3 ms·

Accounts on Twitter are not provably "people" and even the ones that are demonstrably a given personal identity are not necessarily or provably run and operated

Accounts on Twitter are not provably "people" and even the ones that are demonstrably a given personal identity are not necessarily or provably run and operated by that identity, exclusively. Thus, claiming any type of "canceling" of a "voice" or "identity" is a logical fallacy, given there is no proof of identity occurring on Twitter in any meaningful way. This logic comes about because of bad assumptions about what a platform is, how it works at scale and how personal rights and liberties are mapped to Internet services, especially those of government. Promoting the idea of "cancel culture" among the population is definitely a thing and easily digested and accepted as a truth, even thought it's really not.

syshum 5y ago
I am not sure how any of your comment disproved cancel culture Cancel Culture is a form of targeted harassment, generally originating online but not exclusive to that domain, where a group of individuals take offense to comments, opinions, jokes or "hot takes" then having become offend proceed either in coordination with others or not to contact the target of their harassment employers, landlords, business associates, family members, schools, etc in an effort to interfere with the relationships (personal or business) they have with the target of the harassment. It is very much real, it is very much a reality, and it goes beyond simply "boycotts" of a business with a policy one dislikes. People continuing to deny the existence of cancel culture highlights either an extreme ignorance of the modern world, or a willful disingenuous gaslighting in order to aid and continue to perpetuate cancel culture. I will leave it open to debate which of the 2 you are.
- JamesBarney 5y ago
  I think of cancel culture as a cultural shift away from the enlightenment culture explemplified by "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Codified with a question of "should you combat bad speech with good speech or with silencing?"
  - syshum 5y ago
    I think they are linked but I would define the cultural shift as something separate, canceling of people is a symptom / result of this cultural shift so they are linked. However there are other aspects of this shift that fall outside of cancel culture. For example the fact that a platform like twitter can have a CEO that publicly supports the rejection of the 1st amendment is also a symptom of this cultural shift, a few decades ago that would not have been possible, in fact it likely would have resulted in high level board meetings and a PR disaster in the 80's and 90's if a CEO of a large public company would have stated opposition to free speech. We has a nation (the US) have lost desire to uphold the cultural principle of free expression, the law has become a needed check on this cultural shift but sadly the law only survives as a check for 2 maybe 3 generations, if we do not do something to shift us back to being a culture that respects free expression the law will fall to the new culture of non-expression or controlled expression and a new dark ages will emerge
SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
The specific concern here is the phenomenon where people post viral videos of others they had a disagreement with in order to try and publicly shame them. I don’t want to insist on calling this “cancel culture” if you don’t like the label, but it’s definitely a real thing and the targets face real off-Twitter consequences.
- Talanes 5y ago
  >I don’t want to insist on calling this “cancel culture” I mean, you shouldn't call it cancel culture at any point. Depending on the audience, your example could either never be what "cancel culture" means, or be the primary definition. Unless you know that you are addressing one of those audiences alone, then the phrase only creates confusion.
JamesBarney 5y ago
Cancelling seems to refer to two types of actions, deplatforming, and punishing people for saying things you disagree with. I don't know why deplatforming requires proof of an identity. I think this is you adding to the definition of a word that doesn't follow how everyone uses it.

syshum 5y ago

I am not sure how any of your comment disproved cancel culture Cancel Culture is a form of targeted harassment, generally originating online but not exclusive to that domain, where a group of individuals take offense to comments, opinions, jokes or "hot takes" then having become offend proceed either in coordination with others or not to contact the target of their harassment employers, landlords, business associates, family members, schools, etc in an effort to interfere with the relationships (personal or business) they have with the target of the harassment. It is very much real, it is very much a reality, and it goes beyond simply "boycotts" of a business with a policy one dislikes. People continuing to deny the existence of cancel culture highlights either an extreme ignorance of the modern world, or a willful disingenuous gaslighting in order to aid and continue to perpetuate cancel culture. I will leave it open to debate which of the 2 you are.

JamesBarney 5y ago
I think of cancel culture as a cultural shift away from the enlightenment culture explemplified by "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Codified with a question of "should you combat bad speech with good speech or with silencing?"
- syshum 5y ago
  I think they are linked but I would define the cultural shift as something separate, canceling of people is a symptom / result of this cultural shift so they are linked. However there are other aspects of this shift that fall outside of cancel culture. For example the fact that a platform like twitter can have a CEO that publicly supports the rejection of the 1st amendment is also a symptom of this cultural shift, a few decades ago that would not have been possible, in fact it likely would have resulted in high level board meetings and a PR disaster in the 80's and 90's if a CEO of a large public company would have stated opposition to free speech. We has a nation (the US) have lost desire to uphold the cultural principle of free expression, the law has become a needed check on this cultural shift but sadly the law only survives as a check for 2 maybe 3 generations, if we do not do something to shift us back to being a culture that respects free expression the law will fall to the new culture of non-expression or controlled expression and a new dark ages will emerge

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago

The specific concern here is the phenomenon where people post viral videos of others they had a disagreement with in order to try and publicly shame them. I don’t want to insist on calling this “cancel culture” if you don’t like the label, but it’s definitely a real thing and the targets face real off-Twitter consequences.

Talanes 5y ago
>I don’t want to insist on calling this “cancel culture” I mean, you shouldn't call it cancel culture at any point. Depending on the audience, your example could either never be what "cancel culture" means, or be the primary definition. Unless you know that you are addressing one of those audiences alone, then the phrase only creates confusion.

JamesBarney 5y ago

Cancelling seems to refer to two types of actions, deplatforming, and punishing people for saying things you disagree with. I don't know why deplatforming requires proof of an identity. I think this is you adding to the definition of a word that doesn't follow how everyone uses it.