An utterly mediocre conservative white man with terrible opinions has faced some repercussions for something he knowingly did, so obviously we must now have a global discourse on deplatforming, academic censorship and cancel culture.
Something this latest episode made me think about therefore, in addition to throwing my phone in a lake, is how we’re constantly mixing terms and concepts in this discussion - especially around the difference between ‘censorship’, ‘platforms’, ‘stages’ and ‘online yelling’.
I have a strong suspicion that the way we’ve blended all these things in our minds has let some pretty bad actors sell their consequences as martyrdom and a re-evaluation of their value as persecution. Not on my watch!
If you’ll permit me therefore, I’d like to break down how I think about ‘cancellation’ and the various forms or levels it can take - starting from the scariest and working my way down:
Level 4: Being Censorsed by the Government
The government has intervened to punish me for my speech or prevent me speaking in the future.
I can think of no society where there is an absolute and unqualified right to say literally anything you want without legal consequences. If I am calling for someone to murder the President or reading out the names of undercover intelligence operatives on my YouTube channel, most governments are going to have something to say about it.
The exact standard for when a government should intervene, and when it should be allowed to intervene, is a hotly contested political topic in many free societies.
First, because governments tend to have a monopoly on legitimate uses of coercive force and thus can ‘cancel’ you harder than just about anyone else.
Second, because being able to shut down speech it deems dangerous creates a pretty strong temptation for a government to decide that strident criticism, embarrassing reporting, or just particularly biting satire is ‘dangerous’.
In the vast majority of cases, this is not what we’re discussing (though I note the Trump DoJ is working on it and there’s also an increasingly worrying trend of the government applying pressure on platform and stage operators, which is also deeply troubling).
Level 3: Being Deplatformed
I have been denied or lost access to a platform, which is supposed to be open to just about everyone.
A comparatively new phenomenon in the age of the internet is that of the ‘platform’. This is a place where anyone is free to put their content out into the world via spaces that are managed by others, but not meaningfully curated.
I can open my YouTube account right now and upload a video ranting about how trees are a conspiracy by Greenpeace to shut down the awning industry, and YouTube would happily host it. We recognize that in doing so YouTube and Alphabet would not be suggesting that my video is good, or correct - merely that it doesn’t cross their few red lines.
Different companies and platform hosts individually set their level of censoriousness. You are allowed to do and say things on the streaming platform Kick that you are not allowed to on Twitch. Tumblr used to allow explicit content and then changed its mind. The theory that TikTok censors or buries content explicitly talking about murder led a whole generation to start saying “unalived” in place of death related verbs - something for which I would like to see the CEO of TikTok do some jail time.
The role of platform hosts and operators in free speech is a fascinating topic, especially in places like Twitter, TikTok and Facebook where an algorithm curates what is served to you and how often.
It is, however, not what we are talking about 98% of the time when we hear whining about cancel culture and deplatforming. The multi-month period during which Elon Musk got sick of Ukraine and algorithmically buried every reference to it on Twitter was bad, but I don’t recall Toby Young chaining himself to a Tesla over it.
If Dave Chappelle or Louis C.K. had uploaded a self-produced comedy special to YouTube at the height of their respective ‘cancellations’, I do not think YouTube would have refused to host it or buried it algorithmically. Their complaints, like those of Calipers Cofnas, were about losing stages, not platforms.
Level 2: Losing a Prestigious Stage
I have been denied or lost access to a prestigious stage or affiliation, which purports to be discerning.
The New York Philharmonic, Oxford University and Netflix are stages, because they are at least theoretically discerning about whom they invite to stand beneath their branding. Ok, maybe not Netflix but you get what I’m trying to say.
YouTube says everyone is entitled to make and host videos, but reserves the right to withdraw that right if it finds your content sufficiently objectionable. There is no similar automatic entitlement to playing for the Indiana Fever, writing columns for the Washington Post, or undertaking postdoctoral research at Ghent University.
The New York Times editorial board may not agree with every word Bret Stephens writes, but by giving him an opinion column (over millions of other people) they are endorsing him as a serious thinker whose words are worth considering. That’s a choice and a lending of institutional weight, in a way that YouTube publishing your video after a brief scan for copyrighted music is not.
Many of the complaints about ‘deplatforming’ fall into this category, not those above. Being suspended from your university, losing your Netflix special, being written out as the villain of the next Avengers movie, or losing your sponsors and endorsements are all examples of losing stages - not platforms.
The decision of whether to give someone a stage, or whether to take it away, is inherently going to be subjective and open to debate. Human beings are making these decisions under immense pressure. They are fallible, prone to panic, easily irrational, and open to being influenced or coerced. However, it is simply bizarre to suggest that nothing you say or do publicly could ever warrant an institution denying you their stage or reconsidering their decision to give you one.
People talk about an institution like Harvard withdrawing a speaking invitation as if it were shutting access to the marketplace of ideas. Except Harvard isn’t the marketplace. YouTube is the marketplace, and you’re welcome to set up your stall there and hawk your wares. Harvard is supposed to be Neiman Marcus or Harrods. You have to earn a place on their shelves because their customers trust them to curate quality. If they discover the shoes you’re selling leak in the winter and hate black people all year round, they’re perfectly entitled to kick you out of their collection.
Level 1: People are Free Speeching You Too Hard
I got yelled at online.
I don’t want to be completely dismissive of this one because having been on the receiving end of it, it doesn’t feel great. With that said, it’s really not a free speech issue and it’s not clear how you could do anything about it without curtailing the free speech of others.
A lot of the Telegraph columnists who constantly whine about cancel culture fall firmly in this category. They have a platform, they have a stage, and they are not punished by the government, but people online are mean to them when they say things.
Ricky Gervais and the too-edgy-for-ya comedy folks fall into this category too. They are for the most part welcome on just about any platform, frequently invited on stages other comedians can only dream of, and are not in the government’s crosshairs - but people online yell about them, in some cases calling for a loss of stage or platform.
A complicating factor here is that the decision to deplatform, withdraw a stage or even censor, is made by people who live in the world and are thus not immune to public pressure or bandwagoning. Certainly if enough people are talking about it online, writing angry letters, talking to journalists and so on, an invitation or offer of employment might be reconsidered.
We should be sceptical and scathing of organizations whose decisions at such times are driven exclusively by the wrath of the online mob and do not appear to have internal logic or justification. I’m sure this happened in the past and there are anecdotal examples, but I don’t think this is the case all that often. It certainly doesn’t appear true regarding Cofnas.
Words, Words, Dear Boy
The reason I have just tortured you with 1,400 words about words, is that many of the whiniest people on earth have taken to exploiting the lack of precision in how we talk about ‘cancellation’ to upsell what’s happening to them.
They weaponize our natural reluctance to see free speech silenced in service of bludgeoning their way onto or clinging to stages that confer them an institutional imprimatur their character and ideas do not warrant.
So let’s be very precise about where they can go, and where they can shove it when they get there.
Nice article. I’d say there’s a fifth layer - between three and four - which is having free speech removed via legal means, eg SLAPPs.
This is in regular use by the rich and/or famous to hide reporting potentially illegal or immoral behaviour, especially in the U.K., and is a form of censorship
I think the distinction between ‘platform’ and ‘stage’ is a really good way of describing it - and something many are missing or getting wrong (in both bad-faith and just sloppy-thinking ways). Thank you.