Just a slightly orthogonal point: don't discount the "internet for more social lubrication" issue. The use of feedback and machine learning (even simple mechan

Just a slightly orthogonal point: don't discount the "internet for more social lubrication" issue. The use of feedback and machine learning (even simple mechanisms) in social media to selectively show the most engaging content has, in my opinion, been a fundamental cause of cancel culture. Cancel culture requires "moral outrage", and enragement is engagement, so Twitter (esp) is a factory for moral outrage. This is fundamentally different from boycotts in the sense that boycotts were "organised", "led", or "stirred up" (according to your pov) by people. For example, anti-Nestle campaigners collecting petition signatures. There's a real world cost, a responsibility to be taken, a time lapse. In contrast, moral outrages are manufactured almost autonomously by curation algorithms that are constantly searching for engagement. Outrage happens to be one really good strategy for that. The barrier to participation is extremely low - just click here, type an optional tweet dunking further on the target if you wish - and the speed they can spread is fast. Compounding this is the propensity to be outraged has increased, I think, partly because "engagement-rich" modes of thinking have been spread. I'll resist giving concrete examples to leave the discussion politically neutral. I really think there's an awful lot of responsibility for this problem on the social media companies and their leaders.