I found this compelling as a response to the idea of cancel culture.
It's kind of interesting, but I think if anybody wanted to cancel me, they'd have a hard time. I have almost no twitter/facebook presence, no linkedin at all, most of my close friends and family don't give a shit about what a bunch of Twitter randos think, and I work at a small enough company that I'd probably get my case heard.
I realize that some of that is luck and not just "positioning" but why give yourself a larger attack surface than you need to at a time when one wrong comment from 20 years ago can end you?
The issue is, as OP demonstrated, that this has nothing to do with your interaction with social media.
Social media was the connective tissue that gave rise to the internet mob, but neither the OPs behavior on social media, nor his response on social media, had any impact on the outcomes. Nor were the outcomes limited to affecting his social media presence. As per the original article, OP got nailed for comments from a twitter account he didn't run, and whose true owner publicly confessed to owning it.
That is, just because you walk away from social media doesn't mean that social media has walked away from you.
I found this compelling as a response to the idea of cancel culture.
It's kind of interesting, but I think if anybody wanted to cancel me, they'd have a hard time. I have almost no twitter/facebook presence, no linkedin at all, most of my close friends and family don't give a shit about what a bunch of Twitter randos think, and I work at a small enough company that I'd probably get my case heard.
I realize that some of that is luck and not just "positioning" but why give yourself a larger attack surface than you need to at a time when one wrong comment from 20 years ago can end you?
Just walk away from it all.