Does Cancel Culture Equal Accountability?
Throughout the progression of society, teenagers have found a way to connect. In 2020, we connect through social media. Through finding idols, icons and influencers who share our common interests and give us a connection. Social media, in my opinion, at its core is narcissistic. Huge influencers who hold platforms of millions of followers earn money from being idolised, while doe-eyed children enter these platforms to find someone who they can connect with. As a young teen we laugh with huge social media stars who share attributes or interests with us, because their success gives us hope and optimism. Yet when these people disappoint us, the world of social media goes very quickly from one extreme to another.
To not be racist, use slurs, be offensive, rude or indifferent are all some of the general characteristics that social media users look for in the people they follow. Yet when the people we regularly watch and consume, disappoint us- what happens? In the beginning, it can be common to see uproar. Hate videos, comments, news Youtubers feeding off the drama and extreme negativity dominating the space of a creator. This initial uproar and anger is visible in the case of many well-known influencers in the initial stage of them being “Cancelled”-such as Emma Lu on Tik Tok earlier this year, and James Charles on Youtube in 2019. After this, there are two routes, either the creator is deplatformed, or their actions are forgotten or opposingly forgiven, and people continue on supporting them.
While the initial stage seems to be short by my description, it is generally an extremely long phase of hate towards a creator known as “cancelling them”. There are of course exceptions, such as Jaden Hossler, who was briefly “cancelled” for being a Trump supporter and KKK sympathizer, but went on to benefit from his large platform and young fans.
On the other hand, Emma Lu was body shamed, harassed, and severely mistreated in the digital space after older videos resurfaced of her using the N-slur. This could be detailed as the most toxic part of Cancel Culture. Through bullying creators for breaking the general consensus of morals set out by their viewers, creators who are previously idolised are given heavy loads of negative attention, rather than the focus being on educating and deplatforming them. However once the storm relaxes, a platform is restored for these creators, and most of them continue on producing content. An example of this is Logan Paul who in 2018 uploaded a video in a well known suicide forest in Japan.
This act of disrespect threw the media into flames, as his followers all over the world attacked him. If we were to look at his platform now, you may be surprised to notice that he receives thousands of views and earnings, daily on his videos.
There is of course, the argument that Cancel Culture is itself unethical. Holding every person who wishes to pursue social media as a career to a general group of morals is restraining freedom of speech, and is controlling the opinions of people. While there will always be disagreements between viewers on what is right or wrong, there will be a majority that believes in a bunch of similar perspectives. Therefore, while this can be seen as wrong, it may also be valid instead. In Cancel Culture, people are not cancelled if they hold up their perspectives and beliefs consistently. For example, Ben Shapiro and Kaitlyn Bennet are famous right-wing commentators who have gained a huge platform on social media from people who seem to agree with their views. While they are trivialised by the left-leaning, and popular side of social media, they still hold careers as un-Cancelled influencers in the social media space. If they were to be exposed, hypothetically for being proud Democrats with their friends, they would lose a huge amount of followers, since their followers would doubt their credibility and be disappointed. Therefore, it may be that right-wing Twitter would have “cancelled them”. In this hypothetical situation, the general standard of morals has not cancelled Ben Shapiro or Kaitlyn Bennet, but instead the general standard of morals that their viewers hold, has cancelled them. This argument would therefore rebut the concept of Cancel Culture being unethical, through pushing it down to a simple analogy: a creator is a producer, creating a service for a general demographic of demanding consumers. In the case that this creator has been negatively different to their online persona, that has been catering to the demographic that has made them famous, it is inevitable that this creator will be “cancelled” or lose demand.
Continuing on, one would expect the purpose of Cancel Culture to be accountability, since it is to hold creators responsible for their actions and ensure they have consequences. Does it uphold this purpose? In my opinion, no. Through idolising a human, and creating an image and perception of their online representation, we often set ourselves up to be dissapointed. This is where the first issue lies. There is an inherent pedestal that influencers on social media are put on, which have effects on both the creator and their followers. As for the followers, they expect a standard that these humans may simply not be able to offer, a level of perfection and no slip-ups and mistakes. This month, Charli and Dixie D’Amelio were “cancelled” when on her family Youtube channel Charli wanted Dino Nuggets instead of eating snails cooked by a chef, while Dixie threw them up.
Cancelling two young adults for simply not wishing to eat a food, on the basis of disrespecting a chef is not justified. Charli and Dixie should be perceived as young people in the spotlight, not as perfect teenagers incapable of mistakes and preferences. Furthermore, through this status it can be common that creators begin to embody the image given to them of being untouchable, and unstoppable- which is equally dangerous. Together, both the viewer and creator contribute to a power dynamic that creates unrealistic standards based on the online persona of the creator.
The next issue lies in the aftermath of the disappointment. Once a creator who has been well-loved in the public, turns out to make a mistake, or do something disrespectful- they are harassed. Hate may not be the most efficient way to get the message across. It is important to raise concerns with creators and inform them that what they have done is wrong to their viewers. Through education, apologies and learning- a creator can uphold themselves to the standard their viewers hold them to. However through bullying them and making jokes, we as people who use social media end up trivialising extremely important issues such as racism, insensitivity, and misogyny that these creators have partaken in. An illustration of this is Lil Huddy, who after saying the N-word, had his comments filled with people jokingly referring to him as “Black King”. While this is a good attempt at ironic humour, it may have been counterproductive, since Lil Huddy would have actually benefited from his comments expecting apologies, and explaining why his racism is hurtful. Ergo, if the general consensus was to simply unfollow, stop watching videos and isolating the creator, as the creator educates themselves and apologises, it may be that Cancel Culture would be far more successful in fulfilling its purpose of accountability.
Through the combination of bringing creators down to the level of humans, rather than god-like idols as well as deplatforming them when they have disappointed their viewers: we can create a new wave of social media culture that hopes to remind people that genuine consequences exist, not just frequently passing online hate- while also creating positive consequences of education and apology. However, this must all be done with a pinch of salt.
When Manny MUA was cancelled in 2018, and lost 250,000 subscribers, he was left with severe mental health consequences. As everyone participating in social media gives such an immense value to subscribers, numbers and fame, we must deplatform creators and expect apologies while also focusing on the ability for creators to grow, and learn from their mistakes. When discussing this earlier, I mentioned giving creators a god-like status that holds them back from making mistakes, yet once they do make mistakes they are almost opposingly dehumanised to create an expectation that what they have done is wrong, but not that they should grow or learn from it. If Cancel Culture instead expects growth, and learning as a direct effect of accountability, Cancel Culture could actually equal accountability. It may even be that it will soon cease to exist as a culture that cancels others, but instead lets them grow.
