INTRODUCTION
Media is constantly adapting, whether it be through introductions of platforms and trends, or a shift in cultural values. People have access to an endless source of information and content that is produced by anyone. With this, has come expansions in the ways that communities participate in gossip and social media justice. This paper will be exploring the development of “Cancel Culture” and social media Schadenfreude. Or, is ‘Cancel Culture’ Schadenfreude with a modern makeover, and is it becoming more prevalent?
The modernised concept of ‘cancelling’ someone revolves around the idea of dropping someone from the media radar after they commit an act that seems immoral or unfair, examples include mass unsubscribing from a celebrity’s social media platforms, getting a celebrity kicked off of a show, or getting companies to stop promoting a celebrity’s materials. ‘Cancelling’ “is the internet’s way of trying to determine what is morally right or wrong.” It is complex, but fundamentally runs on the power of mob mentality, and can be very hard to justify, as it leaves very little space or time to allow someone to seek redemption or explain their actions (The Bottom Line, 2019).
What began this analysis was the mid-2019 controversy surrounding the Beauty YouTuber James Charles started gaining traction, when a 43 Minute video Titled ‘Bye Sister’ was uploaded by follow beauty YouTuber and close friend, Tati Westbrook. In the video, Westbrook makes many allegations ranging from distasteful behaviour, and a massive allegation of Charles using his ‘fame’ to manipulate straight men into sexual encounters. Almost instantly, and without much afterthought, fans of Charles started to unfollow him en masse, some even went so far as to destroy merchandise or ditch his international tour (TR Centre, 20109). Over one million people unsubscribed from his YouTube Channel within the first 24 hours of ‘Bye Sister,’ therefore, Charles was effectively ‘Cancelled’.The response was so immediate and monumental, that it caught the attention of mainstream media, allowing for a rare connection between the traditional media and YouTube drama.
It is also important to look at the ecosystem that is the modern YouTube platform, it is a community of figures both anonymous and public, who all have to coexist on a shared platform.
First it is important to become familiar with an essential lingo, the use of the word “Tea,” is used unanimously and liberally in modern ‘internet-speech’. ‘Tea’ is slang for “Drama,” or any other form of gossip or juicy information. Urban Dictionary links the slang to a southern tradition of women ``who gather in the afternoon to drink tea and gossip,” (HelloGiggles, 2013). Another important word of interest is “Receipts,” unlike tea, receipts are compatible with its real-life counterpart definition, it is the proof, it is what backs up what someone is saying, in either defence of their character or in attack against someone else. Accounts are devoted to curating receipts to account for someone’s wrongdoing, and according to Slate, have created a shift in our society where the powerful and influential must now show their accountability (Slate, 2016). Receipts often come in the form of a screenshot; a text message conversation, a private message, a direct message or an email, it’s some kind of proof to show that someone admitted or spoke about something. But then this opens an entire can of worms about fake receipts, with the ease of devices offered by photoshop or online sites dedicated to making fake screenshots.
TO BECOME “CANCELLED”
‘Cancel Culture’ has grown in recent years, however, the concept of boycotting a celebrity is not a modern phenomenon. No one with the slightest connection to modern media has to look far before finding the latest celebrity scandal, wherein someone has had to go to rehab, or someone has had sex with someone new or with someone whom they should not have. The court of public opinion has always been swift and harsh, no matter the crime committed, and convictions range from a simple loss of respect, to the loss of career opportunities. A good scandal can follow anyone for years, like a bad smell, as seen with the racist outburst of Mel Gibson, or the drug-afflicted bad behaviour of Lindsey Lohan, who’s actions have continued to follow them over a decade later.
What makes the current era of ‘Cancel Culture’ fresh and debatable is that when a story is developing, people can read news or watch a video and then immediately state their reactions, and as more and more people join the thread of criticism and even unjustified attacks grows stronger. Sometimes the consequences of a wrong move online can be so strong that it can change the course of someone’s life, whether they be a famous YouTuber, or a senior director of communications at an advisory company.
