Has Cancel Culture Gone too Far?

[Guest]

I'm sure all are aware of this growing trend we have all been subjected to one way or another.

 

The typical scenario being a celebrity or company making a misstep, socially. It could be past comments that were resurfaced, to current comments or faux pas. It could extend to actual crimes, too or perceived crimes or slights. 

 

This is the new form of social shaming, where the punishment is essentially a broad push to essentially cancel you. To rub you from existence, with regards to the public eye, or sales via boycotts or to concentrated social media shaming, to name a couple popular punishments. 

 

Some would argue the police situation in the US, is a form of cancel culture hitting fever pitch. 

 

Where all police are lumped in the same punitive box and social pressure is ratcheted, until an ultimate goal as close to a partial cancellation, is achieved. 

 

There have been effective uses of this. The #Metoo movement being one of them, where once untouchable moguls were brought to facing the consequences for their horrific actions. 

 

Is there a point where one has gone too far?

 

Is it one where one should be aware of this, and watch their words more carefully to avoid facing its wrath?

 

Has cancel culture gone too far?

[SithLord]

I hate the term "cancel culture" so I'm going to disagree just on the basis that there is such a thing. Outrage and not wanting to hear from someone you hate is something that stretches back to humans creating language. 

 

But there are times when people are "cancelled" (which sometimes assumes you have the right to someone's audience) who do not deserve it. People shouldn't be fired just because of public outcry, there should be evidence behind it, even if it's witness accounts. 

[Lord Jade Cross]

I've a few political scandals which this movement did not stop, even with the ridiculous amounts of evidence that under neutral stances would have overwhelmed the accused.

[SithLord]

Just now, Arodash said:

People are constantly deplatformed for having the "wrong" opinion. Cancel culture is indeed real and it has had a serious affect on many people's lives. No one should be afraid to express their beliefs, this is the same exact mindset christian radicals in the 1980s and 90s used to get people off the air and for books to be censored

I do not think "cancel culture" is a modern phenomenon was my point. Generally I see people complaining about "cancel culture" while also participating in said "culture". 

 

And you'll have to elaborate with specifics about people being deplatformed in a way that isn't them assuming they're entitled to something. Because you're not entitled to a Twitter account, you're not entitled to a YouTube account, you're not entitled to a stage on a university's campus to preach whatever it is you believe. If a company, service, platform, whatever decides they do not want to do business with you because of your beliefs or the potential backlash they will face because of those beliefs being spread, then that is their right. 

 

Now, we can argue whether people should have that right or not, but then we'll be back to the same argument you and I have about guns. 

[Missing]

I don’t quite agree with the image that saying “cancel culture has gone too far” paints. Deplatforming and cancelling are tools like any other. They can be directed in a useful and productive way, or they can be directed in a way that doesn’t really leave anyone much better off. I definitely agree that people sometimes cancel other people, organizations, etc. for pretty flimsy reasons, but I don’t think that’s an issue of going too far, just an issue of a number of people being thoughtless with their methods, which don’t surprise me. I don’t think it’s a problem unique to cancelling since many methods can be poorly implemented.

[SithLord]

4 minutes ago, Arodash said:

Section 230 of the internet protection laws disagree with that. If they engage in said censorship they arent a platform anymore but are a publisher. They have a monopoly and engage in antitrust actions which is also against the law. They are the new town square and if they want to remain a platform and get all the protections associated with it, they cant, ban people who they just disagree with because then they are a publisher and lose those protections

As far as I'm aware, you mean Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act from 1996? I do not know what these "internet protection laws" you mentioned are unless you're specfic and can give me the sources so I can read it myself. 

But according to this, no? It's a shield for these platforms to not be considered publishers of the things others post to their site. 

This is what I keep getting:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

And that says nothing about them being forced to be a publisher because of them deciding to not allow some people to use their site. Only about them not being considered the publishers of the content itself not posted by them. 

 

If I'm wrong, please get specific. I would like to correct these misunderstandings as far as I'm aware. But it seems like you're arguing that AVEN is a publisher because it decides to get rid of users who violate it's ToS. 

 

8 minutes ago, Arodash said:

Are you saying free speech shouldnt be a right?

We're not arguing free speech, we're arguing entitlement to a platform. Say whatever hateful shit you want, but I don't have to let you in my house to preach it. 

[Alawyn-Aebt]

7 minutes ago, Arodash said:

Section 230 of the internet protection laws disagree with that.

But is that truly a right, simply because it is enshrined in law? Human Right Ethicists would say no. This line of reasoning raises all sorts of sticky what-is-a-right versus what-is-a-law legalistic arguing that is difficult to solve. Where is something a law versus where is something a right? These things have no easy answer yet we shouldn't conflate the two. Otherwise all becomes a right and all becomes a law.

