alex masson
Welcome reader. This piece aims to summarise and simplify the potential future implications of social media, internet culture and online discourse. It is, of course, important to note that not all factors soon to be mentioned will come to full fruition, but will act as signifiers for changing consumer behaviours and values ultimately impacting what is deemed to be acceptable, tolerable, and favourable by mainstream society. Here’s the 4-1-1. The impact of online discourse in shaping the 21st century’s approach to communication, core values and trends cannot be understated. The role of the internet and social media in providing billions of individuals across the globe with immediate access to the opinions, stories, and lived experiences of one another has altered the way in which world citizens view each other – for better or for worse. Generation Z, the so-called children of the internet, have been raised as members of a global community, with the ingrained progressive values of post-millennium social justice and equality. While these concepts of liberalism are not necessarily new or endemic to digital natives, they are enforced with a newfound ferocity and fire – the antithesis of intolerances based upon factors of race, gender expression, sexuality, or any other plethora of ‘backwards’ or ‘archaic’ values. When those within the public zeitgeist breach expectations of social correctness – widespread backlash and cries for deplatforming will ensue. This is “CANCEL CULTURE”. The future consumer will become increasingly empowered in standing up to the intimidation of corporate and celebrity entities – with a discerning palette that excludes those that behave beyond the realms of social acceptability. The upcoming route to commercial success is dependent on the intertwined notions of trust and transparency, with an increased demand for answers in regard to corporate approaches to social and environmental responsibility, as well as political alignment. Those in the public eye will no longer indulge in the luxuries of silence and complacency in regard to prominent social movements and current events – platforms must be utilised accordingly and appearances maintained, even if they are disingenuous. For society to truly become progressive, one must look backwards - not in admiration or nostalgia – but in reflection, reassessment and moral questioning. Aspects of history and heritage once celebrated will be reframed through the lens of modernity – with some pieces of the cultural jigsaw tarnished or entirely tossed aside. The switch is being flipped. While cancel culture has benefits of empowerment and accountability – it runs danger of rearing its ugly head – wherein a society built on the foundations of liberalism may soon become intolerant of opposing points of view. The increased intensity and stringency of cancel culture’s wrath may cause diversion from its key principles – instead transforming our society into a collective of perfectiondemanding absolutists, scrutinising any faux-pas or social missteps that one another may make. What is inherently deemed good or bad will continue to change, as too will what is considered redeemable or unforgivable. The power of the apology may slowly fade away. As movements of cancel culture and online shaming usher in a new era of social etiquette – there is grave concern that an overzealous approach to political correctness in the digital age will hinder open debate, stifle free speech – and demand complete conformity. Will it really? I don’t know! Welcome to the CANCELLATION Be careful out there, folks.
NATION.
foreword
‘Woke Capitalism’ is a conglomerate behaviour that aims to direct advertisements, product design, and marketing strategies to align with prominent social movements for the purpose of capital gain and a morally responsible self image. In a world increasingly driven and fuelled by the push for social justice and equality, major players in global consumerism will make continuous attempts to profit from such shifts to increase their marketability whether that be to a broad group or making a more targeted alliance. While some brands in the pubic zeitgeist are long-standing advocates for a plethora of social justice ideals, many utilise them in the short term as a means of attaining access to new markets - these based upon factors such as race, gender identity, or sexuality. Whilst it can be inherently beneficial for brands to do this, if such tactics are disingenuous or unsupported by genuine action beyond marketing strategies, then said brand runs the risk of being labelled as self-serving, pushing consumers in the opposite direction. To achieve any future success in employing woke capitalist practises - brands must do so respectfully and with genuine action to support their stances - such as the provision of help for the causes in which they aim to profit from. Simply veiling hunger for profit with ‘raising awareness’ is no longer adequate. Either way - if there is a hashtag trending, there is a ‘brandwagon’ to jump on.
In the digital age, in which essentially all information is accessible with immediacy, consumers need more. Not necessarily more products, marketing or content, but more answers. The gradually burgeoning hunger for information that has swept the world since the dawn of the internet has warranted a necessity for clarity and transparency from those who dominate the global markets. It is no longer enough for users and consumers to receive thinly veiled portrayals of corporate responsibility, environmental awareness and ethical production - results need to be seen. Consumers will continue to invest their own time into corporate research and awareness with brand engagement increasingly reliant on honesty in the entire industrial scope - from material sourcing, manufacturing conditions, waste management, wages; in essence, the entirety of the supply chain and everything that follows. The future of transparency will see a surge in demand for visibility in brands stances on a range of topics, such as ethics and environmental plans - how conglomerates have firm ideas as to how they will forge genuine positive changes to better the planet. Social clarity will increasingly become a necessity, in terms of political alignment, predominant equality movements and where they choose to send their cash. One wrong move will see stock prices plummet and consumers turning their back on public entities that choose to actively harm them or their communities. It is no longer feasible for brands to make false promises.
