[psychphysic]

This is precisely it.

My pet theory is that the true effect of "cancel culture" isn't really on rich/popular people. But the public cancelling means on an individual level social groups eventually become homogeneous in their views.

The result is you must eject any idea, person or news source which doesn't 100% align with the current group values.

The outcome is that entities which don't take sides are the real victims of cancel culture. Why is does CNN always come to the same conclusions and cover the same things? Why does Fox? It's because if they stray they are goners.

WikiLeaks was truly neutral dumping all info it got. That was in no one's interest other than the diminishing open minded groups.

[matthewdgreen]

I think it’s a little more complicated.

By far the biggest piece is that WikiLeaks’ relevance has declined over the past several years. When Assange was first summoned to appear in Sweden I think there was an enormous spotlight on him. This might not have saved him from being convicted for the crime he was accused of, but it might have been enough to dissuade the Obama administration from seeking to extradite him. That administration had already expressed concern about the impact a prosecution might have on journalistic freedom, and (at the time) extraditing him on arrival in Sweden would have made both governments look like that were colluding to use a sexual assault accusation as a pretext for political retribution. I’m not saying they wouldn’t have done it: I am saying it would had massive repercussions for the US administration, Sweden, etc.

Instead of facing the charges head on, Assange chose to lock himself in his own prison. Years went by and the public’s interest in him waned. A new administration came to power that had no specific concerns about the press, and saw Assange as nothing more than a criminal. Finally, he decided to intervene in politics in a way that many saw as an intentional effort to affect the election, which damaged the case that he was simply a publisher. Ultimately I think you’re right that this damaged his sympathy with the people who would have been the most vigorous defenders, but the thing is: outside of those people he seems to have no base of support at all anymore.

[hulitu]

> but it might have been enough to dissuade the Obama administration from seeking to extradite him

Except that the reason they fabricated the Sweden case was precisely to make him an easy target for US.

[nico]

> But the public cancelling means on an individual level social groups eventually become homogeneous in their views.

> The result is you must eject any idea, person or news source which doesn't 100% align with the current group values.

That’s essentially human society.

We organize ourselves in races, countries, cultures, religions, sports teams, etc.

We are constantly excluding others and trying to belong to certain groups.

The issue is when it becomes extreme and a group decides that all other groups should be exterminated.

[vuln]

> The issue is when it becomes extreme and a group decides that all other groups should be exterminated.

In which given enough time all groups come to that last same conclusion. No group is safe once the extreme amass too much power.

[Spivak]

And even stronger we institutionalize it and enforce it with violence. Enforcing cultural norms is the whole basis of our legal system.

[krunck]

> That’s essentially human society.

That doesn't make it OK. The degenerate groupists in human society are the ones responsible for oppression and mass slaughter(war) whereas individual free thinking people are not.

[Spivak]

Looks like you just divided humanity into two groups there you degenerate groupist.