5 ms·

Free speech isn't limited to legal matters. It is an ideal. If you pressure someone not to associate with others then you are intentionally taking action with t

Free speech isn't limited to legal matters. It is an ideal. If you pressure someone not to associate with others then you are intentionally taking action with the intent to suppress speech. That is anti free speech. There is simply no way around that. The US affords protections against the government infringing your speech, but not (generally) against private parties doing so. To put it bluntly, cancel culture is anti free speech by definition.

mullingitover 5y ago
> To put it bluntly, cancel culture is anti free speech by definition. Trying to duck consequences by crying 'cancel culture' is itself an attempt to stifle speech. When consumers protest a business, they're using speech, not 'pressure,' because in that context 'pressure' isn't a real thing. There's government action against a business, and there's plain old real world consequences.
- finite_jest 5y ago
  I don't think that's a good framing of the issue. Otherwise, why is merely making the "cancellers" face the "consequences" of their actions bad?
- hackinthebochs 5y ago
  >When consumers protest a business, they're using speech, not 'pressure,' because in that context 'pressure' isn't a real thing. This isn't true in the age of social media. A relatively small protest (i.e. not large enough to register on their financials) can create a disproportionate amount of bad press which can exert pressure on a company to act. Manipulating social media algorithms to surface your grievance to the top of the trending list is a kind of pressure.
  - mullingitover 5y ago
    > A relatively small protest (i.e. not large enough to register on their financials) can create a disproportionate amount of bad press which can exert pressure on a company to act. I don't see how this different from a 'relatively small protest' in front of a company HQ getting into the traditional press. If your protest is enough to activate the 'hot' algorithm, so be it. That's not manipulating social media, that's just how social media works. Trying to stifle that kind of protest is the same kind of 'censorship' that's being complained about here. Furthermore, if it's enough to cause a company to act, it's 100% because it's large enough to register on their financials in some form.
    - hackinthebochs 5y ago
      >I don't see how this different from a 'relatively small protest' in front of a company HQ getting into the traditional press. Social media makes it different. Social media turns intensity of belief into the appearance of large numbers. Networks of like-minded individuals are mobilized to present a consistent message to some entity. This gives the appearance of high motivation and a large representative sample, when in reality it is neither. Social media protests incur zero cost to participate and are non-representative. The engagement algorithms and the built-in network dynamics eliminates traditional barriers to protesting and do much of the work of creating these frequent uproars. I used the term manipulation because the dynamic brought out through social media is fundamentally dependent on social media. >Furthermore, if it's enough to cause a company to act, it's 100% because it's large enough to register on their financials in some form. Being fearful of financial backlash doesn't entail that the actual real-world backlash would be significant. The fact that social media eliminates the cost to participate in these "protests" suggests that when participation has actual costs it will be greatly reduced.

mullingitover 5y ago

> To put it bluntly, cancel culture is anti free speech by definition. Trying to duck consequences by crying 'cancel culture' is itself an attempt to stifle speech. When consumers protest a business, they're using speech, not 'pressure,' because in that context 'pressure' isn't a real thing. There's government action against a business, and there's plain old real world consequences.

finite_jest 5y ago
I don't think that's a good framing of the issue. Otherwise, why is merely making the "cancellers" face the "consequences" of their actions bad?
hackinthebochs 5y ago
>When consumers protest a business, they're using speech, not 'pressure,' because in that context 'pressure' isn't a real thing. This isn't true in the age of social media. A relatively small protest (i.e. not large enough to register on their financials) can create a disproportionate amount of bad press which can exert pressure on a company to act. Manipulating social media algorithms to surface your grievance to the top of the trending list is a kind of pressure.
- mullingitover 5y ago
  > A relatively small protest (i.e. not large enough to register on their financials) can create a disproportionate amount of bad press which can exert pressure on a company to act. I don't see how this different from a 'relatively small protest' in front of a company HQ getting into the traditional press. If your protest is enough to activate the 'hot' algorithm, so be it. That's not manipulating social media, that's just how social media works. Trying to stifle that kind of protest is the same kind of 'censorship' that's being complained about here. Furthermore, if it's enough to cause a company to act, it's 100% because it's large enough to register on their financials in some form.
  - hackinthebochs 5y ago
    >I don't see how this different from a 'relatively small protest' in front of a company HQ getting into the traditional press. Social media makes it different. Social media turns intensity of belief into the appearance of large numbers. Networks of like-minded individuals are mobilized to present a consistent message to some entity. This gives the appearance of high motivation and a large representative sample, when in reality it is neither. Social media protests incur zero cost to participate and are non-representative. The engagement algorithms and the built-in network dynamics eliminates traditional barriers to protesting and do much of the work of creating these frequent uproars. I used the term manipulation because the dynamic brought out through social media is fundamentally dependent on social media. >Furthermore, if it's enough to cause a company to act, it's 100% because it's large enough to register on their financials in some form. Being fearful of financial backlash doesn't entail that the actual real-world backlash would be significant. The fact that social media eliminates the cost to participate in these "protests" suggests that when participation has actual costs it will be greatly reduced.