 

Back on topic:

Personally I disagree with the term cancel culture, but I also disagree with some actions people who are branded the cancel culture engage in. It is also not a new phenomenon. Ignoring others or attempting to silence people for the smallest infringements is ridiculous and counterproductive unless one had the numbers necessary to bring real change. If a movement actually has the numbers necessary to bring real change then it need not use cancel culture techniques (should such a cancel culture movement actually exist beyond random minds of some people intent on punishing small infringers and those who see it everywhere) and would not be considered cancel culture.

[SithLord]

Just now, Arodash said:

The idea of trying to censor or ruin someone because you disagree with them is not only ridiculous, but cowardly and shows you arent able yo defend your stance

Some would argue it's self defense, or defending others from being "poisoned" (being used here for lack of a better word, I dislike comparing hateful ideologies to poison). Because it doesn't matter how much I can prove something's wrong if others continue to consume the vile bullshit they do. 

[SithLord]

2 minutes ago, Arodash said:

Did you actually read the act?

I'm honestly trying to find it? I keep asking for sources because I want to read it. The only thing you've sourced is a link to a parable from the Bible. 

I get wikipedia, I get EFF, I get some website my internet security hates and won't let me see, and I'm honestly trying to find the actual wording of the act itself. So please. If you can. Link it to me.

[SithLord]

Just now, Arodash said:

That doesnt make it okay to censor people. Who are they to determine what others can and cant say? Or what others can and cant consume? Who decides that? The moral police? The thought police? Because thats what it would be. You could brand anything poisonous

So can I confirm that you view AVEN as a publisher? Because it's obviously left-leaning in what it considers to be hate speech, offensive material, and general practices. So wouldn't this unfairly target right-leaning people? 

[Marrow]

Yes, cancel culture can cause serious harm and i should note this goes BOTH ways. From the "For Bernie" girl who got cancelled by her simp fanbase to Filthy Frank being canceled for his old youtube videos. Its really easy to get the mob riled and the damages left are huge.

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, SithEmpress said:

I hate the term "cancel culture" so I'm going to disagree just on the basis that there is such a thing. Outrage and not wanting to hear from someone you hate is something that stretches back to humans creating language. 

 

But there are times when people are "cancelled" (which sometimes assumes you have the right to someone's audience) who do not deserve it. People shouldn't be fired just because of public outcry, there should be evidence behind it, even if it's witness accounts. 

Even when there is evidence of wrong-doing, if it's a joke that is now offensive and wasn't 20-30 years ago when it was said... I don't think we need to cancel people's careers over it. Like, OK. They said something offensive. But, ya know what? 99% of Hollywood did in the 70s-80s-90s, it was a different time and a different culture. Find them saying something offensive now and judge them by those standards. People can change from 18 to 50 ya know. 

[Marrow]

Ok, so I see a lot of people say how its "not new" and while thats true the world around it has evolved. With social media and smartphones its really easy to incite cancel culture and mobs than it use to be. Its also just as easy to spread misinformation.

[SithLord]

19 minutes ago, Arodash said:

Did you actually read the act? It has the a provision in it that dictates what seperates platform from publisher. And these platforms disregard it constantly.

 

Section 230, as passed, has two primary parts both listed under §230(c) as the "Good Samaritan" portion of the law. Section §230(c)(1), as identified above, defines that an information service provider shall not be treated as a "publisher or speaker" of information from another provider. Section §230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action

 

 

good faith is violated when they only apply it in one direction which, they do.

Okay, so I read it, thank you for sourcing it.

 

The problem here lies with what's considered in "good faith". That's vague and unless it's defined somewhere else in the act to tell us exactly what qualifies, it's vague and up to the courts to decide. 

 

I think AVEN and other such platforms are in the right to block users from posting things they consider "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable". This act agrees. AVEN would expand that to be a lot of right-wing ideologies, but it technically would prevent such things from the left as well. I do think some things slip through the cracks and that AVEN especially does not always succeed in holding up this level of scrutiny. 

I also am not ones calling for Twitter or Facebook to censor or remove Trump and those who spread vile hate through their platform. 

HOWEVER, it is their right to do so as listed in this act. 

 

As I said, however, this is us debating about what's considered "in good faith". Uber religious parents sending their child to conversion camp might consider themselves acting in good faith, so it should be obvious that such a term is subjective. 

[SithLord]

2 minutes ago, Serran said:

Even when there is evidence of wrong-doing, if it's a joke that is now offensive and wasn't 20-30 years ago when it was said... I don't think we need to cancel people's careers over it. Like, OK. They said something offensive. But, ya know what? 99% of Hollywood did in the 70s-80s-90s, it was a different time and a different culture. Find them saying something offensive now and judge them by those standards. People can change from 18 to 50 ya know. 

