The it’s just “social media consequences” is a bit of an incomprehensible take for me, because people have lost non social media jobs on account of these social media mobs.
And when your job is social media related, then, even social media consequences are very real consequences. I mean, it’d be like a programmer going all “It’s not so bad, all they did is take your driving license away” to an Uber Driver.
And maybe you can be a Youtube media critic / documentarian without social media, but I kinda doubt it.
But I also don’t know if it’s fixable, since any solution I can see is going to throw the baby out too.
No, I’m saying that every time you say “I don’t think it’s new” it does two things:
- The conversation focuses on “Is this new or isn’t it? How bad is it? Is it really a problem?” instead of actually talking about the solutions.
- By saying “This is nothing new”, it strongly implies that there’s not really anything we can do about it, because something that’s been a problem for decades is less likely to have a sudden fix.
I don’t think that “I’m not saying we shouldn’t talk about this” automatically fixes either of those effects.
What does it matter? You’re free to suggest your solution no matter what I say. You don’t have to fall into what you see as my clever trap and get stuck debating whether it is new or not. You can just…suggest your solution. What’s even better is, I’d like to talk about your solution, so that would have the effect of changing the conversation in the direction you want it to go. So I will wait for you to do that!
Thrag
1872
It is possible to produce content and not engage with fans and/or detractors. Granted, maybe not the best marketing strategy, but engaging in social media drama is not totally necessary for making videos.
This is not to fault in any way the subject of the story here, just saying it is possible. I’m sure some content creators do just that.
An awful lot of people using social media to promote their content also say never read the replies.
In any case, here’s a video of Lindsay talking about being cancelled. In 2019, because it’s not the first time she’s had issues, this was just the proverbial straw.
So last night, for some incomprehensible reason, BBC News brought Alan Dershowitz on live, ostensibly to talk about the Maxwell verdict, but actually to attack his accuser Giuffre and claim that he and Prince Andrew are the real victims.
There was a huge social media backlash, which has led to admissions of failure by the BBC, and promises of an investigation, etc.
It isn’t inconceivable that someone at BBC might be fired or otherwise disciplined for this; that there might be real consequences. So my question is, if that happens, is this cancel culture? Is it an internet mob wrongly gangpiling on someone, costing them their job? Or is it ordinary people using social media as a tool to try to combat the pernicious behavior of a media giant?
Houngan
1876
In theory (because we obviously have a lot of “news” these days that is anything but) there are journalistic standards that are entrenched and understood by those in the business even before they get into the business. Cancel Culture is more emergent, a journalist breaking journalistic standards is like a soldier getting court-martialed; you had the rulebook before you signed up, and presumably the other side has to play by the same rules. I’m sure Editorial Standards are much looser, but I would guarantee the BBC has a binder a foot thick explaining them in detail before the fact.
Perhaps, but if there is no social media reaction, there is no impetus for BBC to do anything at all, and probably no consequences. This is an internet mob demanding an explanation and consequences. Is it desirable or undesirable?
I’m asking the question because it is a thing to be considered when one talks about solutions.
Houngan
1878
Explanation yes, consequences no. After the explanation, THEN we get into consequences, and then we comment on whether they were appropriate adjust if necessary or if possible. Judge, jury, executioner is the social media way.
Take your own first sentence, you’ve already assigned motive beyond the obvious to why they brought him on. Slow down with that, and the conversation will be more useful.
So people on the internet should be able to call out bad behavior, even if that means a lot of people are going to pile on, as is the nature of a mob?
Houngan
1880
Call out yes, determine guilt and punishment at the same time, no. And notice again that you’re jumping ahead one step immediately by comparing it to a mob before we even can discuss it. Anybody can call out anybody, but there needs to be a question/response structure, not a volume-based determination of rightness.
Nobody on Twitter can determine any guilt or punish anyone at all. Except perhaps Twitter themselves, and their punishment is limited to booting you off.
What happens on Twitter is a bunch of people get upset with someone, and they all dogpile on that person, and then someone else, an employer or sponsor or whatever, decides to punish the person in question, or not, as the case may be. That is precisely what is happening here. Is it bad?
Houngan
1882
While I’d agree with your point about punishment, to an extent (it’s pretty obvious that a critical mass of social media users can indeed influence punishment, implicitly) you’re far off-base as to determining guilt; that’s part and parcel of what we’re talking about. Lindsey was guilty of maliciously making a racist Asian statement immediately according to social media.
Telefrog
1883
Isn’t the hounding and dogpiling the immediate punishment?
Maybe it is. Should people not hound and dogpile BBC News — and their social media staff — for bringing on Alan Dershowitz and letting him attack Giuffre and defend himself, in the guise of providing expertise about the verdict? Is that sort of thing ‘cancel culture’? That’s the question I’m asking.
Telefrog
1885
I guess the distinction I would make is that hounding and dogpiling BBC News doesn’t actually harm BBC News. If anything, it increases eyeballs and traffic. I suppose someone working on their online presence might feel personally aggrieved, but their names usually aren’t in public domain, so they can actually unplug and get away from the mob.
In contrast, Lindsay Ellis was directly being harassed.
Houngan
1886
You’re assigning malicious intent to the BBC with no other information. You’ve determined that Dershowitz going off-script was a plot by the BBC rather than something that just happened, and now we can’t talk about it in any other way lest we appear to be defending the theoretical other side of the argument, a.k.a. the sneaky BBC.
That is, I’m assuming that the BBC hasn’t put out a statement that they brought him on so he could digress intentionally?
But it might harm the associate producer, or whatever they call it, of that segment. And that harm would almost certainly be because of the social media reaction.
I am not. BBC might have had totally honest (but stupid) motivations, while it was Dershowitz who had another agenda. BBC’s motives have nothing to do with the question I’m asking. I’m talking about the huge adverse social media response to the piece, which has triggered an investigation, and which might cause someone to be punished. Is that bad? Is it ‘cancel culture’?
Houngan
1888
But you said this. You can see how this dovetails into the conversation around social media, you’ve made a statement I’ve asked you about three times and rather than slow down and clarify it, you’ve plowed ahead.
