Senff 1

Leah Senff

Prof. Sobocinski

ENG 1201

10 April 2021

A Better Way

Imagine this: You are on your way to school one morning, and a random thought pops

into your head - it could have been a thought from the previous night, or a reaction to something

that you just experienced. As you walk along, with your thumbs quickly typing on your

smartphone screen, you vent your thoughts in tweet out to your followers, neglecting a proof-

read. After all, that is what social media is meant for, right? To express your thoughts freely to

the world, and to get a glimpse into what others are experiencing? You go along with your day,

only to later be bombarded with relentless buzzing in your jean pocket. Your phone is blowing

up. “What could be happening?” you think to yourself. As you open your phone, countless hate

slurs and death threats trickle in in response to your thoughtless morning tweet - your heart

pounds in your chest because you realize something. Your life is never going to be the same.

This scenario reflects the stories of countless social media users who have been affected by the

toxic internet justice movement known as “cancel culture.” Proponents of online accountability

aim to correct the wrongs and offenses of others by silencing them, and responding with

negativity, insults, and sometimes even violence. The ever-increasing prevalence of media’s

“cancel culture” has evolved into a detrimental society-wide movement, and its focus on using

punishment and isolation to hold people accountable has proven insufficient in correcting and

growing individuals to meet values of social justice.

 Senff 2

The term “cancel culture” has become widely used only in the past few years, as this

form of online criticism has exponentially grown. Emily A. Vogels and other researchers at Pew

Research Center use their article “Americans and 'Cancel Culture': Where Some See Calls for

Accountability, Others See Censorship, Punishment,” to outline the many perceptions of this

idea among the public, and to portray its effects through statistical studies. The researchers begin

their article by explaining the roots of the term, “cancel culture.” They explain that the term

started as a “[reference] to breaking up with someone – used in a 1980s song,” and later evolved

into a “deeply contested idea in the nation’s political discourse” (Vogels, et al.). The casual use

of this expression has grown with the increase of social media use and online communication in

the pandemic era. Young people commonly use it in light conversation, while its weight and

implications are unbeknownst to many. In The New York Times article titled: “Tales from the

Teenage Cancel Culture,” writers Yar and Bromwich document the accounts of many teens who

have come face-to-face with this hateful online movement. One student defines that “[cancel

culture] can be a joke, but it can also suggest that an offending person won’t be tolerated again”

(Yar and Bromwich). Because this term has reached into various different contexts, it can be

difficult for many to determine when media harassment has gone too far.

By better knowing what cancel culture is and how to identify it, many can see how this

culture has increased greatly with the Coronavirus pandemic, isolating people and allowing them

the freedom to hide behind devices and look for others to scrutinize. Vogels and other

researchers at Pew Research Center speak to this current rise in internet and media use, and how

they “[have] changed how, when and where [challenging] interactions occur. The number of

people who can go online and call out others for their behavior or words is immense, and it’s

never been easier to summon groups to join the public fray” (Vogels, et al.). There has grown
 Senff 3

even greater accessibility to technology since the 2020 lockdown, as our modern society has

transitioned onto virtual, online platforms. This accessibility allows toxic forms of “cancel

culture” to manifest more now than ever, and its residual political and social polarization has

shown its lack of effectiveness. Yar and Bromwich state that “the phenomenon has intensified

since the outbreak of COVID-19. With so many people staying at home there has been a rise in

social media use, and with more time on social media there is more time for “‘cancellations’”

(Yar and Bromwich). In conclusion, the prevalence of “cancel culture” has become more

apparent than ever in the wake of the post-pandemic modern world, and its negative

consequences have overshadowed what some view as its original intent.

Through observing the content that has resulted in these personal attacks via social

media, many observe the apparent political influences that fuels these challenges of social

justice. This division is seen in the differing views of what cancel culture is purposed for.

Fig. 1 - Pew Research’s graphic represents the data from a study done in September of 2020

that recorded the viewpoints of people across the political spectrum. This image portrays the

political influences that affect the way people perceive cancel culture (Vogels, et al.).
 Senff 4

The researchers at Pew Research Center reveal “[t]here were some notable partisan and

ideological differences in what the term cancel culture represents… Democrats are far more

likely than Republicans to say that, in general, calling people out on social media for posting

offensive content holds them accountable (75% vs. 39%)” (Vogels, et al.). By observing these

differing political views on internet justice, readers can see how politics has had a role in the

perceptions of and purposes for internet accountability.