Only in the situations of criminal violations or accusations would I bother with something from over a decade ago. I agree that someone making a bad joke 50 years ago should not be held up to today's standards. If only there was a statue of limitations for such things.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, SithEmpress said:

Only in the situations of criminal violations or accusations would I bother with something from over a decade ago. I agree that someone making a bad joke 50 years ago should not be held up to today's standards. If only there was a statue of limitations for such things.

I wish. They keep bringing up "She said the N word 50 years ago" or "They did blackface 30 years ago"... OK? I get that it was really bad of them to do. But, maybe since then they've met PoC, befriended them, learned, grown as people. If they're racist, they'll have done something since then that was filmed. So, find the bad thing they've done recently. Or else, let them keep working. What's the point of trying to change society if no amount of change a person does is good enough and they'll be instantly unhireable regardless of if they are now super dedicated to civil rights or not, they did something bad 50 years ago! *sigh*

 

For criminal offenses, if it was something serious (not petty theft or something), sure... let it stand if it was old. 

[SithLord]

1 minute ago, Arodash said:

Trump's executive order seeks for the FCC and FTC to clarify the good faith argument. Twitter and Facebook are the prime examples of websites that only enforce their rules in one direction 

I disagree that they only enforce it in one direction.

I just think some people are more likely to see certain stances being censored than others. In the sense that they see it, not that it happens only to them. Dang my inability to English today. 

 

Basically, I think it happens to people equally, but that right-wing people are more likely to see right-wing stuff getting censored/removed just like left-wing people are more likely to see left-wing stuff being censored/removed. 

[RoseGoesToYale]

If the worst thing that can happen to you these days for saying something the populous doesn't like is getting banned or shunned from a website, we as a species have improved. If you did the same thing back somewhere in history? Your village might throw you out and then you'd never see your loved ones again. Excommunication from your own church by church members. Exodus from your home country, or governments making you "disappear". Tarred and feathered, your books burned in the town square. If the internet shuns you, you can always go out into the street and say your peace there.

 

The problem with the internet is that it isn't a sovereign nation with clear political borders like on a map, so it's very difficult to figure out whose laws to apply and where. Add to that that most of the internet is not free, and many speech platforms are owned by private companies. As far as the US goes, we have both a de facto and de jure policy of laissez-faire, meaning the federal government generally isn't going to butt in to how private companies run their business. If businesses want to ban certain words or speech within their establishment, they can. Speech can also be policed in private non-commercial establishments, like courts or schools. In general the notion of "free speech" is the government's promise not to kill you, persecute you, censor or unjustly punish you for expressing an opinion or idea in the public realm. If social media was government run and moderated, then free speech rules would apply. But just as a book publisher isn't obligated to print every single manuscript ever sent to them, Twitter, Facebook etc. isn't obligated to allow all content.

 

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

sales via boycotts or to concentrated social media shaming, to name a couple popular punishments. 

This has been done for ages, though. If people don't like you, they don't have to buy your stuff or support you in any fashion. They don't have to read/watch your content, or even stay in the same room as you. As long as they're not committing libel, slander, or any other felony, what can governments do? What can anyone do?

[SithLord]

15 minutes ago, Arodash said:

I see it happening only in one direction. There was a left wing activist on twitter calling for conservatives to be placed in reeducation camps. Thag they shouldnt have rights till they are ready to join the human race. And its still up. Ilhan Omar gets to be an overt anti-semite, but Ilhan Omar does get a bit of a pass because what she says is considered congressional record so its a case in which twitter cant remove it

My point still stands. 

[Janus the Fox]

What exactly is this?  Seems like a catchy buzz word that does really nothing to me.

[Marrow]

31 minutes ago, Arodash said:

Covington Kids. My example of misinformation spreading. CNN had to settle out of court because of the lies said about those kids

CNN also blackmailed a pro-trump reddit user by threatening to dox him

[Marrow]

28 minutes ago, SithEmpress said:

 

Basically, I think it happens to people equally, but that right-wing people are more likely to see right-wing stuff getting censored/removed just like left-wing people are more likely to see left-wing stuff being censored/removed. 

Just curious, but do you have any examples of left-wing media being censored? Personally, I usually see more right-wing things censored, but I dunno how it is for left-wing media.

[Alejandrogynous]

Just gonna drop this for anyone who wants to watch a feature length film deconstructing modern cancel culture.

 

 

(If you don't already know Contrapoints, trust me, it's worth every second.)

