Abstract:
Social media has become an important part of our daily lives to the point that we cannot live without it. As platforms like Instagram and TikTok have become increasingly popular, the frequent cases of online dramas have begun to encourage cancel culture.
Although cancel culture promotes accountability and social justice, it has also fuelled toxic behaviours such as call-out culture, public shaming and boycotts. These actions tend to discourage meaningful online discussions and reinforce the fear of speaking out, as more people are quick to get cancelled without valid information. The rapid development of the social media environment has slowly made people quick to judge, which often results in reputational damage, emotional distress and loss of opportunities in their offline lives. Therefore, this paper will examine how social media has fuelled cancel culture to reinforce social norms and shape public discourse, which can also have real-life consequences. As this continues, the negative aspects of cancel culture may soon outweigh its intended purpose as more people are misusing it as a tool for cyberbullying.
Introduction:
Let them eat cake! This phrase would soon be one of history’s most controversial statements that made Marie Antoinette an early example of a term we now call “cancel culture” (Brodsky, 2024). Whether or not she ever uttered those words remains uncertain. However, what is clear is that the downfall of a monarchy and a woman of royalty stemmed from misleading information. Interestingly, this historical moment can still be seen in the modern world with a TikTok influencer, Haley Baylee. She lip-synced to the infamous phrase “Let them eat cake!” (Tik Toker Haley Kalil, 2024). This innocent viral video caused a domino effect of cancel culture and a movement called #blockout2024 (Tik Toker Haley Kalil, 2024). This movement caused public figures to lose millions of followers as netizens criticised them for not effectively using their platform to advocate for peace and speak out about the war between Palestine and Israel (Tik Toker Haley Kalil, 2024).
According to Norris (p. 159), “Cancel culture is a collective practice by activists using social pressures to ostracise someone or something alleged to have violated perceived moral standards.” With the rise of digital technology and social media platforms, cancel culture has become significant as social media trends and massive online participation often drive it. Therefore, this paper will discuss how social media amplifies “cancel culture” by reinforcing social norms, shaping public discourse, and influencing real-world consequences such as reputational damage, loss of opportunities, and shifts in social attitudes. Even though cancel culture is seen as encouraging mob mentality and excessive public shaming, some argue that it has brought benefits to people.
Social norms:
Social norms refer to the unspoken rules that guide behaviours within a group or community (Lutkenhaus, McLarnon-Silk, & Walker, 2023). Unlike personal beliefs, they are shared expectations about how individuals should act. These norms affect both actions and societal expectations, shaping behaviour accordingly (Lutkenhaus, McLarnon-Silk, & Walker, 2023). Social media platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and X have reshaped and transitioned social norms by accelerating public responses to controversial debates. Social media algorithms tend to prioritise contents that are more likely to be viral and receive more engagement. Therefore, when controversial or debatable content is posted, the algorithm does not consider whether users disagree or agree with it (Castillo, 2022). It will use the number of interactions like shares and comments to determine its popularity, which is often seen within heavy discussions and debates (Castillo, 2022). As a result, users who post something that was perceived as negative can quickly become subjects of online backlash. This public scrutiny will change the user’s behaviours and beliefs to fit in with the ever-evolving digital norms, especially around issues like gender identity and racism. This will ultimately redefine acceptable public behaviour, causing the situation to escalate beyond the creator’s reach.
As more people engage with the content, it will spark further outrage and unwanted public attention, which cancel culture thrives on (Castillo, 2022). The repetitive exposure to similar content shapes users’ perceptions, which gradually shifts their understanding of social norms, since users feel compelled to follow what they frequently see. Therefore, the cancellation of individuals or victims can be quick, as algorithms will expose their content to like-minded people who condemn it. This reinforces “popular” opinions that are widely accepted, which can cause other users to unconsciously side with the majority while limiting their exposure to a diverse perspective and knowledge, thus reshaping social norms (Lokhande & Natu, 2022).
This phenomenon is also called Echo Chambers, where users surround themselves with like-minded people and only pay attention to those who share the same values (Velasco, 2020). As more people are attached to their beliefs, it intensifies cancel culture’s “call-out” nature to those who do not meet the same expectations since social media has changed what we consider as “social norms” at an extreme level. Besides that, more users have become more active in participating in their own content creation. The rise of cancel culture makes many users extra cautious with their words and actions, as they are afraid to offend others and instead try to be socially acceptable (Castillo, 2022). This demonstrates how cancel culture impacts social norms by making people quick to judge, giving others no room for improvement or to have a productive discussion. The algorithms have created an environment where users must follow the “right” opinions or face massive backlash, pushing the idea of a black-and-white view of morality. Moreover, it has brought endless debates with people arguing the same points without coming to a resolution. Cancel culture has extensively focused too much on punishing individuals to take accountability and de-platforming them instead of positively encouraging growth.