In addition to the polarizing political intent behind some of these dismantlers, experts

have become critical of cancel culture’s potential violations of the right to free speech. Professor

and political scientist Peter Berkowitz discusses the importance of drawing a line between this

free speech and a destructive online environment in his academic essay in the Hoover digest. He

shares that, in the United States, free speech “[e]xpression is subject to a few specified legal

limitations… [leaving] abundant room in which citizens can readily encounter unorthodox,

dissenting, and, yes, deeply disagreeable opinions” (Berkowitz). He continues, saying “[w]hile

government always poses a major threat to free speech, it never represents the sole danger… old

nemeses of free speech--inherited authority, social pressure, and public opinion--show little sign

of abating” (Berkowitz). Berkowitz recognizes that the group shaming of others through social

media platforms to get a point across, in other words - cancel culture, stands as a looming threat

to beneficial free speech, and ultimately, to our society.

Along with the political implications and intentions of these attacks, an ever-changing,

socially activist undercurrent can also be clearly seen, creating a “mob mentality” that villainizes

people with differing beliefs and viewpoints. Questions have arisen among the public, as people

are wondering if these aggressive media mobs are actually improving victims’ respect and

overall awareness for minorities and justice issues. Researchers Alison M. Joubert and Jack
 Senff 5

Coffin address these questions in their viewpoint essay, “Celebrities can be cancelled. Fandoms

are forever.” They state that “[t]he practice is becoming more like activism as entertainment:

where people join in because they find it fun, rather than because they believe it to be a worthy

cause” (Joubert and Coffin). These researchers dig into the mentality behind cancel culture, and

share that these justice-hungry media users often participate in silencing and attacking

individuals for the sake of “joining the movement,” rather than for the sake of improving our

society. This insight into the intentions behind cancel culture shows the overall danger of this

growing phenomenon

The “mob mentality” of cancel culture not only comes from the build up of group

thinking and peer pressure, but also stems from personal beliefs of correctness, creating fuel for

people to justify their viewpoints. The New York Times journalist Sarah Hagi writes about the

controversy of the questions surrounding cancel culture and social justice in her article, “Cancel

Culture Is Not Real-at Least Not in the Way You Think.” She shares Barack Obama’s thoughts

on the cultural movement, and his critique of the mindset that promotes “‘[t]his idea of purity

and you’re never compromised and you’re always politically woke,” ultimately “...condemning

cancel culture’” (Hagi). The vilification of celebrities and average people alike stems from the

flawed human perceptions of our own moral uprightness, regardless of if the pushback is

intended for the purpose of social justice and activism. Berkowitz shares that “[f]ree speech also

needs intellectual virtue. To benefit from the give-and-take that energizes a free society, we must

examine our own ideas' vulnerabilities,” namely being open to accepting others' opinions without

hating the person attached to the thought or idea (Berkowitz). He suggests that people should

focus on “restating accurately, interpreting reasonably, and looking for the kernel--or more--of

truth in opinions and positions that we are inclined to oppose” (Berkowitz). This balanced
 Senff 6

approach to media interactions highlights the importance of empathy and understanding in the

context of media interactions. Although some accountability is necessary on these platforms, a

lack of humility can create an unwillingness to accept and respect others’ opinions - creating a

culture of scorn and unforgiveness.

Proponents of cancel culture claim that its “call-outs” benefit those on the

receiving end, but these supporters neglect the obvious harm outweighing the good. Social media

is intended to bring people together and to provide an outlet for others to share their experiences

and thoughts. It connects people who might otherwise never have interacted otherwise. The

dissension created through cancel culture’s accusation and punishment has distorted social

media’s ability to unite people. Many who experience cyber accountability explain that after

their harassment, they felt more isolated and disconnected than ever. The more well-known tales

of “cancellations” include the destruction of countless celebrities’ careers and platforms. The

sudden wide-spread hate for these figures reveals the true damage that can be done through

words, and proves the overwhelming harm that cancel culture can bring. While some celebrities

do need to be held accountable for their unacceptable actions, the cancellations more clearly

expose the threatening damage of “mob mentalities” that can tear reputations apart. In Hagi’s

article, she sources music star Taylor Swift’s reaction after her “cancelation,” about the pain that

she, and many others, experience from social media attacks: “‘When you say someone is

canceled, it’s not a TV show. It’s a human being,’ Swift told Vogue this summer. ‘You’re

sending mass amounts of messaging to this person to either shut up, disappear, or it could also be

perceived as, kill yourself’” (Hagi). This testimony shows the personal pain that Swift and many

others have faced as a result of internet scrutiny, and while some push backs call for correction

and growth, the majority aim to destroy the individual’s identity and produce harm, not good.
 Senff 7

Not only are pop-culture icons facing the brunt of this pressure and scrutiny, but average

people, too, must endure the unbelievably harmful consequences that result from cancel culture.