In accordance with the increased desire for brand transparency as outlined, brands are also expected to uptake a much more prominent role within society. In the era of fake news, it has been noted that only an approximate third of consumers trust brands that they actively engage with - based upon the factors of product quality, customer experience, and societal impact. The future of a brand’s commercial success will become intrinsically linked with consumers being able to trust them to do what is right - constantly assessing promises they make and whether there is basis and impact to these commitments. Furthermore, the public will begin to curtail the number of companies they choose to purchase from in general - directing their attention towards entities that reflect their social, ethical and moral values. With this change in attitude and approach will come an increased effort to tentatively appeal to specific social subsets - with the employment of woke capitalist practises. This notion can be described as ‘trust-washing’; the use of a false-positive self-portrayal that is essentially all talk and no action, or ‘green-washing’, the pretense of environmental consciousness and overplaying sustainable practises with no basis for such claims. The simplistic provision of a product or experience is becoming less economically impactful, and there is a stark variation between making an impression and making a difference, with the latter set to vastly outsell the former.
As celebrities, public figures, and social media stars continue to take an increasingly prominent role, they must continually utilise their platforms to incite positive changes and messages to those that they bear influence over. In the cancel culture era, however, the social media masses aim to exert a collective force onto celebrities and politicians in a revolutionary reclamation of power. Those with a large platform will be forced to take increased care and responsibility over things they share and say - past, present and future. Pop-culture archaeologists will watch archived interviews, spend hours digging up old tweets and social media posts, all in the name of finding something, anything, unsavoury or incriminating to bring down celebrities and politicians alike. Certain cancel culture ringleaders have an extreme obsession with watching the mighty fall, and this goes far beyond the reaches of simply holding people accountable for their actions. Celebrities are now the internet’s personal punching bag - an out-of-touch entity to direct short bursts of cathartic anger towards - as long as there’s some viable reason for it. “It has always been human nature to find entertainment in a train wreck”. If you have a blue tick next to your name, you have a red target on your back.
As viral social movements continue to sweep the internet almost on the daily, a lack of acknowledgement or response from a celebrity or brand essentially equates to giving said movement the middle finger. Silence is violence, and to be complicit is to be an accessory to the crime. Those living in the public eye are no longer afforded the privilege of burying their heads in the sand when it comes to current events. If they say nothing, don’t use their own words, or the right words, or enough words - they essentially do not care in the eyes of the public. This does however generate a paradox of woke capitalism and complicity, in which an entity showcasing support for a social movement could be swiftly shunned as disingenuous - but a failure to address a prominent issue is equally worthy of criticism. Those with a platform have an inherent responsibility to be performative and raise awareness and influence for such causes - but to do so with genuine vigour and concern - often being called upon by members of the public to open their purses and wallets and donate to those who need it. Despite it being an age-old saying, actions do indeed speak much louder than words. Money shouts louder.
Cancel culture is inherently changing the way in which we apologise and forgive. In a world now saturated with celebrity mishaps and subsequent attempted reparations and damage control, there is an increasing contagion of the public acting as judges of morality. It is ultimately the media consumer who is the decider of whether an apology holds enough weight, or is genuine and impactful - with a vast array of determining factors. The internet culture of obsessively holding celebrities to account for the most microscopic controversy is simultaneously seeing a collective refusal to extend forgiveness - in which anger is an increasingly dominant force. The obsession with shaming those higher on the social hierarchy is seeing humans lose the power of empathy. The text-based apology is seldom enough - as it didn’t take enough time, effort or soul searching. The video apology is often worse - with the maker being branded as false and self-serving - and you better not cry - because it’s crocodile tears, and you’re playing the victim. Obviously some wrongdoings are severe and harmful, but not allowing the simple faux-pas slide without some stringent enforcement of an apology that won’t be accepted by the vast majority is dangerous. The triggerhappy nature of cancel culture engagement has made the word ‘sorry’ inept, continually denying individuals to grow and improve from their mistakes.
