Sorry for the delay.
I think part of the problem with “cancel culture” is that the label is too nebulous and focuses on the wrong issue as the problem. It is difficult to correct a problem behavior if we don’t identify the actual problem. We can’t get a agreement that there even is a problem.
I think the real issue is not the “cancel” element. Rather, I think the real social issue is the effect of internet anonymity and the cultural effect of social media.
The same ease of access that allows marginalized groups to gain visibility and support also allows extreme views to gain undue influence. The anonymous aspects that allow dissenters protection in oppressive regimes has built a culture of extreme behavior expressing contempt for people and ideas that one is opposed to while feeling safe from retribution.
There is a separate effect where self-entitiled groups can create a limited access environment that feeds negative ideas and hostile behavior safe in the feeling of a secure majority.
It has become a cultural phenomenon where for any issue that sparks heated dissent, some asshole turns to threats of violence and murder as a means to coerce their opposition. While real life has seen these same types of behaviors - from throwing rocks with notes through windows to burning crosses to lynchings on the town square, there used to be some sort of geographical limitation to how widespread a message got, and a certain level of means to overcome that anomymity by interested enough parties.
As I previously mentioned, one of the things that makes “cancel culture” problematic is that a situation that causes outrage becomes spread to a much larger audience that has no natural connection but feels compelled to express that outrage anyway.
Trolling and threats of violence are not problems explicitly and solely of “cancel culture”, but those internet behaviors are getting identified as part of the same problem.
The “cancel” aspect of cancel culture has its own distinct categories and problems.
Collective activity allows for relatively powerless individuals to gain group strength against more powerful agencies, whether it’s a richer person, a larger corporation, or a government entity. It’s a similar kind of collective power as the concept of labor unions.
But the same collective power can become a tyranny of the majority or the unchecked excess of the mob. Either of those are legitimate fears that may not have manifested yet but are likely to develop in time.
So the questions to address are how do we harness the benefits of the shift of collective power while providing checks to ensure due process and prevent the same cultural oppression seen from other means of power.
There’s also variation in who the affected parties are and who hold the means of “cancelation”. For what does cancellation even mean?
If someone posts bad comments on social media and then get a lot of return comments on that came sm, that seems to be free expression playing out.
When someone says something hateful or bigoted and others call for the sm platform to censor those ideas, we start treading onto dangerous territory.
One of the famous examples in civil liberties is when the ACLU defended the KKK marching in Skokie, Illinoisnot because the ACLU agrees with bigots, but because the state preventing the KKK from marching is exactly the idea of free expression that the First Amendment is meant to protect. Because if they come for the KKK today, they can come for BLM tomorrow.
The troubling aspect of social media is not just that there is no oversight, no protections from damaging lies and hateful ideas. It’s that the algorithms actual work to foster and spread those messages through information siloing. What seemed like a good idea to help customers find more of what they like has in practice formed a means to isolate people from fact checking or alternative views and has increased the spread of disinformation.
Beyond social media, there is the impact when people take criticisms about someone’s ideas or actions and turn that into a campaign against them through their employer. This can be troubling when someone is being fired for activities away from work that have nothing to do with their work.
It at least has some validity when that person is used as a spokesperson for that company.
But then there is even how the company is likely to respond to a large campaign. I’ve see it argued here both directions, that the company will be too litigation averse and drop the person immediately without investigation and that the company with be too financially invested in the person so will cover up the results.
I suspect that can be situational.
Finally, I want to address to concept of metoo. While me too had been most visible with the addressing of rape and sexual assault, the movement itself was supposed to be wider, looking at all the casual sexist behavior and sexual intimidation occurring in society. And to the degree that those attitudes have become questioned or is a good thing. Me Too isn’t strictly cancel culture, though certainly accusations of sexual misbehavior can be specific incidents that apply.