JULY 29 — The internet has permeated every corner of the globe, profoundly impacting all aspects of daily life. Its evolution has not simply increased connection speeds or multiplied the number of social platforms; more fundamentally, it has altered our perspective on social issues and shifted the level of caution we exercise when expressing opinions. Today, individuals and institutions frequently face economic or social exclusion, boycotts, and punishment from the public for inappropriate words and deeds. A study published in the AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research explains that cancel culture has emerged as a distinct form of digital participation, where users collectively express moral judgment online.
Under the pervasive reach of the internet and big data, everyone—from private individuals and public figures to social organizations and state institutions—must heavily scrutinize their behaviour, as the public now acts as the ultimate judge. Under this social mechanism, the public operates not just as critics and supervisors, but as judges and executioners. As a tool for accountability, cancel culture can regulate improper behaviour and drive social progress.
However, critics argue that due to inconsistent moral standards, an impulsive online atmosphere, and the uneven quality of public discourse, this mechanism is easily hijacked. The result is often cyberbullying and deeply flawed public judgment.
Research in The Journal of Social Media suggests that while cancel culture can function as a vital form of social accountability, it frequently devolves into collective harassment. To its proponents, cancel culture is a strict but necessary social accountability mechanism. They argue that public scrutiny acts as a societal lens that regulates behaviour and helps cultivate a healthier social environment.
On one hand, it grants everyday individuals an unprecedented right to speak out against injustices. For example, the #MeToo movement allowed many survivors seeking gender equality to find solidarity and demand accountability both online and offline.
Cancel culture is particularly effective for non-elite groups when an issue is morally clear-cut; however, the prerequisites for such unanimous moral clarity are incredibly rare.
It is also important to consider the threshold of participation. In the academic journal Communication and the Public, researcher Meredith D. Clark notes that cancel culture is rooted in Habermasian theory of the public sphere, which originally argued that public discourse was largely an elite practice.
Today, however, cancel culture has become so popularised—and often entertainment-focused—that the barrier to entry is as low as a netizen pressing “send”.
In an era of information overload, users rarely receive the full context of a story and are often trapped within “echo chambers”. This environment breeds large-scale emotional contagion and mob attacks.
While movements like #MeToo primarily expose genuine harassment, unverified allegations can also spread like wildfire. In cases of irrational public judgment, the balance of power is entirely skewed, leaving the accused with no opportunity to defend themselves.
Once convicted in the “court of public opinion”, individuals or groups face disproportionate and irreversible punishments—such as losing their livelihoods or being driven to suicide.
Beyond public opinion and emotional reactions, discussions surrounding cancel culture must address its intersection with law and ethics. When online behaviour spirals out of control, it crosses the line from a moral dispute into a legal violation.
Legal issues: Freedom of speech or defamation?
Cancel culture frequently exceeds the simple expression of an opinion. In their 2025 book Digital Media, Denunciation and Shaming: The Court of Public Opinion, scholars Daniel Trottier, Qian Huang, and Rashid Gabdulhakov point out that online attacks and public humiliation cause long-term harm to individuals and severely damage their offline lives.
When the public collectively attacks someone online, the behaviour can easily constitute legal defamation and reputation infringement.
From the perspective of international law, freedom of speech is protected, but it is not absolute. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for instance, guarantees freedom of expression but also protects individuals against arbitrary attacks on their honour and reputation.
A “sentence first, trial later” phenomenon has emerged, where public figures are boycotted and lose job opportunities before any facts are confirmed. In these instances, online public opinion unlawfully usurps due legal process.
Ethical issues: Emotional domination vs. rational judgment
Ethically, the most prominent flaw of cancel culture is the dominance of unchecked emotion. Many netizens participate in collective accusations based entirely on fragmented information, without understanding the complete facts.
A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) notes that the rapid and widespread nature of online speech amplifies negative emotions, exponentially increasing the harm done to targets.
Individuals in these scenarios often abandon independent thought, adopting a “mob mentality” to follow the prevailing winds of public opinion.
This trend oversimplifies highly complex issues into absolute binary categories of “right” or “wrong”. Because the accused is rarely granted equal space to explain or defend themselves, the foundational ethics of cancel culture remain fundamentally unfair.
Conclusion and recommendation
Social media platforms play a critical role in fuelling cancel culture. Recommendation algorithms inherently favour controversial and emotionally charged content because it generates higher views, likes, and comments.
The more a platform pushes this content, the larger the mob becomes, creating a highly centralised and aggressive public judgment.
Platforms are not merely neutral channels for information; they actively shape the nature of public discourse. Therefore, platforms bear a heavy ethical responsibility to step up content moderation, restrict the spread of malicious attacks, and increase algorithmic transparency.
To mitigate the harmful effects of cancel culture while preserving its ability to hold power to account, improvements must be made across three distinct levels:
Individuals must practise rationality and caution when engaging in online discussions.
Netizens often join collective outrage to find a sense of identity or belonging, even when they lack complete information. It is crucial for users to verify facts and maintain independent critical thinking before participating in public condemnation.
Social media platforms must take on greater responsibility for the environments they create.
As highlighted in the book Custodians of the Internet, platforms play a gatekeeping role in information distribution. Tech companies must optimise their algorithms to reduce the promotion of extremist, unverified, or highly polarising speech.
Furthermore, they must aggressively moderate coordinated malicious attacks.
From a legislative and institutional standpoint, internet behaviour norms must be formalised.
While protecting freedom of speech is paramount, cyberbullying and digital harassment must be legally and reasonably restricted.
Current studies on platform governance indicate that establishing clear regulatory frameworks helps strike a vital balance between open expression and social responsibility, ultimately providing a fairer discussion environment for the public.
Cancel culture has proven that the public has the power to judge. The question we must now answer is whether we have the maturity to judge fairly.
*The authors are from the Department of Science and Technology Studies, Faculty of Science, Universiti Malaya and can be reached via [email protected].
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
