For perhaps a million years, gossip was the only “law” humans had. We talked about who may have broken what norms, came to a consensus about guilt and remedies, and then cooperated to implement their remedy. Which worked well when we lived in bands of size 20 to 50.
you are suggesting establishing the college of hortators from the Golden Oecumene trilogybtw in the trilogy most everyone is an em but usually running in individual bodies at real time
The mob will never accede to cancel courts. Cancellation isn't about fairness or justice, it's about exercising mob power and punishing heretics. The mob will never allow those same heretics, or even netural parties, to render them irrelevant and take away their own influence.
Also, the cancellers might find themselves having to defend their own actions in this new court.
Which is a good reason to try to establish them...
Cancel courts could also be a for-profit venture in the form of "cancellation insurance". You subscribe to the court and if you're cancelled, they investigate your case. If they find that you were cancelled unfairly, you get cash compensation.
I think "cancellation insurance" could be massively profitable, because the ideal insurance business is one where people think something happens a great deal (so they want to insure against it) but it's actually pretty rare. People almost certainly overestimate the prevalence of cancellations, since by definition they only work if they're highly publicized.
I wrote the other one first because it is a more specific worked out proposal, which I tend to prefer. But I've realized the problem is big enough to make this less specific proposal worth making.
Why did you write the nickname court post first, rather than this post? They're practically the same post, but the nickname case is so idiosyncratic. There is a big difference between them, which is that the nickname court is potentially applicable to very small groups, whereas the whole point of the cancel court is to address a large audience, but I don't see you writing much addressing that difference.
Added: I think it would have been useful to link to this and this, two posts that the nickname post linked to.
Maybe if facebook and twitter were subject to this court's rulings, so that people's accounts could be suspended as punishment, that might be enough. Would facebook and twitter voluntarily agree to abide by such a court?
Does it make a difference if this someone calls himself a judge and wears a plug hat while giving his opinion? It doesn't. In the ancient world, too, when enforcement was distributed (or even traded, as in Iceland) rather than monopolized, it wasn't just any random person who could pronounce judgments. There must be either a lot of force or an overwhelming consensus behind the "judge" or he'll be just another punter giving opinions. And you can't conjure up this consensus out of thin air. To go back to the current case, why on earth would the cancelers abide by the resolutions of your “courts”, especially if the “verdicts” don’t go their way⸮ What do they gain by that⸮ They have all this power now. Why would they want to stop having it⸮ Will they go uwu from contemplating how neutral your “courts” are and how diligent they are at collecting evidence⸮ Same goes for employers and other objects of cancelers' gossip operations. They fire the latter's targets because they are either on the same side as them or are scared of being gossiped about in their turn. By revealed preference, they fear that more than they fear action from a real legal system with big teeth. Why would they pay any attention to a mock "court"?
I agree with most of the points raised in the article with observations:1. Courts of law deals mostly with symmetrical conflicts: one accused vs. one accuser. US has "Class actions". How usual is that in other law systems? The asymmetric nature of one "canceled" vs. an amorphous class of "cancelers" seems like a major obstacle.2. The court of law ritual seems to me like an implementation of an abstract concept - the parties involved put aside all the leverage they might otherwise have, and present themselves to the ideal of "ethics" embodied by the judge deriving it's power from divinity or state. Cancel culture episodes are more related to individual preferences regarding idea consumption (the same twitter mob might applaud their own favorite rendition of essentially the same idea). Is a court better than a market at dealing with expressed preferences? "which could exonerate many of the accused" - this deserves some empirical evidence. If the problem is future earnings lost due to cancel culture, maybe an insurance scheme would work best?
1. How do we prove people's history of care insofar as concerns what I believe you are gearing toward some level of impartiality? We don't have neutral judges in the court system today. I find it hard to find that in this matter in which things are, from time to time, frivolous and easy to just opine on. What other qualifications would be necessary?
2. Will there be paths to rehabilitation offered? I'm someone who can easily be described as "woke" but find myself constantly questioning what comes next. Supposedly cancellation is due to care and concern, but it only extends so far. I think if we have empathy, we should also be concerned about giving people a chance to uncancel themselves if they choose to pursue it. If we want to formalize a cancellation process, we should also formalize a road to redemption.
No, not convinced.We still live in bands of 20 to 50 (that we actually care about, if even that many).Enforcing one's social norms past ones Dunbar number and bedtime on strangers is a stupid, destructive idea, hence why we observe stupid, destructive consequences.It is not a good idea, that just needs a better implementation.
you are suggesting establishing the college of hortators from the Golden Oecumene trilogybtw in the trilogy most everyone is an em but usually running in individual bodies at real time
The mob will never accede to cancel courts. Cancellation isn't about fairness or justice, it's about exercising mob power and punishing heretics. The mob will never allow those same heretics, or even netural parties, to render them irrelevant and take away their own influence.
