You Don’t Know Them
Huda Mustafa was an contest that participated in the online dating show, Love Island, last summer. The show, essentially, is a social experiment where the contestants are on an island, isolated with no outside contact, no phones, and no music. No distractions. All they can do is coexist with the strangers that they just met and participate in challenges in hopes of finding love and potentially a cash prize at the end of the summer. As I stated before, Huda was one of these contestants. Huda was coupled up with Jeremiah and their relationship started off very strong with a lot of lovebombing. Deep feelings were involved very quickly and the heightened emotions from being on the island was getting to all the couples. America had the opportunity to vote to split couples up and her couple was split. From her point of view, America was seeing something that she wasn’t seeing. She then “crashed out.” She yelled at him for not checking up on her after their split and threw a pillow at his direction. The internet did not take this lightly. Fast forward to the end of the show, all the contestants went home and got their phones back. The internet had made memes of her being bombed because she is Palestinian, they called ICE on her family, and they even went as far as to call child services on her. All because she threw a pillow? This is NOT what cancel culture should be about.
Cancel culture is an internet phenomenon of public criticism and consequences for mistakes that they make, such as making homophobic comments, promoting racism, or being on the wrong side of history. This special issue approaches cancel culture as a ‘theatre of morality’, with contributions highlighting how cancel culture is a media-driven moral economy, emphasising the central role of media, audiences, and fandoms in shaping public understandings of wrongdoing, culpability, and redemption (Driessen, S., Ouvrein, G., & Ng, E. (2026) Users will collectively boycott, unfollow, and refuse to indulge in any of the individuals and company’s work, content, or even purchase their products. Pairing cancel culture with the speed of social media can be both beneficial and detrimental. Although cancel culture can help hold people accountable, the speed and visibility of social media can also encourage oversimplified judgments and disproportionate public punishment. Understanding cancel culture requires examining how digital platforms influence public reactions and how users practice responsible digital citizenship.
Digital platforms are spaces where information can be shared and posted with an immediate reaction. Through pictures and short videos, people get a quick taste of information without fully getting any context. We are thus presented with a situation in which the visual sense is the most familiar, comfortable, and widely consumed sense, and offers greater appeal and effectiveness than text (Pedrero-Esteban, L. M., & Barrios-Rubio, A. (2024) In cancel culture, this can be a plus because harmful behavior can reach the masses at a rapid rate, but this can also be harmful if the information is false or there is not context behind it.
The public sphere assumes open access, the bracketing of social inequalities, rational discussion, focus on common issues, face-to-face conversation as the privileged medium, and the ability to achieve consensus. (Kevin Michael DeLuca & Jennifer Peeples, 2010) This may have initially been the case, but social media has warped this idea because online conversations do not always encourage thoughtful discussion. Digital platforms allow people to react instantly and spread the word without giving it a second thought.
This difference is important when examining cancel culture. Public discussion should allow people to exchange ideas and work toward a better understanding of an issue. In online controversies, however, discussions can become focused on defending one side, criticizing another, or gaining attention by posting. When users react to a short video or even an old screenshot without examining the full context, well versed discussions can be replaced by assumptions and emotions. Rather than working toward a consensus, participants may become increasingly divided over who needs to be vindicated and who should be crucified.
At the same time, social media can give people access to public discussions that they might otherwise be excluded from. Individuals can share experiences, expose harmful behavior, and challenge people or institutions with greater power. Therefore, the problem is not simply that online communication differs from face-to-face discussion. It is that increased access and visibility does not automatically make for fair or productive conversations. Responsible digital citizenship requires users to consider the quality of the information they share and recognize the difference between holding someone accountable and contributing to public condemnation.
The Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial was a great example of how online supporters have opposing viewpoints and where cancel culture can get sticky. This trial was about alleged domestic abuse between the former couple. Many hashtags were spread such as #AmberHeardisaLiar, #JohnnyDeppIsAWomanBeater, and #AmberIsIconic. All of these are surface level judgements. The point we make here is that the hashtags where we find the calls to cancel Depp or Heard are not based on clearly laid out or agreed upon issues, concepts or purposes.(Shagran Jin and Gwen Bouvier, 2024) People heard about the case and ran with a narrative. Internet users are always ready to get information and spread it without having any evidence to back up their claims. Being a digital responsible citizen it is up to us to make sure that we are informed before posting online.
Get Moesha Traore’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
A time where the accountability portion of cancel culture was effective was Billie Eilish’s cancellation. A video resurfaced of Billie Eilish singing the n-word slur in a Tyler the Creator song. At the time of the video, she was on 14 or 15. Fast forward to 2021 when her video resurfaced, fans were not happy about this. They considered her to be racist and stopped buying her paraphernalia. She then responded with a story post apologizing. Her fans did not feel as though it was enough, so she came back and explained her actions once more and apologized. She claimed that she did not know that it was a slur while she was singing the song. Because she took accountability, she was able to redeem herself. This has implications for young people’s actions as social justice warriors, their understanding of themselves, and how their digital practices enable them to enact politics in alignment with their own values. (Tanner et al., 2026)
Digital sousveillance requires a considerable attention to how these algorithmic identities are produced and vary across different context. Second, those engaging in digital sousveillance need to exercise accountablity. (Burke, 2020, p. 77) The internet is forever. Nothing ever truly goes away. No matter what the subject matter is, it can be brought back up at anytime. It is imperative that users are digital responsible citizens to avoid ruining into future problems because something that they posted in the past resurfaces. Your posts and interactions may follow you.
Being a responsible digital citizen means to be aware of your actions online. Remember that your reputation and the reputations of others are on the line. Be mindful of this when making decisions so that you are not harming others or yourself. Be informed before you make a post. I am urging that you all communicate responsibly. Being a good digital citizen means remembering that there is a real person behind every single account. Stop and think about the consequences of their actions. Would you want the same thing to happen to you? The internet may be digital, but the people using it are real. Hold yourself accountable the same way you hold celebrities and public figures accountable. Justice for Huda.
References
Jin, Shangran, and Gwen Bouvier. “Cancel culture and trigger-ready fragmented interest groups: The case of depp versus amber heard.” Television & New Media, vol. 26, no. 1, 4 Sept. 2024, pp. 17–30, https://doi.org/10.1177/15274764241277465.
Tanner, Claire, et al. “Media reporting of cancel culture: A narrative anatomy of Billie Eilish’s cancellation.” Social Semiotics, vol. 36, no. 2, 10 Feb. 2026, pp. 155–171, https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2026.2627178.
Driessen, Simone, et al. “Introduction: Cancel culture & celebrity bashing, exploring the theatre of morality?” Social Semiotics, vol. 36, no. 2, 8 Feb. 2026, pp. 143–154, https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2026.2627224.
Pedrero-Esteban, Luís Miguel, and Andrés Barrios-Rubio. “Digital Communication in the age of immediacy.” Digital, vol. 4, no. 2, 31 Mar. 2024, pp. 302–315, https://doi.org/10.3390/digital4020015.
Burke, Colin. “Digital Sousveillance: A network analysis of the US surveillant assemblage.” Surveillance & Society, vol. 18, no. 1, 16 Mar. 2020, pp. 74–89, https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v18i1.12714.
