Although I definitely feel that there are behaviours and ideas that are bad or wrong, I think in today’s culture people who say something against the grain of mainstream ideals are often “cancelled” or berrated online before they have been given the chance to explain why they think a certain way. I believe this cancellation culture can act as a form of censorship as it can make people feel afraid to ask questions, discuss or debate about something, because they are afraid to say the wrong thing or offend someone accidentally. I think this fear of discussion, which could allow two groups to see the argument from the other point of view can often, I think, result in a stronger polarisation of opinion than if the people had had their initial disagreements and then talked it out to reach an understanding of one another.

**TL;DR - Cancel culture makes sense as social practice to keep public figures accountable, but people use this to ignite spectacle, therefore devaluing its meaning. Regular people try to cancel each other, but this really doesn't make any sense since it's simply the act of ignoring someone. You can't de-platform someone without a platform.** I think the situation with cancel culture started with good intent, but the term has been distorted recently and it became a form of compulsive yet absurd censorship. According to Lisa Nakamura, professor of media studies: "canceling someone is a form of "cultural boycott" and the “ultimate expression of agency” which comes from a desire for control as people have limited power over what is presented to them on social media and a need for accountability which is not centralized." [1] Cancel culture makes sense in this way because there is no way of making someone accountable for content, action, or opinions they promote. It's basically everyone de-platforming someone by ignoring their existence. When celebrities like Kevin Spacey and Harvey Weinstein did horrible things it makes sense to cancel them, and eventually the rest of the world catches on and fires them from their jobs and positions of power. But cancel culture becomes absurd when people start targetting unpopular opinions, drama, and personal beliefs. One of the most recent victims of this is Chris Pratt because of his membership in a church that does not openly support the LGBTQ+ community and his conservative views, which he rarely talks about. Pratt never harmed anyone or discriminated against anyone, or even promoted his beliefs directly [2]. it's obvious he wants to keep his views to himself, and he is entitled to them. Cancel culture became less effective since so many public figures have been canceled for absurd reasons, so now people just tend to forget about it. Its used for cheap accusations and spectacle for shortly lived headlines with almost no effects or consequences. Here are a few of the most recent situations I found: -James Charles got canceled for some advertisement-related drama with Tati Westbrook, but he still has success in social media and his latest products [3]. -Demi Lovato got canceled for basically cyberbullying Selena Gomez via fake accounts. She currently enjoys a fair amount of media relevance and has an upcoming Netflix documentary [4]. -Recently, Elizabeth Olsen got canceled for an interview she did in 2015 where she used the term "gypsy" for her character. As we know, she has a highly successful show (Wandavision) on Disney+, so she is unlikely to go anywhere. This makes sense if you are a public figure or a celebrity, but it becomes more widely used by regular people which then becomes less of a topic on accountability and more of a topic regarding polarization. Regular people are not required to have the same beliefs and canceling them because of opposing beliefs will not change them. Unlike celebrities, regular people don't have to be accountable to their fans and do not have a platform. It's a bit silly because ignoring people isn't canceling, especially if you're the only one doing it. If the person means no harm, you should probably try your best to engage in dialogue with them and understand where they are coming from. Works Cited [1] Cancel culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture [2] Why Is the Internet Trying to ‘Cancel’ Chris Pratt? https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-is-the-internet-trying-to-cancel-chris-pratt [3] An Incomplete List Of All Of The Celebrities 'Canceled' In 2020 https://www.pajiba.com/celebrities_are_better_than_you/an-incomplete-list-of-all-of-the-celebrities-canceled-in-2020-so-far.php [4] 10 Biggest Celebrity 'Cancellations' of 2020 (So Far) https://www.thethings.com/cancelled-celebrities-2020/ [5] WandaVision's Elizabeth Olsen is Latest Celebrity to Get Canceled Over Racism Accusations https://epicstream.com/news/BriConstantino/WandaVisions-Elizabeth-Olsen-is-Latest-Celebrity-to-Get-Canceled-Over-Racism-Accusations

I have mixed feelings about the benefits and costs of cancel culture. However, calling it censorship seems misleading. Censorship typically comes from authorities. It is often top-down, from a centralized and powerful figure to many powerless subjects. It is typically associated with institutional consequences. Breaking censorship can often lead to state-level punishment. Cancel culture bears neither of the characteristics. Mostly, canceling comes from social media as a collective action of a group of people. None of the individuals has any particular power. The consequences of being canceled come from market forces rather than state ones. A canceled person often becomes isolated by major corporations for their perceived liabilities. Hence, cancel culture bears no particular association with censorship, the latter often coming from authoritarian regimes. I consider cancel culture to be closer to social taboos rather than censorship. While the results of both may not differ significantly, one should not mix the two. Censorship implies not only real-life consequences but also symbolizes a fundamental infringement of freedom of speech. A social taboo, such as cancel culture, bears only the first implication.

Cancel Culture is one of the worst things plaguing our online communities... it essentially means that rather than saying "this content isn't for me" and leaving the page you would rather try and get people's careers destroyed. Its petty and is a form of censorship. You are trying to stop someone being heard, that is an attempt at censoring them. I don't understand how trying to stop someone having a voice online can be seen as anything other than censoring

From how I understand 'cancel culture' (removing platforms and sometimes jobs from people for expressing a view which is seen as unacceptable), it is certainly a kind of censorship (preventing certain ideas or content from being available to the (certain areas of) public). That said, I don't necessarily think it is a bad thing or even particularly new. At one point, a person would have lost their job, or worse, for admitting to being gay - now a person might lose their job for publicly expressing distaste for homosexuality. To me, it seems good that images of extreme violence are kept from public view most of the time. Also, Nazi propaganda would not be at all acceptable to most people, so it is kept out of view and people are penalised for expressing it in many Liberal societies. As such, cancel culture being censorship doesn't make it inherently a bad thing (unless one defines it specifically as a pejorative term).