The biggest, and first notable case of a “regular” person getting dragged into internet infamy was the case of Justine Sacco. Her story is one of a Tweet that went so wrong and internet Schadenfreude. Before boarding a flight to South Africa in 2013, she posted to her 170 followers on Twitter “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m White!” – With context, the tweet was a jab at the bubble of ignorance of white privilege in the first world, but sadly, the internet did not see it that way. For the duration of the 12-hour flight, her tweet went viral enough to cause her to be fired from her job, and blasted by members of her own family, which ascended her to the position of Public Enemy No.1. Much in tune with modern cancel culture, there was a hashtag to coincide with Sacco’s internet trial: #hasjustinelandedyet, where people were able to directly threaten or insult Sacco, all while she was still on her flight, completely unaware of the witch-hunt that was brewing against her name (Daily Mail, 2013). Her tweet had evolved from an attack against her perceived racist ignorance, into something like entertainment, as the story had people hooked all over the world, and everyone wanted to see her punished for what she had posted on Twitter. Of course, as time passed and people moved on, Sacco’s name only became an internet cautionary tale. Years later, Sacco’s tweet was still following her, and took a toll on new job opportunities as once the employer realised who she was, she was often let go (NYTM, 2015).
With many more controversies as well as larger ones since Justine Sacco, there is finally a recognisable pattern of events, especially in relation to controversies born from social media: first, there is the Spark, then the Reaction and then the Response. The Spark is what starts the problem, a problematic Tweet or video, maybe even something done before the person was a public figure. The Reaction is when people start responding to the controversy, often which is what causes it to go viral, it is the barrage of criticism, and subsequent ‘Cancelling’. Finally, there is the Response of the ‘Cancelled’, in which is usually an explanation, defence or apology. Usually, the drama and the masses move on to something else.
The response is a critical way to determine how the media and viewers will respond to someone experiencing a controversy. If they seem inauthentic in the apology, the chances of there being a clear recovery of an internet celebrity’s career does not look possible. The apology can make or break someone’s reputation following a controversy, so much so that it is something of an art form and an area of discussion.
THE MOB MENTALITY
YouTube itself has become its own ecosystem, like a mimic of a modern, real-life community, with a population (users), authority (the YouTube company), celebrities (famous YouTube channels). There is also its own source of journalist-like entities, which are channels that are solely based on reporting the ‘drama’ associated with YouTube and it’s most influential users. While these channels are quick to spread information regarding a single person or a brand, they are very capable of doing more harm than good in some cases.
Drama channels are key contributors to the discussion and growth around culture, as the channels produce content that revolves around chronicling and ‘reporting’ on drama, some even taking on the tone of an investigative reporter presenting evidence. Media psychologist, Rutledge, told Vox media that drama channels thrive from creating a sense of tribe or cliques with their viewers, which in turn generates the spread of more drama and more controversy, and therefore, the spread of the mob mentality and schadenfreude behind cancel culture. “It benefits both parties and replicates social behaviours… it triggers feelings of loyalty and affiliation that enhance the connection by creating a social identity,” (Vox, 2018).
Drama Channels are, while are a smaller area of content creation, are already behemoths in terms of the spread of YouTube ‘drama’ mob-mentality; posing as watchdogs of the behaviour of popular social media celebrities. With the accessibility and availability that the internet offers, it is now easier than ever to follow the movements of a celebrity, or gather news about the latest scandal, or even resurrect that was buried deep within a social media timeline.
In certain spaces (depending on the genre of the content), YouTube’s comments section is a pool of a range of diverse, albeit sometimes counterproductive statements. Often those types of comments come from people with an anonymous name, and no fear of accountability or impact of what they’ve written. The ability to anonymously leave comments that allows for a scandal, be it fake or not to gain traction on the YouTube ecosystem, has become synonymous with being ‘toxic’ or ‘trashy’. This could be due to a lack of filtering, allowing for comments of all shapes and varying discrimination to stay in the public sphere, and this is not made easier by the fact that it is very easy for anyone to make one of multiple different YouTube accounts (NewStatesman, 2016). It is also very well understood that anonymity can produce more aggression and hostility in comments.
Anonymity is a double-edged sword in online communities, because while it allows for users to feel more freedom to discuss topics unfiltered by risk of their identities being discovered, it also allows users to hide behind their computers and say whatever they want with little to no ramifications. Communication online is far different to face-to-face communication, as there is no guarantee that what someone types out about themselves is absolute truth, and when this is paired with the freedom to say whatever one likes, it is a recipe for potential disaster (Grohol, 2006).
Online commenting conducted under the guise of anonymity generates more underlying personality characteristics in a person, like a false sense of security or power. Therefore, it could create more personality traits, such as a lack of empathy and social skills, narcissism, impulsivity, sensation seeking, and also momentarily brings to light other emotional regulation problems or psychological symptoms such as loneliness, depression, and anxiety (PLoS ONE, 2016).