Looks like once again, I am to be taken to the gallows by the PC police in an unjust execution of my very character. My crime? The answer to that is entirely dependent on who you ask. The collaboration with that brand that was, unbeknownst to me, employing children in factories? The promotion of the weight-loss tea that turned out to be a scam? The Twitter beef I had with that body-positivity advocate? Either way, I am the flavour of the month, bombarded with a whirlwind of constant online abuse. Okay YES. I admit some of the remarks I have made have been unsavoury, and that some of the businesses my management have set me up with have been somewhat... misjudged, but when my so called ‘career’ is on the rocks what is a girl to do? They say that all publicity is good publicity, but it certainly doesn’t feel as such. For the hurtful things I have said online I can take full account for, but the several bottles of cheap Merlot that led me to say such distasteful words should be held accountable just so! There is only so much one woman can take from these trolls who love to watch the mighty fall. How on earth am I supposed to know if a brand is exploiting workers, or if the green tea was not, in fact scientifically proven to stimulate rapid weight loss? I need to take any deal or sponsorship I can get my hands on at this point! These things I’ve done aren’t even that bad? And they surely weren’t intentional. These nobodies don’t give a toss about these children in the sweatshops, they just want to release anger towards someone inherently better, prettier, and more successful. For years I have fought for the chance to keep my place in the spotlight, and the fight for relevance is never easy for a girl like me - a third runner-up in Love Island - who never achieved the enviable stardom and untouchability of my co-stars. It all began so well, the brand deals, the television appearances, the MONEY. It all dries up eventually, and then what am I left with? Debts, a slew of very public break-ups and mishaps, and a lingerie collection with Ann Summers. A washed-up twenty-something loathed by the British public. What does a pretty face count for when being morally perfect is now worth more than being visually perfect? This is NOT the way I envisioned my future. I was supposed to be a star, not the internet’s bloody punching bag. This woeful situation, in its entirety, reached a climax just several hours ago. That bastard apology video. My manager practically begged me to post it, something along the lines of ‘critical damage control’. Saving his own skin more like. Either way, it only made things worse. And when I say worse, I really mean it. Seriously. Already I have gone from idle internet chatter to 3rd on Twitter trends - WORLDWIDE? I am being called disingenuous and heartless and a shit actress. Some wannabe YouTube doctor has analysed my video and is calling me a psychopath? My follower count is falling, similar to the ‘crocodile tears’ in my phoney apology. At least I’ve gone viral. Why is it so hard to be forgiven in this day and age? Perhaps I will fire my manager - before he fires me. So here I am, signing off. I do not know when I will make my return. But let’s make it very clear that the world has not seen the back of me yet.
Social media has become the battleground for the modern protester, the place in which a broad range of points of view and insights can be heard by the masses. The openness of online discourse allows for aspects of society to be cross-examined through a new lens, in regards to ingrained cultural beliefs and elements considered to be the norm. Perceptions of behaviours, people or practises within the zeitgeist once thought to be acceptable, even encourageable, are rapidly changing - none more so than our monuments. Those once idolised and immortalised in stone, bronze and paint are being reevaluated. Figures prevalent through history - once heralded as monarchs, explorers and philanthropists - now seen for their part in colonialism, slavery, and destruction. The way western society perceives its past will inherently change - it can no longer be glorified, watered down or censored, and this must happen from the ground up. While idols fall, and statues continue to be defaced, removed, or forcibly torn from their plinths - questions present themselves. At which points do the bad deeds outweigh the good? No historical figure can fully align with the values of the modern audience, so how far is too far? But most importantly - if these statues continue to fall, who, or what, will replace them?
For years I have stood. I stand as the white-hot summer sun warms me, I stand as the harsh winds of winter roar past. I stand as the first leaf of green adorns the tree on a crisp spring morning, and when the last curls and falls in the November chill. I stand proud and strong as my city changes, the decay of the past making room for the new, the cycles of destruction and rebuilding continue like cog and wheel. The grandeur of centuries past fade away in place of the monotonous grey hues of the modern world. Metal boxes fill the streets as they rush past, birds of steel course over the skies above me. The faces change, the tones, the garments and the fashions. I stand high on my plinth. Disturbed by little more than a plump city pigeon, my head chosen as the place to roost. Year in, year out. I stand. I watch. Forgotten. They walk on by, busy and consumed, seldom giving me little more than a second look, an occasional wavering glance of mild interest. Decades continue to pass, each less recognisable than the last. Lichens begin to spread across my pedestal of stone, and the glances I’m given are filled with distain. As my slick bronze surface begins to tarnish, my reputation tarnishes with it. They stare, with disgust, resentment and anger. The people of the city – my city, have turned against me. Many places in this town hold me as their namesake. I have shared my wealth, my generosity. And they repay me by letting me fall into a disrepair. I once thought there was no worse fate than being forgotten. But perhaps worse is being remembered, re-examined. Gawked at through the lens of modernity and new values. I know now that my days are numbered – my place as a figurehead for pioneering, philanthropy and patriotic successes is very much in jeopardy. The fateful day did soon arrive. The crowds gathered all around as if from nowhere, with no clear reasoning as to why. Not with any vague expression of endearment, nor gratitude, nor any sense of joy or positivity. They shout, they cry. I know not what they say. Those who once seethed in quiet resentment now make themselves known, their anger very much apparent. Hours pass, as a cacophony of voices defile me. I am chained up, just as I have chained up so many who came before me. The collective brute strength of my subjects soon prevails, and I am torn from my pedestal, watching as the ground rushes to greet me. Thrown into the murky depths – it is dark. It is cold. Once heralded, now defaced. My pedestal lies vacant – the space I once filled tells not my story, but the story of bringing darkness to light, breaking free of the shames of eras past. An icon of progression, progression I sought myself to make through the worst possible means. That empty plinth in the city square means more to the people of this town than I ever did. I still stand. Out of sight. Out of mind.
