I forget where I heard it from, but a good point I recently heard made was that Twitter is best used as a sketch pad for ideas, and we probably shouldn't be so quick to jump down others' throats if the opinions they're expressing aren't fervently held. I think that's a good approach.
Hunt's story reminds me of a privacy distinction danah boyd made over a decade ago: "Just because something is publicly accessible does not mean that people want it to be publicized."
I used to love watching John Stewart and his "correspondents" mock extreme examples of idiocy on "the Daily Show" but now I realize that regularly making fun of half our country, whether on Fox News or "The Daily Show", laid the foundation for "cancel culture" on the Left as well as the Right.
As a student, I used to defend the kids who were bullied in school, but here I was laughing along with the mob at whomever became the "main character" for that day on "The Daily Show." It's insidious how callous one can become in certain anonymous context, and I regret how much I enjoyed that humor that was based on making fun of the unsuspecting. It's junior high school all over again, writ large on Twitter and cable news (and shows ostensibly making fun of cable news!)
I loved the daily show with John Stewart in like 2005-2010. Maybe I was just young or lacked awareness, but it felt way less bad faith then the Daily Show now. The daily show has been the same jokes for like the last 6 years straight. I think everything has become so metagame'd and bad faith that there's no reasonable discourse left. Comedy, social platforms, it's all just become a way to trade hate and gaslight people into aligning into the right opinions.
Even reading an article like this is refreshing. No preaching, just an insightful read on a daily phenomenon.
The existence of platform failure does not negate the existence of cancel culture. We have both, and they feed each other. The example you provided was platform failure, not cancel culture because the "victim" did not lose her job and was not blackballed from any industry. Then there are instances of cancel culture that do not involve platform failure, such as internal cancellations within Academia (e.g., Brett Weinstein). Then there are convergences of the two, illustrated by the termination of, for example, David Shor. We have two destructive phenomena that often feed off each other, but can also cause damage independently. Nothing in this article is at all probative as to the existence or non-existence of "cancel culture," which is better described as a prevalent and growing attitude of censoriousness rather than engagement. That attitude clearly exists, and, while nuanced discussion on its nature is welcome, any author that denies its existence loses a lot of credibility from my perspective.
I'm pretty sure it isn't broken out like this but it would be really interesting to see the metrics of "engagement" origin: Trending vs "top Tweets." Mostly because I have a firm (and entirely baseless) belief that the problem became *so much* worse when Twitter started allowing Likes to propagate like Retweets.
Switching to Latest Tweets only is a real improvement imo. Even if I miss out on a little of the fun stuff, the fact that I also avoid seeing the worst takes/pointless dunks more than makes up for it.
Great post. Charlie, one additional aspect of this pile-on/context destruction phenomenon that you're describing is the role that people with big followings play on twitter. You were rightly focused on twitter topics, but I often see people with a very large follower count acting in what seems like a wildly irresponsible fashion, contributing to context destruction by plucking some 20-follower bastard (sometimes incredibly stupid) tweet and launching them into unwelcome twitter fame.
It is particularly surprising to see journalists doing this, as in their professional lives they tend to be quite careful in how they put "regular people" in the limelight of their articles, by providing plenty of context and trying to tell a human story while using it to discuss a societal issue.
While there's something wonderful about Mark Hamill engaging in a bit of Star Wars nerdery with fans, it seems to me big names on twitter often need a better understanding that when you cross some number of followers (is it 1k, 10k, 100k?) you're really carrying around a huge cross-section of society and with it a hammer that you should use very lightly. Perhaps not as powerful as the Trending Topics algorithm, but heavy nonetheless. I don't know how much "X big names have quote-tweeted Elle Hunt" weighs in the Trending Topic algorithm, or to what degree these quote-tweets are critical to spreading the word, but my guess is that it is significant.
It'd be great to hear your thoughts about this if you find it worth addressing.
FWIW, as someone who does his own M-F newsletter I recommend seeking feedback, but ultimately doing what feels right to you. You will hear 100 conflicting opinions and chasing a consensus can lead to madness. Also, find the length and frequency that works for you and the way you write. In some ways, writing a regular newsletter is a marathon. So make sure you fit in time for water breaks and snacks.