There is no question that anonymous hate comments are pure cyberbullying, and have the potential to deeply impact the subjects of the comments, especially when it is a massive collection of people generating the traffic of toxicity against one person. In the digital age, people are able to create an identity for their online persona, often which may differ greatly to who they are when offline, and in the context of bullying, this means that anyone, if motivated, can choose to target someone with the intention to aggravate or distress. It is a known issue, even to those high on the payroll of a massive social media company, like Facebook, as the marketing director Randi Zuckerberg, sister of the founder of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg, expressed in a panel on social media: “I think anonymity on the Internet has to go away. People behave a lot better when they have their real names down. … I think people hide behind anonymity and they feel like they can say whatever they want behind closed doors.” (Hiding Behind the Screen, 2012).
MODERN SCHADENFREUDE
Schadenfreude is the German word to describe the sensation of feeling, “pleasure derived by someone from another person’s misfortune,” English does not have a single word for this essential and interesting aspect of psychology. Schadenfreude is a complex emotion, as it goes against the sympathetic instincts that most of us have, and it is embedded in self-satisfaction, and can be strangely satisfying. Psychology Today explains it in terms of a “pleasure over fear” response to situations, and is embedded in human nature. It is important to recognise when Schadenfreude is occurring as understanding why you feel what you feel creates an advantage and opportunity to respond more thoughtfully than impulsively (Psychology Today, 2017).
It is like the age of internet exposure has created community Schadenfreude, a sense in which people find enjoyment in watching someone else’s embarrassment and ‘exposure’ unfold on the internet, ignorant of the fact that an actual person could be getting hurt. It is strengthened by the mentality of enjoying the sight of chaos unfolding onto someone more and more, and to look down on any attempts of the person to salvage something out of the mess. However, this does not mean that someone can recover, or even grow from a controversy.
Schadenfreude has been categorised into three types (Big Think, 2018):
Aggression-based: Is when misfortune falls on someone outside your group, or to someone you don’t like. Example: When your least favourite sports-team makes a mistake, even if they’re not playing against your favourites.
Rivalry-based: Is driven by social comparison and jealousy. Example: when you make a move in a game that puts you above your competitor.
Justice-based: Is when it feels like someone has finally gotten what’s coming to them – karma having its day. Example: a con artist finally going to prison.
Therefore, the schadenfreude experienced by a mob may get from someone being “cancelled” could be a mixture of all three. YouTube is a community where every section has its own celebrities and influential figures, all of which run the risk of a controversy that could possibly tear down their reputation. So, perhaps it isn’t too surprising that the mass-unfollowing and hatred is expected.
Therefore, the mob-mentality was already surrounding Charles to begin with, and it can be said that the beauty community in general has a collective schadenfreude. As the community which is arguably most intertwined with personal and professional business, the Beauty community is known to be cut-throat and very unforgiving. Something like the controversy surrounding Charles broke through the usual boundaries of YouTube and reached mainstream news, something which rarely happens. But during the controversy, there was a bandwagon of creating backlash against Charles, a phenomenon of mass unfollowing, with really no clear reason other than to feel part of a group, of which Logan Paul explains in his Podcast, Impaulsive, “There are going to be a group of 13-year-old girls who go to school, and are like, ‘Did you guys unsubscribe from James? Same! Oh my God!….’ Really, if I sat down with any of them and asked, ‘What was the real problem here?’ none of them would have a real answer. They’d repeat what they heard,” (Forbes, 2019).
Westbrook stands by her claims made in ‘Bye Sister’, following Charles’ response video titled ‘No more lies’ where he discussed the situation from his perspective, and provided screenshots of messages to support his narrative, of which Westbrook did not have in her video. It was that video which turned things around for Charles, and his fanbase started gaining the numbers that had been lost following Bye Sister, which was almost a complete turn around for his reputation and credibility following a high-stress and very public event. It was a very strange ending to a very high-drama, and high-activity scandal, which seemingly came out of nowhere. As soon as the drama started, it appeared as though it had ended, despite how many questions remained.
CONCLUSION
What happened to Charles did not come as a surprise to people who were already familiar with the judgemental and cut-throat nature of the beauty community based on YouTube, but it was still eyebrow raising in its own right. It encouraged one to take a deeper look into the current mob-mentality of the drama that the community generates, and how one mistake by an influencer can lead to their downfall, and can lead to them being deemed ‘Cancelled’ by people who were once their own loyal fanbase.
With the increased use of the internet and increased popularity of YouTube and its own celebrities, clichés will be formed and drama will be generated as an event in the community. The example of James Charles’ ‘’cancellation’ and subsequent comeback in the eyes of the YouTube community proved as a statement of the fragility of internet fandoms and the readiness of modern schadenfreude to take someone’s reputation down.
