophy against online criticism, boycotts, advocacy, etc.
Never said that, and certainly don’t believe that.
I mean, Hardwick’s denials are on social media too…
Given its lack of any cites, 2 of its 3 example cases having jack to do with social media (and the third being Johnny fucking Depp ) , and that its author’s bio reads (my emphases):
Hello! I’m Samriddhi Damani, a passionate writer dedicated to crafting stories that spark imagination and evoke emotion. From intricate plots to deep character journeys, my writing is a reflection of my love for storytelling. Join me on this creative adventure as I turn words into worlds and dreams into reality.
I’m gonna go with “Yeah, looks like”.
Well, I guess if hundreds of law firms are offering their services, it must be a real phenomenon…given their sterling reputation for being scrupulous and all.
“anyone” and “many” are quite different concepts. You said “many”.
And frankly, it doesn’t just affect her, it affects every other person who thinks, “is it worth the global hatred to come forward about my abuse?”. In general, the answer to that question is, “no, it isn’t”. And that’s one of the reasons our criminal justice system is also broken, because it’s rarely worth it to pursue a rapist if you have any prior relationship with them. You will just be smeared on the internet. And that’s not even new to “cancel culture”, that’s how criminal trials often play out, too.
He might even keep his current job, if they decide he’s good at it and a sleep on the wrist will stop the behavior. Or if they decide to ignore that he’s dating subordinates.
I know two people who have been falsely accused, both accusations made to their employer, not on the Internet. So not actually “cancel culture”. Fwiw, both were white men and I suspect both would have ultimately won in the court of opinion had it gotten to the Internet.
One was a colleague of my husband, accused of hitting on a college student. (My husband was a junior professor at the time.) I believe the guy’s story because:
My husband thought the woman was crazy and dangerous, and was very careful to never be alone with her.
The guy who was accused was distracted because he was engaged to be married. This made him less cautious.
She had no evidence, just claims that “he was obsessed with her.”
But she threatened to sue, and the university thought that would be damaging both to them and to the guy. They arranged to both dismiss him and also to quietly get him a job elsewhere.
Note that the risk here wasn’t from “cancel culture”, it was from the fallout of ordinary legal action, and the reputational risk thereof. So, “cancellation via the legal system”.
The other was my brother. He traveled to a conference with a female colleague. The admin suggested that he book the same flight as hers, so he did. She took this as a sign that he was stalking her, and made a formal complaint. He learned later that he wasn’t promoted when he would have expected that to happen because of the investigation against him (which HR didn’t bother to inform him of until much later.) Ultimately, HR concluded he had done nothing wrong, and a bit after that, the woman was fired for lying about completely unrelated things. (Lying about work things, just not about him.) But his career was set back by about a year due to the false accusation.
So i certainly believe that accusations are sometimes false. And that false accusations are damaging. I’m not really convinced that “cancel culture” has made “false accusations about sexual harassment” significantly worse. The kid with the maga hat is a better example of the hazards of cancel culture. And there, i think, the problem has more to do with bad actors amongst “social media” than with “people posting about issues they, personally, have experienced.”
) , and that its author’s bio reads (my emphases):