The reason that the cancel mob is a problem is that it's a tiny vocal minority convincingly pretending they're the majority. If an actual majority of people wanted something cancelled, then it probably should be cancelled.
>If an actual majority of people wanted something cancelled, then it probably should be cancelled.
I encounter this sentiment on hackernews all the time, and it's honestly baffling to me. Apply this logic to the fifteenth century - the vast majority wants blasphemers "cancelled", there is no Enlightenment, no Renaissance, Galileo is banned from Facebook for hate speech [against religion].
I would assume that you don't think blasphemers should be stoned, now or in any age, right? Then why do you trust the majority to make moral decisions now, but not then? Do you think that we've achieved perfect understanding of society and ethics exactly when we invented the internet?
How is one supposed to semi-reliably distinguish between a tiny vocal minority “cancel mob” and an “actual majority” when the end result is the same: $thing is cancelled. I suspect the only discernible difference between the two for most people is one of opinion - whether they agree or disagree with $thing being cancelled. If they agree, they’re in the majority and if they disagree it’s obviously that pesky vocal minority.
" If an actual majority [of an internet forum] of people wanted something cancelled, then it probably should be cancelled." I added to your statement lest people think simple majority is a good way to determine what viewpoints should be allowed to be presented!