According to an online dictionary, cancel culture refers to the practice of withdrawing support for public figures and/or companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. Targeting a single individual has never been easier in the age of the internet. 

The wave of cancel culture follows a similar pattern. A public figure does something that is seen as offensive. They face public backlash, predominantly fueled by social media. Someone calls for the person to be “canceled” and rid of their platforms whether through employer/institutional action or boycotting. Oftentimes during the process come death threats and doxing. With the rise of social media platforms such as Twitter and TikTok, internet users have many avenues to bully a figure into a semblance of accountability whether it’s through personal DMs, comment sections or tweets. 

On the surface, cancel culture doesn’t seem so bad and is something I believed in when I was younger. However, what many fail to realize is that cancel culture does not actually create accountability. Upon maintaining an online presence for just a few years more, I quickly realized that cancel culture, while aiming to do good, could too often become a cesspool of misogyny, hate and fake accountability. 

“Cancelling” a figure for doing something offensive is not inherently a bad thing; I usually agree with the idea in many cases, particularly surrounding the use of racial slurs and sexual allegations by public figures. While the term has its roots in misogynistic jokes from the 1991 film New Jack City and a Lil Wayne song, it became popularized on Black Twitter starting in 2015 perhaps because the idea of cancel culture is directly connected to black movements. According to Anne Charity Hudley, the chair of linguistics of African America for the University of California Santa Barbara, “the terminology of cancel culture may be new and most applicable to social media through Black Twitter, [although] the concept of being canceled is not new to black culture.” In that way, cancel culture is connected back to the days of the Civil Rights Movement as “a way to acknowledge that you don’t have to have the power to change structural inequality” and state “‘I may have no power, but the power I have is to [ignore] you.’” While the initial sentiment is one of taking back power and uplifting minority voices, with the widespread nature of the movement, it has evolved into something much more insidious and ineffective.

There are two main facets to cancel culture. The first facet is where people are not allowed to change and become improved people, with mistakes of their past continuing to haunt them due to social media. The story has unfolded on Twitter a million times. An offensive Tweet from several years ago resurfaces and all of the sudden, the internet’s eyes are on that individual. While accountability needs to happen, the mob of cancel culture forgets that a person shouldn’t be defined by their worst mistakes. The problem is “canceling” and holding someone accountable while once meaning similar things, is viewed as synonymous when it no longer is. A post I came across once perfectly sums it up, “being held accountable for the harm you have caused is not the same as being attacked.” Rarely does something productive emerge from canceling. Typically in cases of cancel culture, we see an insincere apology on the dreaded Notes app or a complete ignoring of the situation until we all forget about it and move on with no one ever truly being held accountable. If the goal of the cancel culture movement is accountability, it has been utterly failing and further harming individuals. 

The second facet is where the wave of cancel culture fails to hold actual social accountability by picking and choosing its targets arbitrarily and even potentially helping their target. The latter can be seen with figures like R. Kelly and Micheal Jackson who, after revealing documentaries exploring allegations of decades of sexual assault came out, saw increases in their music streams, rather than decreases. Another example is with Louis C.K. who only saw a 10-month hiatus before returning to sold-out comedy shows after multiple women came forward with sexual misconduct allegations. The narrative around cancel culture is even able to garner sympathy for the public figure in turn bringing them more fame or profit. Celebrities are able to paint this picture of cancel culture as random internet folks sharpening their pitchforks just waiting for the next target to pounce on, when in reality, many of those involved truly want to do good by de-platforming someone bad. The end result is, well, nothing. The internet moves on and the figure maintains and even improves their platform. 

The other part is with picking and choosing targets. A recent example is the canceling of young TikTok stars Charli and Dixie D’amelio. After a video clip where Charli was discussing her follower count and Dixie was reacting to snails served by her personal chef went viral, the girls faced incredible backlash on the platform with their comment section full of criticism and hate. Charli, who has the most followers on the platform, lost at least 1 million followers immediately following the backlash. Upset, the TikTok star later live streamed, discussing the death threats she had been receiving. Ultimately, both girls gained the support of the platform and moved on shortly after. However, many users expressed frustration that prominent figures such as Tony Lopez and 6ix9ine have sexual and predatory allegations and have yet to see the same level of backlash. Many even pointed out the disparity in which female figures face backlash over male figures.

This is all not to say that cancel culture has never worked. Prominent examples of figures who lost their platforms due to justified cancel culture include J.K. Rowling, Kevin Spacey and Harvey Weinstein. At the end of the day, cancel culture is a part of a larger conversation about social justice, accountability and ethical norms. Harmful individuals must be de-platformed if necessary for the common good. Apologies do not need to be accepted by the harmed community if deemed insincere. Collective movements for change are capable of being good and effective. Cancel culture itself can be entirely good, especially considering it emerged from a place of taking back power. The issues lie in how we treat each other on the internet i.e. death threats and in the frustrations of a lack of real consequences for those in power. Ultimately, the unfortunate truth is that the burden falls on the people, the driving forces of cancel culture, to do their best to enforce true accountability. Until then, the debate on cancel culture will continue. 

Source: Vox