Public discourse:
Public discourse refers to a collection of discussions and debates surrounding an issue, which has been drastically affected by cancel culture due to controversial content seen on social media (Kou, Kow, Gui, & Cheng, 2017). Cancel culture is mainly driven by emotional outrage over perceived wrongdoings or offensive behaviours that can impact the way users converse with each other on social media. Although social media has allowed users to share their opinions, it has also attracted online mobs, spreading hate to others during public discourse, and escalating cancel culture.
The advancement of technology has allowed users to share information and content at a rapid speed. However, the ease of sharing information has allowed false information to spread rampantly, causing public discourse (Picarella, 2024). For example, a Malaysian health minister, Dr Adham Baba claimed that COVID-19 can be cured by drinking warm water (Augustin, 2020). The health minister undoubtedly was facing numerous backlashes, with people targeting his rights to be a “health minister”.
Besides that, the sharing of fake news has impacted public opinion since historic times. This can be seen in the example of Marie Antoinette and the false information of her stating, “Let them eat cake!”. Despite no sustainable evidence supporting this claim, this misinformation fuelled resentment against her, which damaged her reputation and contributed to her execution (Brodsky, 2024). As previously mentioned with the TikTok creator, Haley Baylee used the audio attributed to Marie Antoinette, where many people defended her at the start (Tik Toker Haley Kalil, 2024). However, soon, more people jumped onto the hate train, manipulating the meaning of the video to something more ominous. Overall, social media has used its algorithms to amplify controversial content without cross-checking the validity of its information. This allowed misinformation to spread and reinforced peoples’ filter bubbles, allowing cancel culture to silence opposing opinions through manipulated narratives.
Furthermore, public discourse heavily relies on diversity, as it thrives on various perspectives and ideas. However, cancel culture forces people to share the same opinions and avoid commenting unpopular and controversial opinions, often fearing backlash (Burmah, 2021). Social media algorithms also use the emotional outrage of users to heighten the controversial content’s engagement. Therefore, debates on these social media platforms often become more emotional and heated rather than rational. This shift in public discourse on social media platforms has encouraged mass outrage where people join in without understanding the full context. In some cases, users participate in cancel culture just for the fun of it. They do not cancel individuals to gain social justice or promote accountability but to be trendy (Burmah, 2021). This trend-driven participation reduces the importance of discussions as people are now trying to go viral by posting “call-out” content, encouraging mob mentality (Burmah, 2021). Public discussions have increasingly turned into a form of entertainment rather than an opportunity for improvement. Therefore, this shift not only defeats the purpose of having a meaningful public discourse but also turns them into fighting arenas for social control on social media platforms.
Real-life consequences:
As cancel culture slowly engraves itself into our daily life, it has brought real-life consequences to users such as loss of opportunities, reputational damage and shifts in social attitudes. The victims of cancel culture can lose their jobs or see a significant decline in their financial income. To exemplify, when a content creator is cancelled, supporters of cancel culture will stop engaging with the creator’s content by unsubscribing and refusing to buy the products they promote (Haskell, 2021). This can lead to severe financial difficulties for the victim.
In addition, cancel culture can prevent academic opportunities. An incident involving the University of Alabama, where a student was expelled because a viral video has surfaced showing her consecutively saying the “N-word” slur (Simon, 2018). Her expulsion proved that cancel culture supporters will actively go out of their way to track down their targets, aiming to make them face harsh consequences in their offline lives. Consequently, this gives supporters a sense of accomplishment as they have successfully brought down an offender who was caught online (Haskell, 2021).
Despite social media offering a platform for individuals to be held accountable, it also fosters a mob mentality through the means of cyberbullying, public shaming and doxxing. Doxxing involves revealing the victim’s private information to the online audience, which can include their address, full name, occupation, family and contact details (Haskell, 2021). These methods of holding others accountable further damage the victims’ reputations (Haskell, 2021).
As more people have negative perceptions towards the cancelled target, it becomes challenging for them to maintain strong bonds with others in their real life, as some may hesitate to associate themselves with a problematic individual out of fear that they, too, may face public backlash (Haskell, 2021). With strong bonds being severed, it can cause social isolation. It will be difficult for the target to recover their past social standing if they are unable to regain the trust of the online public audience. Moreover, it can negatively impact the victim’s mental health (Lokhande, 2022). The constant public shaming, loss of opportunities and social isolation can lead to mental health issues like depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and lack of will (Lokhande, 2022).
The real-life consequences of cancel culture can be seen in the legal proceedings involving Hollywood celebrities Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. Johnny Depp sued his ex-wife for defamation as she accused him of domestic abuse (Mayberry, 2022). A single accusation ruined his career as he was fired from his role in the movie, “Pirates of the Caribbean”. Besides that, the accusation damaged his reputation with numerous news outlets labelling the actor as a “wife beater” (Mayberry, 2022). “Pirates of the Caribbean” was not the only movie franchise where he was removed from. He was also dropped from the “Fantastic Beast” and “Harry Potter” franchise (Mayberry, 2022). During Johnny Depp’s legal trial with his ex-wife, it was streamed live on YouTube and many other platforms, with the views gradually increasing from 250,000 to 9 million views on the eighth day of trial (Mayberry, 2022). This proves that cancel culture has also become a form of entertainment to others, even if it could be the destruction of someone’s life.