Ironically (I think, lol) it feels like the context collapse can also have a distressing effect on the Very Online People who participate and perpetuate it. A warped FOMO sense of urgency where you feel like you *have to* comment and get your take out there. It creates a pressure to not only care about everything (like Bean Dad) but also be an expert in everything- which is impossible and exhausting.
I know people use twitter trending topics for political gains, spreading misinformation etc. There are companies who charge money to trend a particular topic on twitter.
Also, on another note, I am founder subscriptionhunt.com where people can discover great newsletter & podcasts. Would be great if you can post your newsletter over there. www.subscriptionhunt.com
Eventually would like to create a community of all the likeminded creators like yourself :)
Surely, Trending Topics exacerbate a problem of toxic community dynamics, but how do you explain this happening on platforms without daily tends, like tumblr (surely one of the origin points of 'Cancel Culture', if not even the main source)?
I only got on Twitter to build my Substack audience, but I live in fear of becoming the main character. Thankfully, Substack is a much more welcoming place. Glad you're here!
Thanks for replying! While I don't agree with your claim, I can certainly understand that you'd feel that way in the case that it's true. That's similar to how I feel about some particular media platforms and personalities on the right–though I try to draw a distinction between condemnation (of a behaviour) and vilification (of a person). The former conveys how we feel about peoples' actions and can be discussed, whereas the latter often just contributes to the vicious cycle of rage and context collapse.
So while I might condemn things I hear from, say, Tucker Carlson, I refrain from attacking his identity. Because that would just make him and his supporters more defensive and less able to actually talk about the issue. In theory... it does take two to tango :\
Good shit! As for the final question, my vote is longer and more spaced out. Let those puppies breathe, ya know?
I hear ya!
Longer and more spaced out, please. Similar to this kind of post once or twice a week :-)
Cool! I'm going to play around a bit early on...but I imagine I'll settle on this!
I forget where I heard it from, but a good point I recently heard made was that Twitter is best used as a sketch pad for ideas, and we probably shouldn't be so quick to jump down others' throats if the opinions they're expressing aren't fervently held. I think that's a good approach.
Event Horizon is definitely horror though.
🎯
Hunt's story reminds me of a privacy distinction danah boyd made over a decade ago: "Just because something is publicly accessible does not mean that people want it to be publicized."
I used to love watching John Stewart and his "correspondents" mock extreme examples of idiocy on "the Daily Show" but now I realize that regularly making fun of half our country, whether on Fox News or "The Daily Show", laid the foundation for "cancel culture" on the Left as well as the Right.
As a student, I used to defend the kids who were bullied in school, but here I was laughing along with the mob at whomever became the "main character" for that day on "The Daily Show." It's insidious how callous one can become in certain anonymous context, and I regret how much I enjoyed that humor that was based on making fun of the unsuspecting. It's junior high school all over again, writ large on Twitter and cable news (and shows ostensibly making fun of cable news!)
I loved the daily show with John Stewart in like 2005-2010. Maybe I was just young or lacked awareness, but it felt way less bad faith then the Daily Show now. The daily show has been the same jokes for like the last 6 years straight. I think everything has become so metagame'd and bad faith that there's no reasonable discourse left. Comedy, social platforms, it's all just become a way to trade hate and gaslight people into aligning into the right opinions.
Even reading an article like this is refreshing. No preaching, just an insightful read on a daily phenomenon.
The existence of platform failure does not negate the existence of cancel culture. We have both, and they feed each other. The example you provided was platform failure, not cancel culture because the "victim" did not lose her job and was not blackballed from any industry. Then there are instances of cancel culture that do not involve platform failure, such as internal cancellations within Academia (e.g., Brett Weinstein). Then there are convergences of the two, illustrated by the termination of, for example, David Shor. We have two destructive phenomena that often feed off each other, but can also cause damage independently. Nothing in this article is at all probative as to the existence or non-existence of "cancel culture," which is better described as a prevalent and growing attitude of censoriousness rather than engagement. That attitude clearly exists, and, while nuanced discussion on its nature is welcome, any author that denies its existence loses a lot of credibility from my perspective.