Cancelled culture is certainly not a purely modern phenomenon, although it is more recently more internet driven. As for as long as celebrities have been around; there has been the presence of scandal and downfalls, the internet has just allowed this phenomenon to occur on a much larger scale. This sort of mob mentality that gets enjoyment from the public humiliation of someone over the internet is not reserved for minor/major internet celebrities, but people like Justine Sacco, who made a joke that changed her life for the worse. But what does this mean for the future, because the chances are that this is not going to go away anytime soon, as there will always be drama channels to report on the actions of internet celebrities and there will always be drama, whether it hasn’t happened yet or hasn’t been revealed yet.
In conclusion, the current scandal encouraged a deeper look into the mentality of those who perpetuate as well as circulate drama on the internet, and at least encouraged an analysis of ‘Cancelled Culture’, and how it impacts the people in its wake, both professionally, societally and mentally.
REFERENCES:
Padilla, N; 2019, “Cancel Culture” Should be cancelled, The Bottom Line, retrieved 26th of May 2019, <https://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2019/05/cancel-culture-should-be-cancelled>
HollywoodLife, 2019, Video, James Charles fans abandon tour & destroy merch over Tati ‘Bye Sister’ video, retrieved 26th of May 2019, <https://tr-center.com/line/james-charles-fans-abandon-tour-destroy-merch-over-tati-‘bye-sister’-video-g_odrrzFKJY.html>
Bates, D; 2013, ‘I am ashamed’: PR exec who sparked outrage with racist tweet apologises after she’s fired and her own father calls her an ‘idiot’, Daily Mail, retrieved 26th of May 2019, <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2527913/Justine-Sacco-tweet-Going-Africa-Hope-I-dont-AIDS-causes-Twitter-outrage.html>
Ronson, J; 2015, How one stupid Tweet blew up and ruined Justine Sacco’s life, New York Times Magazine, retrieved 26th of May 2019, <https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html>
Wischhover, C; 2018, Meet the TMZs of Beauty YouTube, Vox, retrieved 2nd of June 2019, <https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/10/5/17937690/youtube-beauty-influencers-drama-channels-dramageddon>
Username: Blaire, 2013, #Tea, It’s not that thing you’re sipping on, HelloGiggles, retrieved 15th of June 2019, <https://hellogiggles.com/lifestyle/tea-its-not-that-thing-youre-sippin-on/>
Waldman, K; 2016, How “Show me the receipts” became a catchphrase for holding the powerful accountable, Slate, retrieved 15th of June 2019, <https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/07/how-show-me-the-receipts-became-a-catchphrase-for-holding-the-powerful-accountable.html>
Tait, A; 2016, Why are YouTube comments the worst on the internet, NewStatesman America, retrieved 15th of June 2019, <https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/internet/2016/10/why-are-youtube-comments-worst-internet>
Rost K, Stahel L, Frey BS (2016) Digital Social Norm Enforcement: Online Firestorms in Social Media. PLoS ONE 11(6): e0155923. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155923
Hiding behind the Screen, 2012, Now you see me … wait, you’ll never do, Hiding behind the screen, retrieved 15th of June 2019, <https://hidingbehindthescreens.wordpress.com/>
Ig: rag.post, 2019, TMZ reports that YouTuber James Charles has been found dead in his LA home, Twitter, retrieved 15th of June 2019, <https://twitter.com/rag_post/status/1127770988693770240>
Girlfriend, 2019, James Charles cancels his ‘Sisters’ tour and fans are outraged, Girlfriend, retrieved 15th of June 2019, <https://www.girlfriend.com.au/james-charles-cancels-his-sisters-tour>
Grohol, J; 2006, Anonymity and online community: Identity Matters, A List Apart, retrieved 15th of June 2019, <http://alistapart.com/article/identitymatters/>
Strand, J; 2017, The Science of Schadenfreude, Psychology Today, retrieved 15th of June 2019, <https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-i-m-approach/201703/the-science-schadenfreude>
Hendricks, S; 2018, Why do we feel Schadenfreude – and who feels it the most?, Big Think, retrieved 15th of June 2019, <https://bigthink.com/mind-brain/psychology-of-schadenfreude>
Sands, M; 2019, The James Charles scandal was more than the “ugly” beauty community, Forbes, <https://www.forbes.com/sites/masonsands/2019/05/24/the-james-charles-scandal-was-more-than-the-ugly-beauty-community/#248b5e6b6ae6>
Picture Source: https://cosmeticsbusiness.com/news/article_page/Beauty_influencer_feuds_fuel_Reddit_user_figures_in_2019/160639