[Udik]

> from the initial Vice article horrifically misquoting him, to the weirdly rabid hate towards anyone defending him on forums like this and Reddit

In fairness those are both very common features of cancellations. Another that comes to mind is Damore, who never wrote what most people attributed to him. I've had perfectly clear for a long time that even smart people will misunderstand the clearest statement if it's what it's socially expected from them.

[caddemon]

I think there are also some topics where people are conditioned to respond emotionally. Once responding emotionally of course a fair reading is out the window.

I do think there is a lot of silence due to social expectations, also probably many of the likes/shares with little additional commentary come from such expectations. But IME the people that write the long rants tearing X person apart are either legitimately upset, or have an agenda way beyond trying to fit social expectations.

Of course you can't have mob justice without both the instigators and the larger crowd giving passive support. But I don't think it's accurate to assume it's purely people wanting to fit in. Many of the cases that gain traction have an emotional core.

[Udik]

> the people that write the long rants tearing X person apart are either legitimately upset, or have an agenda way beyond trying to fit social expectations

These would be the activists who are- as you call them- the instigators, and who might be close to the origin of the events. But the second level is the media- and here you have journalists and bloggers, who are already far removed from the original events and are supposed to report them to a wider audience in a neutral way. And yet you see them grossly misreporting the content of text they have read and that anyone can check: despite much less direct emotional involvement here (if there is any it should be acknowledged and balanced), and the fact that a news article takes much more effort and focus than a simple retweet.

So the justification for the spread of obviously false information can only be either an actual wilful dishonesty (and I don't believe it) or it's nothing else than a selective blindness driven by an instinctive desire to align to the immediate peers.

[caddemon]

Is the media driven by aligning with peers? Or is it driven by putting out the story that will maximize clicks/engagement?