3 ms·

This is an enlightning example but not how I have seen most cases play out. I am thinking of the brick through the window, the regulatory closure etc. Your exam

by mongol 4y ago

This is an enlightning example but not how I have seen most cases play out. I am thinking of the brick through the window, the regulatory closure etc. Your example takes it further than "just" cancelling although taken to its extreme it can probably go this far. Most cases I have seen have more been about loss of business and fear of loss of reputation. Basically, in your example, the manager would have the talk with the employee after just the social media storm. Perhaps the manager's fear are all the other things, but the cancelling happens before it ever goes that far.

TeMPOraL 4y ago
> Perhaps the manager's fear are all the other things, but the cancelling happens before it ever goes that far. As expected. If you find yourself at risk of something bad happening to you, you'll make steps to mitigate that risk before it materializes. The question of how real is that risk extends beyond "cancel culture" - it sits at the core of the public relations and reputation management industries. Whether it makes sense or not, companies tend to be quite aggressive at protecting their reputation in certain contexts. This is an empirical fact. Cancelling someone is mostly about exploiting that - it's an art of causing harm to a person by making them a target of their employers' PR immune system, which starts acting before any real harm comes to the company itself. It's been demonstrated to work, the mechanism of action is clear and obvious, and it's quite easy to use. When done properly, there isn't a single person or group that could be specifically blamed for destroying the victim's life. You can't fine the company for trying to proactively protect their business deals or shield themselves from potential liability. You can't fine the crowd for being idiots. The original instigators have plausible deniability. And everything happens so fast that it doesn't matter whether the allegations about the victim are true, or complete fabrication. That's why people are so afraid of it.
smsm42 4y ago
The brick sometimes comes as online abuse. But sometimes in a very physical form, especially in academia. Talks shut down, venues trashed and property set on fire, people physically hurt, that kind of stuff. Threats of course are routine, though 99% of them is lies, but not everyone is willing to risk it. 1 crazy out of a million is enough (see example of a guy recently who planned to murder supreme court judges). But loss of business is bad enough. And usually the business manager would rather fire the trouble maker than risk hurting ten or hundreds or thousands of people that depend on this business. That's why it is so effective.

by mongol 4y ago

TeMPOraL 4y ago

> Perhaps the manager's fear are all the other things, but the cancelling happens before it ever goes that far. As expected. If you find yourself at risk of something bad happening to you, you'll make steps to mitigate that risk before it materializes. The question of how real is that risk extends beyond "cancel culture" - it sits at the core of the public relations and reputation management industries. Whether it makes sense or not, companies tend to be quite aggressive at protecting their reputation in certain contexts. This is an empirical fact. Cancelling someone is mostly about exploiting that - it's an art of causing harm to a person by making them a target of their employers' PR immune system, which starts acting before any real harm comes to the company itself. It's been demonstrated to work, the mechanism of action is clear and obvious, and it's quite easy to use. When done properly, there isn't a single person or group that could be specifically blamed for destroying the victim's life. You can't fine the company for trying to proactively protect their business deals or shield themselves from potential liability. You can't fine the crowd for being idiots. The original instigators have plausible deniability. And everything happens so fast that it doesn't matter whether the allegations about the victim are true, or complete fabrication. That's why people are so afraid of it.

smsm42 4y ago

The brick sometimes comes as online abuse. But sometimes in a very physical form, especially in academia. Talks shut down, venues trashed and property set on fire, people physically hurt, that kind of stuff. Threats of course are routine, though 99% of them is lies, but not everyone is willing to risk it. 1 crazy out of a million is enough (see example of a guy recently who planned to murder supreme court judges). But loss of business is bad enough. And usually the business manager would rather fire the trouble maker than risk hurting ten or hundreds or thousands of people that depend on this business. That's why it is so effective.