This should be at the top of every post about “cancel culture.” It’s a complex, gradated phenomenon that sits at the intersection of a bunch of sociological, technological, and political forces, and can hardly be dismissed with a cute moniker and a tepid call to action.
I'm also very interested in how design decisions for social networks lead to emergent "modes" of interaction. Such factors include:
* Global by default communication
* Threaded vs. linear discussion
* Likes, reactions, and "boosting" (related to above)
* Easily forwardable/repostable content
* Anonymity and pseudo-anonymity
* Always-available communication (including photo and video)
* Moderation
In terms of controversy, in-person interactions have a natural dampening effect: if you have (for example) some crappy opinions that aren't shared by your peer group, not only are they unlikely to escape that social circle, but the tone and content of your conversations (plus other cues such as body language) might steer you in the right direction over time. On the other end of the spectrum, "global" interactions (public, threaded, boostable, relayable) can reach all of humanity in an instant, but often at the expense of the individual. Justice may be served, but the offender is crushed in the process. (Justice, as you point out, that might have never been served otherwise, as in the case of MeToo or BLM.)
Some people can't see the difference between these two modes: they post on Twitter as if they were still the first mode, only to find out that they were in the second. (That is, they were actually professing Their Ideas from a global podium.) Or maybe they want to "poke the bear" without realizing how massive that bear actually is.
It obviously goes the other way, too: a "good cop" in a bad department will find their idealism ground down over time, and terrible ideas (QAnon, climate change denial) can spread like wildfire over Twitter and Facebook.
I don't know if I have much of a point to make. I very much recognize how "global" mediums can be a force for positive change in the world, including "cancel culture." But I also miss my teenage years, when my friends and I would have endless discussions on a simple ProBoards instance, helping each other make sense of the world as the years went on. Part of me wants to go back to an internet built up of small communities and linear discussions, but social media is pushing in the opposite direction. Would the former result in a bunch of nasty echo chambers littering the web? Will the latter sap social interaction of all context and humanity, leaving only ideas and soap boxes vaguely tied to avatars? Why do so many of us consider Twitter and Facebook a "default" medium of social interaction when their impact can be so globally powerful?
I'm also very interested in how design decisions for social networks lead to emergent "modes" of interaction. Such factors include:
* Global by default communication
* Threaded vs. linear discussion
* Likes, reactions, and "boosting" (related to above)
* Easily forwardable/repostable content
* Anonymity and pseudo-anonymity
* Always-available communication (including photo and video)
* Moderation
In terms of controversy, in-person interactions have a natural dampening effect: if you have (for example) some crappy opinions that aren't shared by your peer group, not only are they unlikely to escape that social circle, but the tone and content of your conversations (plus other cues such as body language) might steer you in the right direction over time. On the other end of the spectrum, "global" interactions (public, threaded, boostable, relayable) can reach all of humanity in an instant, but often at the expense of the individual. Justice may be served, but the offender is crushed in the process. (Justice, as you point out, that might have never been served otherwise, as in the case of MeToo or BLM.)
Some people can't see the difference between these two modes: they post on Twitter as if they were still the first mode, only to find out that they were in the second. (That is, they were actually professing Their Ideas from a global podium.) Or maybe they want to "poke the bear" without realizing how massive that bear actually is.
It obviously goes the other way, too: a "good cop" in a bad department will find their idealism ground down over time, and terrible ideas (QAnon, climate change denial) can spread like wildfire over Twitter and Facebook.
I don't know if I have much of a point to make. I very much recognize how "global" mediums can be a force for positive change in the world, including "cancel culture." But I also miss my teenage years, when my friends and I would have endless discussions on a simple ProBoards instance, helping each other make sense of the world as the years went on. Part of me wants to go back to an internet built up of small communities and linear discussions, but social media is pushing in the opposite direction. Would the former result in a bunch of nasty echo chambers littering the web? Will the latter sap social interaction of all context and humanity, leaving only ideas and soap boxes vaguely tied to avatars? Why do so many of us consider Twitter and Facebook a "default" medium of social interaction when their impact can be so globally powerful?