[SithLord]

Just now, Marrow said:

Just curious, but do you have any examples of left-wing media being censored? Personally, I usually see more right-wing things censored, but I dunno how it is for left-wing media.

I do know of the situation where people just won't cover it. Like when Bernie-Bros were complaining in 2016 about none of the media covering him as much as Hilary and all of the news people showing clear bias towards her. 

Let me check...

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown

"Examples include Princeton professor Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor’s commencement speech being canceled after receiving death threats for criticizing President Donald Trump and the president of Sonoma State University apologizing for allowing a black student to read a poem critical of police violence at commencement."

 

I'll have to do a bit more research to find more and change my search terminology but I have class in a few minutes.

[Marrow]

5 minutes ago, SithEmpress said:

I do know of the situation where people just won't cover it. Like when Bernie-Bros were complaining in 2016 about none of the media covering him as much as Hilary and all of the news people showing clear bias towards her. 

Let me check...

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown

"Examples include Princeton professor Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor’s commencement speech being canceled after receiving death threats for criticizing President Donald Trump and the president of Sonoma State University apologizing for allowing a black student to read a poem critical of police violence at commencement."

 

I'll have to do a bit more research to find more and change my search terminology but I have class in a few minutes.

Ah, shameful and as much as I didnt like Bernie what happened in 2016 was unfair. Enjoy your classes!

[RoseGoesToYale]

Just thought I'd throw this out there... I can't any instances of the term "cancel culture" in this sense outside of the English language. The French entry for it refers to it as an anglicism, so I would guess the concept is limited to the English-speaking realm, more notably North America and the US, where split political tensions run very high.

 

Also I amend my previous statement because we were discussing censorship, but cancel culture actually has nothing to do with censorship. To use Wikipedia's as an operational definition:

Quote

The act of canceling, also referred to as cancel culture (a variant on the term "callout culture") describes a form of boycott in which an individual (usually a celebrity) who has shared a questionable or controversial opinion, or has had behavior in their past that is perceived to be offensive recorded on social media, is "canceled"; they are ostracized and shunned by former friends, followers and supporters alike, leading to declines in any careers and fanbase the individual may have at any given time.

So the platform/company on which this is taking place isn't taking any action at all against the person being "cancelled". It's private individuals abandoning their social and/or financial support for that person, something that has been by humans to other humans for ages, and will probably continue to until the sun explodes. That person can continue to post content generally, whether people consume that content or not.

 

A famous case of this happening well before the term was coined was Jerry Lee Lewis. He married his 13 year old cousin when he was 22 (this was in 1957). His tour in 1958 was literally cancelled after public outcry when people found out. His career and take-home took a hit after that.

[SithLord]

1 hour ago, Marrow said:

Ah, shameful and as much as I didnt like Bernie what happened in 2016 was unfair. Enjoy your classes!

More sources

 

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ban-us-mid-term-elections

Says left-wing accounts on Twitter were suspended without warning. 

 

https://www.mic.com/articles/190621/left-wing-news-sites-censored-on-facebook-arent-in-favor-of-banning-alex-jones-either

Links to a list of Twitter accounts deleted, being accused of participating in or being linked to "manufactured sharing behavior", whatever that means, and many of the accounts were more along the lines of alternative health or organic stuff it seems. 

Can't guarantee these were all left-wing mind you.

 

And now I'm bored.

 

I have no doubt more right-wing people are dropped though. Because I see more right wing people outright calling for violence against certain groups. So not really comparable in my eyes when you're comparing left wing people who are screaming "Respect my marriage!" and right wing people who are screaming "Your marriage is a lie and your life style choices are sending you to hell!"

[Unleash the Echidnas]

1 hour ago, SithEmpress said:

"manufactured sharing behavior", whatever that means

facebook sort of defines it here, though it looks like they may have since stopped using the term:

Quote

Manufactured sharing behavior within groups - specifically sharing links in groups to artificially gain new followers and/or viewers - is now being flagged as a violation of Monetization Eligibility Standards (MES) because it artificially inflates distribution and monetization. Last year we announced our focus on removing monetization incentives from content that creates less value for people and added manufactured sharing to our Content Guidelines for Monetization.

 

[Aquatic Paradox]

The concept is the same as the witch trials of 500 years ago (or the present, in parts of Africa).

[Skycaptain]

It's definitely gone too far. It's one thing if it transpires that someone has committed a serious criminal offence in the past, but it had never been made public, but not ostracising them for something that is unacceptable now, but was more acceptable at the time. 

To take two extremes. Someone is found guilty of historical sex offences, they deserve everything they get. Someone says "I smoked a few joints in my twenties" that shouldn't even merit a mention, but would be the front page of most tabloids with a headline like "My drugs shame"