In an increasingly turbulent political climate, social media and online communications continue to play a dominant role in shaping public perceptions of political parties and their members, with cancel culture’s wrath continuing to shape the landscape. Modern technology leaves everybody exposed, and when this is combined with the average citizen’s newfound thirst for holding their leaders and cultural icons to account, falls from grace have never been more frequent. This can, very much be a sign of the times - in a world of overbearing pandemic regulations combined with a continual push for social justice that challenges traditional expectations - getting caught out for behaving out of line is more and more likely, especially if you are making the rules just to bend them yourself.
Yet while being the most common casualties in regards to cancellations and public scrutiny, those in the field of politics themselves often exploit cancel culture’s practises of deplatforming, delegitimising, and utilising the viral mob for their own gain. One of the movement’s biggest critics, President 45, has branded cancel culture as ‘far-left fascism’ and ‘totalitarianism’ - while continually employing said techniques himself. Donald Trump has branded media criticism as ‘fake news’, called for the boycotting of numerous companies, individuals and institutions, and falsely convinced millions of Americans of a fraudulent election through his use of social media campaigning. Despite being a staunch critic, he has attempted to deplatform those who condemn him - even attempting to cancel democracy itself. Dangerous.
Trump received a permanent ban from major social media platforms in January 2021 as his presidency drew to a close - serving as an example of deplatforming at its most severe. Simultaneously losing political power and access to all major communication platforms in the modern world is the most prominent cancellation yet.
The war between the politcal left and right continues to wage on. While the notions of social justice and equality that fuel cancel culture’s wrath are traditionally associated with that of left-wing liberalism, could it be noted that the swift deplatforming of those who fail to comply with societal values and beliefs in facts work in contrast to such an ‘accepting’ modern age? I present to you: the paradox - wherein a society that holds its liberal values to heart so much it would rather silence those that breach them than hear their voices. The backbone of a liberal society is often regarded to be the access to free speech, self expression, and voicing one’s opinions - but what if those opinions are deemed to be unsavoury? It all comes down to where the line is ultimately drawn - and in a world of increasing complexity and ambiguity, this is never going to be a simple task. In western society, certain behaviours are always wrong and inexcusable if shown overtly, while hate speech remains legal in the United States due to its apparent threat to the First Amendment. Right wing parties express fear surrounding online shaming - describing those who engage as ‘the woke generation’ and even ‘the radical left’, comparing it to ‘totalitarianism’. Despite being a prominent talking point, cancel culture’s portrayal as some form of organised attack on traditional values and open debate remains questionable removing a platform isn’t removing a voice or any rights, merely removing an audience. Confusing stuff.
As the [cancel] culture wars continue to take pace, there is a barrage of unanswerable questions regarding the topic, its behaviours and overall impact on society at large. Cancel culture engagement has undoubtedly created an environment in which those who are historically underserved or marginalised within society to equip social platforms to take a stand against aspects of popular culture, or those with prominent roles that actively harm them and their respective communities - levelling the playing field and forcing accountability to be taken. It is arguable that cancel culture is entirely about power - who has it, who claims or reclaims it, and who suffers a loss as a result. Comparable to some small series of social revolutions, holding individuals or brands in the spotlight to account is a method of decreasing their power and influence - with those who staunchly critique the movements arguably being those who wish to avoid taking accountability in maintenance of their high place in the socio-economic hierarchy. The rejection of cancel culture however, does not equate to an opposition to the social justice values that fuel it. Many perceive the concepts of online shaming to be overzealous and obsessive, emphasised by an ever-growing list of potential causes for offence to which many struggle to comprehend, keep pace with, and behave in accordance with. To conclude [and turn the entirety of this publication on its head], it remains entirely unclear as to whether cancel culture is even anything more than a fearmongering label created by those in power to deflect and invalidate the collective public outrage that is thrown in their direction. All cultures cancel, and always have - whether it be a boycott, with hunt, medieval beheading, or outright French Revolution - this is merely the modern manifestation of centuries-old human behaviour. “The world is changing. It’s not ‘cancel culture’ to point out that, in many respects, it is not changing quickly enough.”