More testimonies from The New York Times’ “Tales from the Teenage Cancel Culture” prove the

crushing impact that social media justice can have on a person’s wellbeing. One story tells of a

young girl who experienced sudden isolation and bullying that endured for the first two years of

highschool, without her understanding of any reason for these wrongdoings. She says, in our

modern culture, “[y]ou can do something stupid when you're 15…that shapes how people

perceive you,” and it has led to long-term damage in her self-image: “I’m very prone to

questioning everything I do…I have issues with trusting perfectly normal things…That sense of

me being some sort of monster, terrible person, burden to everyone, has stayed with me to some

extent. There’s still this sort of lingering sense of: What if I am?” (Yar and Bromwich). Another

story comes from a college student who describes their experience of being “canceled” by her

peers. She warns of the danger that comes from “applying huge abstract ideas of identity’s role

and…shrinking it into these interpersonal, one-on-one, liberal arts things” (Yar and Bromwich).

This article shares countless other stories of modern young people who have faced the negative

aftermath of a media culture revolving around blame and division. These testimonies from

average people expose the counterproductivity of a graceless media culture, and ultimately, its

destructive consequences.

Of all of the concerns that have risen as a result of cancel culture’s severity and

prominence, its most alarming deficiency is its lack of effectiveness - many wonder if these

media mobs are truly holding people accountable, or if they are using the mask of technology as

a vessel for judgment and graceless punishment. Pew researchers gathered statistics regarding

this dilemma, and found that, between the two camps of accountability and punishment, “roughly
 Senff 8

a third (35%) of those who see calling out other people on social media as a form of unjust

punishment cite reasons that relate to people who call out others being rash or judgmental. Some

of these Americans see this kind of behavior as overreacting or unnecessarily lashing out at

others without considering the context or intentions of the original poster” (Vogels, et al.). What

these statistics show, and what other testimonies also reveal about cancel culture, is that there is

an overall lack of empathy and understanding in the online environment. This generates

judgemental media conditions overall, influencing those who may attempt to combat offensive

content. Where the true problem lies with cancel culture is its lack of correction paired with

understanding. Joubert and Coffin reject cancel culture’s bent to punish and isolate those with

“wrong” beliefs in their article “Celebrities can be cancelled. Fandoms are forever." They instead

highlight the need for a more effective “context culture” that could utilize media platforms to

advance social justice without completely dehumanizing individuals. Joubert and Coffin say

“[t]he spirit of cancel culture—holding people accountable for their actions—is lost when being

cancelled means there is no opportunity for change nor space for growth.” The expression of

internet accountability that has become ever-increasing throughout the past five years proves less

effective because of its lack of constructive feedback and mercy. Social media could be used as a

tool to promote justice and mercy in our communities and allow people to hear outside opinions

respectfully, without shaming and villainizing them.

Despite the overwhelming need for an improved media environment, some claim that

cancel culture is necessary and effective for the evolution of society toward equity and respect.

Some view cancel culture as a beneficial movement that allows people, specifically those in

minorities, to voice injustices and call-out insensitive media users to modern social agendas.

Sarah Hagi’s article provides information to back this opinion, as she pulls from her own
 Senff 9

personal experience of the benefits of cancel culture for a minority: “I’m a black, Muslim

woman, and because of social media, marginalized people like myself can express ourselves in a

way that was not possible before. That means racist, sexist, and bigoted behavior or remarks

don’t fly like they used to.” (Hagi). The New York Times’ journalist shares that the scrutiny

pointed toward both public figures and everyday media users is for the good of society, and is

evolving our social landscape because of its high-stakes environment. Hagi continues, saying

“When they throw around terms like ‘cancel culture’ to silence me instead of reckoning with the

reasons I might find certain actions or jokes dehumanizing, I’m led to one conclusion: they’d

prefer I was powerless against my own oppression” (Hagi). Strongly asserting her refutation

against those who reject cancel culture, writer Sarah Hagi shares that online accountability is an

absolutely necessary space that allows the marginalized to use their voices. While alowing all

people to share their voices and experiences is important, Hagi fails to recognize the flaws and

negative consequences that have come as a result of cancel culture. Punishment and criticism do

not effectively promote change, and the current climate of internet justice is not positioned to

advance the causes that Hagi herself advocates for.