Conclusion:
Others view cancel culture as an opportunity to express their marginalised voices which allows them to spread awareness and speak out on issues that might have gone unrecognised (Hagi, 2019). It has brought these groups solace when the people in positions of power were finally held accountable for their wrongdoings, which would have otherwise gone unrecognised (Hagi, 2019). However, as mentioned before, cancel culture often does not allow open discussions. People online tend to judge too quickly and are often unforgiving to those who were cancelled, regardless of whether they have changed for the better. Therefore, cancel culture has reinforced harmful social norms, where fear of backlash prevents users from expressing their honest thoughts and opinions. It has also damaged the quality of public discussions as it has shifted to an emotional debate and promotes mob mentality. Furthermore, cancel culture has brought real-life consequences, even in cases fuelled by misinformation or unfair judgment. Society has exaggerated cancel culture to the point where it is unclear whether people are truly seeking accountability or simply using it as an excuse to participate in mass cyberbullying.
References:
A different lens. (2024). The consequences of cancel culture. Monash University. https://lens.monash.edu/@a-different-lens/2024/04/05/1386422/the-consequences-of-cancel-culture.
Augustin, Robin. (2020, March 21). Drinking warm water won’t prevent Covid-19 says Malaysian Medical Association. Free Malaysia Today. https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2020/03/21/drinking-warm-water-wont-prevent-covid-19-says-malaysian-medical-association/.
Brodsky, Katherine. (2024, July 20). The “Cancelling” of Marie Antoinette. Random Minds. https://www.katherinewrites.com/p/the-cancelling-of-marie-antoinette.
Burmah, L. S. (2021). The Curious Cases of Cancel Culture. [Master’s thesis,California State University]. Scholar Works. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2440&context=etd.
Castillo, E. V. (2022). Echo chambers of gratification: Jenna Mourey’s example of cancel culture and political division in the internet sphere (Master’s thesis, Florida State University). Florida State University. https://purl.lib.fsu.edu/diginole/FSU_libsubv1_scholarship_submission_1652822844_a11d7bfa.
Hagi, Sarah. (2019, November 21). Cancel Culture Is Not Real- At Least Not in the Way People Think. Time. https://time.com/5735403/cancel-culture-is-not-real/.
Haskell, S. (2021). Cancel Culture: A Qualitative Analysis of the Social Media Practice of Canceling (Order No. 28643279). Available from ProQuest One Academic. (2600269511). https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/cancel-culture-qualitative-analysis-social-media/docview/2600269511/se-2.
Kou, Y., Kow, Y. M., Gui, X., & Cheng, W. (2017). One social movement, two social media sites: A comparative study of public discourses. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 26, 807-836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-017-9284-y.
Lokhande, G., & Natu, S. (2022). ‘You are Cancelled’: Emergence of Cancel Culture in the Digital Age. IAHRW International Journal of Social Sciences Review, 10(2), 252-259. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/you-are-cancelled-emergence-cancel-culture/docview/2696515191/se-2.
Lutkenhaus, R., McLarnon-Silk, C., & Walker, F. (2023). Norms-Shifting on Social Media: A Review of Strategies to Shift Norms among Adolescents and Young Adults Online. Review of Communication Research, 11, 127-127–149. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/norms-shifting-on-social-media-review-strategies/docview/2816546837/se-2.
Mayberry, Carly. (2022, May 2). Johnny Depp, Amber Heard and the Dangers of Cancel Culture. Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/johnny-depp-amber-heard-dangers-cancel-culture-1701880.
Norris, P. (2021). Cancel Culture: Myth or Reality? Political Studies, 71(1), 145-174. https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217211037023 (Original work published 2023)
Picarella, L. (2024). Intersections in the digital society: cancel culture, fake news, and contemporary public discourse. Frontiers in sociology, 9, 1376049. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2024.1376049.
Simon, Mashaun D. (2018, January 18). Alabama student expelled after using ‘n-word’ in social media videos. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/alabama-student-expelled-after-using-n-word-social-media-videos-n838621.
Tik Toker Haley Kalil, who goes by HaleyyBaylee online. (2024, May 17). ‘Let them eat cake’: Why one influencer is facing backlash over her TikTok. CNN Entertainment. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/17/entertainment/video/let-them-eat-cake-influencers-celebrities-blockout2024-digvid.
Velasco, J. C. (2020). You are cancelled: Virtual collective consciousness and the emergence of cancel culture as ideological purging. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 12(5), 1-7. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd2e/c36189e588a491cff61a0fba26114c6a5ada.pdf.
Hi Shannon Kate, You’re right to ask; it is incredibly difficult to police these issues today. Predatory behaviour isn’t exclusive…