I'm pretty sure it isn't broken out like this but it would be really interesting to see the metrics of "engagement" origin: Trending vs "top Tweets." Mostly because I have a firm (and entirely baseless) belief that the problem became *so much* worse when Twitter started allowing Likes to propagate like Retweets.
I really dislike the amount of likes that appear in my feed
Switching to Latest Tweets only is a real improvement imo. Even if I miss out on a little of the fun stuff, the fact that I also avoid seeing the worst takes/pointless dunks more than makes up for it.
Great post. Charlie, one additional aspect of this pile-on/context destruction phenomenon that you're describing is the role that people with big followings play on twitter. You were rightly focused on twitter topics, but I often see people with a very large follower count acting in what seems like a wildly irresponsible fashion, contributing to context destruction by plucking some 20-follower bastard (sometimes incredibly stupid) tweet and launching them into unwelcome twitter fame.
It is particularly surprising to see journalists doing this, as in their professional lives they tend to be quite careful in how they put "regular people" in the limelight of their articles, by providing plenty of context and trying to tell a human story while using it to discuss a societal issue.
While there's something wonderful about Mark Hamill engaging in a bit of Star Wars nerdery with fans, it seems to me big names on twitter often need a better understanding that when you cross some number of followers (is it 1k, 10k, 100k?) you're really carrying around a huge cross-section of society and with it a hammer that you should use very lightly. Perhaps not as powerful as the Trending Topics algorithm, but heavy nonetheless. I don't know how much "X big names have quote-tweeted Elle Hunt" weighs in the Trending Topic algorithm, or to what degree these quote-tweets are critical to spreading the word, but my guess is that it is significant.
It'd be great to hear your thoughts about this if you find it worth addressing.
FWIW, as someone who does his own M-F newsletter I recommend seeking feedback, but ultimately doing what feels right to you. You will hear 100 conflicting opinions and chasing a consensus can lead to madness. Also, find the length and frequency that works for you and the way you write. In some ways, writing a regular newsletter is a marathon. So make sure you fit in time for water breaks and snacks.
Ironically (I think, lol) it feels like the context collapse can also have a distressing effect on the Very Online People who participate and perpetuate it. A warped FOMO sense of urgency where you feel like you *have to* comment and get your take out there. It creates a pressure to not only care about everything (like Bean Dad) but also be an expert in everything- which is impossible and exhausting.
I know people use twitter trending topics for political gains, spreading misinformation etc. There are companies who charge money to trend a particular topic on twitter.
Also, on another note, I am founder subscriptionhunt.com where people can discover great newsletter & podcasts. Would be great if you can post your newsletter over there. www.subscriptionhunt.com
Eventually would like to create a community of all the likeminded creators like yourself :)
Thank you very much friend! https://vajenda.substack.com/p/the-covid-19-vaccine-and-menstrual
Surely, Trending Topics exacerbate a problem of toxic community dynamics, but how do you explain this happening on platforms without daily tends, like tumblr (surely one of the origin points of 'Cancel Culture', if not even the main source)?
I only got on Twitter to build my Substack audience, but I live in fear of becoming the main character. Thankfully, Substack is a much more welcoming place. Glad you're here!
I'm sorry to say your argument lost what benefit of the doubt it had when you called Twitter employees "fundamentally bad human beings".
I think there is a clearer indicator of how good a person someone is than their politics: how easily they villify those they disagree with.
Thanks for replying! While I don't agree with your claim, I can certainly understand that you'd feel that way in the case that it's true. That's similar to how I feel about some particular media platforms and personalities on the right–though I try to draw a distinction between condemnation (of a behaviour) and vilification (of a person). The former conveys how we feel about peoples' actions and can be discussed, whereas the latter often just contributes to the vicious cycle of rage and context collapse.
So while I might condemn things I hear from, say, Tucker Carlson, I refrain from attacking his identity. Because that would just make him and his supporters more defensive and less able to actually talk about the issue. In theory... it does take two to tango :\