The problem you keep running into is that if we, as a society, value free speech, then we, as a society, also value the angry mob, because they are also exhibiting free speech! You can't just ignore the angry mob's rights, just because you don't like what they're saying.
If you like free speech and dislike cancel culture, the people to be angry at are the decision makers who kowtow to the mob's demands, not the mob itself (since they're just exercising their free speech, which you claim to support), but even then, aren't those decision makers just expressing themselves, too?
I'm in complete agreement that workers' rights should be stronger and protect them from quisling employers. But there is also something to be said about the technological mechanisms that allow the mass-mob to form. For example in the case of people who have a few hundred followers and end up with hundreds of thousands of people talking about them, there is a hateful amplification that should not be enabled.
> I'm in complete agreement that workers' rights should be stronger and protect them from quisling employers. But there is also something to be said about the technological mechanisms that allow the mass-mob to form.
Agreed entirely, but it’s interesting to note that 99% of the public discourse here on HN and also elsewhere focuses on the technical mechanisms and almost none of the discussion is about workers rights.
As the parent points out, the free speech position against cancel culture is internally inconsistent. That’s why these discussions have no solutions; because the paradox of increasing free speech by restricting free speech is never resolved.
Which is why I think we need to move past the idea of the mob. The mob has no power if your employer can’t fire you capriciously and ruin your life. That power exists irrespective of cancel culture, and needs to be curbed. Doing so would also serve to restrict corporate power considerably, which is why I believe this area of discussion goes unaddressed (it’s that there are a lot of people who are both anti cancel culture but pro corporate power.)
Yeah, I think that's the silicon valley effect. I often feel at odds with the majority viewpoint here when things like the free market, welfare, or regulations are being discussed.
Though in this case, I think the technological perspective makes the inconsistency you're speaking off disappear. It's arguable but I don't think free speech, left to its own devices, leads to these mass mobs as often as we're seeing it on Twitter & Cie. Our culture is being shaped by recommendation algorithms, that needs to be addressed along with workers' rights.
If you like free speech and dislike cancel culture, the people to be angry at are the decision makers who kowtow to the mob's demands, not the mob itself (since they're just exercising their free speech, which you claim to support), but even then, aren't those decision makers just expressing themselves, too?