How do we think about cancel culture?

Cancel culture is a byproduct of smart technology

Question: How do we think about cancel culture?
Position‹2 of 4›: Cancel culture is a myth
Argument1 of 4›: Cancel culture is a byproduct of smart technology

This perspective looks at cancel culture as artificially engineered by AI and smart technology.

The argument

This perspective looks at cancel culture as artificially engineered by AI and smart technology. Posts go viral because algorithms recognise their potential to cause outrage. The more contentious they are, the larger the boost they will receive from online platforms. As they are surfaced to those who will likely pile on into the debate and interact with the posts, cancel culture is formed. Rather than seeing this as being value-led therefore, we must see this as having emerged inorganically. This perspective has a body of research behind it, with studies showing that filter bubbles and echo chambers have also been artificially produced in this way. Proponents come from the science and data lobby, including Michigan State mathematics professor Anjana Susarla and University of Toronto Monk Fellow Swathi Meenakshi Sadagopan.

Premises

[P1]Algorithms boost posts according to their potential to cause outrage, giving the most contentious content the widest reach. [P2] By surfacing such posts to people likely to pile on, smart technology manufactures cancel culture inorganically rather than through genuine shared values. [P3] Research on artificially produced filter bubbles and echo chambers supports seeing cancel culture as an engineered byproduct. [C] Therefore, because cancel culture is a byproduct of smart technology rather than a value-led movement, cancel culture is a myth.

Counter-arguments

Critics argue this confuses the mechanism of spread with the reality of the phenomenon. Even if algorithms amplify outrage and surface contentious posts to people likely to pile on, that explains how a backlash travels and scales — not that the backlash is imaginary. People do lose jobs, contracts and platforms as a result of these campaigns, and those consequences are real regardless of whether an algorithm helped the story go viral. To show a process is technologically amplified is not to show it is a 'myth.' They add that algorithmic amplification and genuine, value-driven anger are not mutually exclusive: platforms boost what already provokes strong feeling, so the outrage the technology surfaces is often authentic even as its reach is engineered. Calling cancel culture an inorganic 'byproduct' therefore describes its distribution, not its existence, and does not support the conclusion that it does not exist.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Critics argue algorithmic surfacing amplifies outrage rather than manufacturing it from nothing; the underlying anger is frequently genuine, so 'inorganic reach' does not make the phenomenon inauthentic. [Rejecting C] That a backlash is technologically amplified shows how it spreads, not that it is a myth; the real-world consequences people face are unaffected by whether an algorithm boosted the post.