Also, the cancellers might find themselves having to defend their own actions in this new court.
Which is a good reason to try to establish them...
Cancel courts could also be a for-profit venture in the form of "cancellation insurance". You subscribe to the court and if you're cancelled, they investigate your case. If they find that you were cancelled unfairly, you get cash compensation.
I think "cancellation insurance" could be massively profitable, because the ideal insurance business is one where people think something happens a great deal (so they want to insure against it) but it's actually pretty rare. People almost certainly overestimate the prevalence of cancellations, since by definition they only work if they're highly publicized.
I wrote the other one first because it is a more specific worked out proposal, which I tend to prefer. But I've realized the problem is big enough to make this less specific proposal worth making.
I think the court would first have to show good track record, then they might consider it.
Why did you write the nickname court post first, rather than this post? They're practically the same post, but the nickname case is so idiosyncratic. There is a big difference between them, which is that the nickname court is potentially applicable to very small groups, whereas the whole point of the cancel court is to address a large audience, but I don't see you writing much addressing that difference.
Added: I think it would have been useful to link to this and this, two posts that the nickname post linked to.
Maybe if facebook and twitter were subject to this court's rulings, so that people's accounts could be suspended as punishment, that might be enough. Would facebook and twitter voluntarily agree to abide by such a court?
Does it make a difference if this someone calls himself a judge and wears a plug hat while giving his opinion? It doesn't. In the ancient world, too, when enforcement was distributed (or even traded, as in Iceland) rather than monopolized, it wasn't just any random person who could pronounce judgments. There must be either a lot of force or an overwhelming consensus behind the "judge" or he'll be just another punter giving opinions. And you can't conjure up this consensus out of thin air. To go back to the current case, why on earth would the cancelers abide by the resolutions of your “courts”, especially if the “verdicts” don’t go their way⸮ What do they gain by that⸮ They have all this power now. Why would they want to stop having it⸮ Will they go uwu from contemplating how neutral your “courts” are and how diligent they are at collecting evidence⸮ Same goes for employers and other objects of cancelers' gossip operations. They fire the latter's targets because they are either on the same side as them or are scared of being gossiped about in their turn. By revealed preference, they fear that more than they fear action from a real legal system with big teeth. Why would they pay any attention to a mock "court"?
But there is a reputational win by threatening the individuals involved with bankruptcy even if it's a net money loser
I agree with most of the points raised in the article with observations:1. Courts of law deals mostly with symmetrical conflicts: one accused vs. one accuser. US has "Class actions". How usual is that in other law systems? The asymmetric nature of one "canceled" vs. an amorphous class of "cancelers" seems like a major obstacle.2. The court of law ritual seems to me like an implementation of an abstract concept - the parties involved put aside all the leverage they might otherwise have, and present themselves to the ideal of "ethics" embodied by the judge deriving it's power from divinity or state. Cancel culture episodes are more related to individual preferences regarding idea consumption (the same twitter mob might applaud their own favorite rendition of essentially the same idea). Is a court better than a market at dealing with expressed preferences? "which could exonerate many of the accused" - this deserves some empirical evidence. If the problem is future earnings lost due to cancel culture, maybe an insurance scheme would work best?
I have a couple of thoughts about this:
1. How do we prove people's history of care insofar as concerns what I believe you are gearing toward some level of impartiality? We don't have neutral judges in the court system today. I find it hard to find that in this matter in which things are, from time to time, frivolous and easy to just opine on. What other qualifications would be necessary?
2. Will there be paths to rehabilitation offered? I'm someone who can easily be described as "woke" but find myself constantly questioning what comes next. Supposedly cancellation is due to care and concern, but it only extends so far. I think if we have empathy, we should also be concerned about giving people a chance to uncancel themselves if they choose to pursue it. If we want to formalize a cancellation process, we should also formalize a road to redemption.
Yes, I had that sort of system more in mind.
I'd think more than half the population has been neither cancelled nor helped to cancel someone. There's plenty of folks.
This court could have no more assets than did a single tweeter.
Ancient courts often had only the punishment of their ruling, as not following it made you an "outlaw" anyone could prey on.
A problem with someone just giving an opinion is that people wonder why this person suddenly went out of their way to do that.
No, not convinced.We still live in bands of 20 to 50 (that we actually care about, if even that many).Enforcing one's social norms past ones Dunbar number and bedtime on strangers is a stupid, destructive idea, hence why we observe stupid, destructive consequences.It is not a good idea, that just needs a better implementation.