Contrary to popular opinion, cancel culture has not proved effective in holding people to

standards of societal morality, and in order to change the direction of condemning media

responses, people must choose to respond more respectfully in order to challenge unjust

viewpoints. Surprisingly, “58% of U.S. adults say in general, calling out others on social media

is more likely to hold people accountable, while 38% say it is more likely to punish people who

don’t deserve it,” showing the nation-wide misconception of the actual outcomes that cancel

culture produces (Vogels, et al.). Although a majority of people, represented through the Pew

Research Center’s study, might view cancel culture as a successful avenue for accountability, the
 Senff 10

reality of injustice seen through the shaming and dismantling of countless people will never truly

change our society. To conclude, changing the expressions of online justice “does not mean

giving public figures a free pass to say or do what they like; it's not giving up on holding them

accountable. It means opportunities to learn and change should not be shut down prematurely”

(Joubert and Coffin.)

Causing destruction through its methods of isolation and condemnation, modern media’s

“cancel culture” lacks true effectiveness in calling people to standards of moral and social

justice. Almost everyone in today’s society has heard this term in some context, whether

conversational or political. This phrase has evolved to encompass so much more than the

removal of support from an individual, especially in the context of the Coronavirus pandemic. As

isolation and virtual connection gained in popularity, the media accountability phenomenon grew

as well. The use of online platforms to call people out for inappropriate comments or actions

skyrocketed, and its destructive consequences have been left to show the ineffectiveness of this

movement. Next, many people use cancel culture to justify and promote their political agendas,

and the division and polarization that has resulted also reveals the failure of internet justice to

truly change culture for the better. Additionally, these messages, whether political or not, have

gained momentum because of mob mentality. This thought process cloaks itself as activism and

social justice, while in reality, a majority of these interactions include mass insults and threats

aimed at those who oppose a person’s views. While some might disagree that cancel culture

brings out more human evil than good, the evident climate of punishment and fear that has

evolved on media platforms proves unsuccessful. This is seen clearly through the testimonies of

countless well-intentioned people who experienced mob-shaming, only to have their reputations

destroyed without any chance for growth. Although some actions result in consequences and
 Senff 11

require accountability, the complete dismantling of a person’s identity because of a comment or

action does not promote a healthy society, but, quite frankly, the opposite. Imagine this: You

return to your home after a long day, and check your notifications on social media. You realize

that a comment you tweeted out earlier that morning offended some of your followers - but

instead of responding with violence and hatred, they graciously correct you, stirring your desire

to have a greater respect and awareness going forward. What would it mean to create a media

environment with accountability and empathy? It starts with you. There is a better way.
 Senff 12

Works Cited

Berkowitz, Peter. "Courage, not Cancellation: Free speech means citizens are willing

both to question and to be questioned." Hoover Digest, no. 3, summer 2021, pp. 27+.

Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A670971565/OVIC?

u=dayt30

401&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=552298b0. Accessed 1 Mar. 2022.

Hagi, Sarah. “Cancel Culture Is Not Real-at Least Not in the Way You Think.” Time,

Time, 21 Nov. 2019, https://time.com/5735403/cancel-culture-is-not-real/.

Joubert, Alison M., and Jack Coffin. "Celebrities can be cancelled. Fandoms are forever."

Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2022. Gale In Context: Opposing

Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/UHXOQX894919510/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=

bookmark-OVIC&xid=9e0e5703. Accessed 3 Mar. 2022. Originally published as

"Celebrities can be cancelled. Fandoms are forever," The Conversation, 7 July 2020.

Vogels, Emily A., et al. “Americans and 'Cancel Culture': Where Some See Calls for

Accountability, Others See Censorship, Punishment.” Pew Research Center: Internet,

Science & Tech, Pew Research Center, 27 Sept. 2021, https://www.pewresearch.org/int

ernet/2021/05/19/americans-and-cancel-culture-where-some-see-calls-for-accountability-

others-see-censorship-punishment/.

Yar, Sanam, and Jonah Engel Bromwich. “Tales from the Teenage Cancel Culture.” The

New York Times, The New York Times, 31 Oct. 2019,

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/s

tyle/cancel-culture.html.