A search for Threads content on Twitter currently brings up zero results, despite plenty of links to Metaās microblogging rival being posted on the platform.
lol ācancel cultureā used to be called āboycottingā / āspeaking with your walletā used to be called āhaving an opinionā
its not new, obviously we should punch nazis, and you can be certain anyone who says the words ācancel cultureā unironically is a tool with less than a 10 year memory span, max.
āboycottingā / āspeaking with your walletā used to be called āhaving an opinionā
Cancel Culture is none of those things. Cancel Culture is very specifically taking a platform away from someone who has misused it to do harm in our society.
Should you choose to vote with your wallet and boycott destructive people, though? Yes, absolutely. But deplatforming is observably effective, because weāve seen that many of these loud, awful people simply arenāt able to rebuild their following without the convenience of major social media platforms and interviews on major networks.
And without that following, they arenāt shit. Alex Jones literally went bankrupt.
Deplatforming requires a centralized platform from which to deplatform. Ability to sometimes deplatform real Nazis (but usually not) is not worth centralizing crucial systems, end of story.
Not necessarily. It just requires that admins do their job and be good stewards of their users and instances.
Mastodon, for instance, has a tag used exclusively for dogpiling fascists and their instances, so even though itās decentralized, people are vigilant and keep the destructive elements disconnected. (Or, at least, make a great effort of it, which is more than we can say for Twitter.)
so first, we generally agree and I donāt want to get into an argument with you.
If cancel culture means ādeplatformingā to you, thats great. I agree deplatforming works. But the term ācancel cultureā is deliberately vague, does include boycotting, and is just one of the many terms made up by the right to create a āboogey manā. I tend to throw these terms back in their faces as laughable (āwokeā, āCRTā - all the same badly defined bullshit that just means āthings I donāt likeā). If your strategy is to embrace, rehab, and legitimize the terms thats fine too.
Alex Jones literally went bankrupt.
- Still Online
- Still doing shows
- Still hawking shit
And without that following, they arenāt shit. Alex Jones literally went bankrupt.
Alex Jones declared bankruptcy in an attempt to avoid paying the families who sued him and won. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64644080
But I overall agree: had he been deplatformed earlier, he could probably not have had so much influence and caused so much damage.
No, thatās what I described in parentheses. Not really existent yet in the Web.
While ācancel cultureā (in its narrow meaning in the Web, again) is when you have serious problems talking even to those who are willing to listen to you or undecided. Say, you wonāt ever read something, because the decision has been made for you by somebody else, and you donāt even choose whether to delegate that decision.
The difference is in the architecture of systems used, actually. Because with both things every person involved acts voluntarily, itās just that in my variant that power to decide is spread more evenly.
What I mean is similar to the reputation system in Locutus, only it doesnāt work yet.
