Canceled by an Algorithm?
From elementary age until I was a young adult, Bill Cosby provided me with hundreds of hours of entertainment. From watching the animated series “Fat Albert” on Saturday mornings, to belly laughing while listening to vinyl comedy albums (remember those?) to my standing appointment with “must-see TV” that kicked off every Thursday at 8p with The Cosby Show, Cosby’s wit and wisdom was a staple of my upbringing.
Of course, it’s difficult to talk about Bill Cosby in positive terms today. Once the world caught onto his toxic and twisted approach to women, it “canceled” him. This was particularly bad timing for me, as just weeks before revelations started to emerge, I’d taken my children to his live concert to see “one of the best comedians of our time.”
In their book The Canceling of the American Mind, Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott take on the rapid proliferation of cancel culture in the United States. They argue that though we already have strong legal first amendment free-speech protections, that “free speech law is dependent on free speech culture to survive.”[1]And they use scores of examples from both the left (with their “Perfect Rhetorical Fortresses”) and the right (with their “Efficient Rhetorical Fortresses”) to point to this growing problem.
According to the examples provided in this book this threat exists on campuses (where cancel culture first took root) to publishing, and media, and business, and government, and beyond, where unruly mobs of right wingers are canceling liberals just for believing in woke ideology, and undisciplined hordes of liberals are canceling conservatives simply for speaking their minds.
OK, I know that last sentence is hyperbolic and represents the extreme views of cancel culture. But this book also makes some compelling arguments in the middle: There are people who have had the mob turn on them and have lost their livelihoods and relationships for seemingly innocent or insignificant statements. I have empathy for this kind of disproportionate response as I’ve had both left and right leave the church over something I said (but only the right has tried to use social media and groupthink to cancel me).
However, though I empathize with the challenges and believe the authors had some important insights into this problem, I was left with several nagging concerns. I only have space to address two:
First, I didn’t feel that they sufficiently distinguished the difference between canceling someone and using influence to oppose a person or idea. They quote comedian Ricky Gervais who said “You turning off your own TV isn’t censorship. You trying to get other people to turn off their TV, because you don’t like something they’re watching, that’s different.”[2] The authors argue against cancel culture, but then argue that “there are some institutions, ideas, and even people who need to be torn down.”[3] I had a hard time finding a place where they properly explain who gets to decide who “gets torn down”, and why, and how it gets to be decided.
I’m not suggesting there isn’t a line, but I’m questioning where that line exists. As an example, if I preach that God calls us to unconditionally love the alien, I might feel abused if I was canceled, but if I preached the Bible was not the word of God I might agree with the cancelation.
I have a second lingering concern about a potential hole in their analysis: While the authors state 2014 as the season in which cancel culture exploded[4] they did not seem to address the social media algorithms as a major cause for the rise of cancel culture (someone please correct me if I missed this).
This is a big deal. The rise of social media in the early 2000’s and then the use and rise of algorithms by social media companies in the mid 2010’s[5] correspond to the growth and then explosion of cancel culture, first on campuses (where social media was most used) then to other segments of society (that picked up on social media later).
Algorithms are designed to “control the flow of information people see” and to “amplify information that drives engagement.”[6] The result is a false polarization—when you only see what is fed to you to increase engagement (whatever gets you to click on it) the possibility of becoming a part of a group you were unaware of before and then participating in “canceling” someone seems to grow exponentially.
It’s almost as if social media companies designed it that way.
Case in point: While I was reading this book, I was also keeping an eye on someone being canceled in real-time. On a podcast, pastor and author Alistair Begg replied to a hurting grandmother wondering what to do about her transgendered grandchild’s wedding. Begg, who is extremely theologically conservative, gave her the pastoral advice to attend the wedding and bring a gift to express love and grace. That advice sent the theologically conservative social media world into a frenzy. In short order, his radio show was dropped by its network, Begg was disinvited to a high-profile conference, and a mob of thousands rose up on social media cutting this man’s teaching out of their life.
All for a single piece of “questionable” pastoral counsel weighed against thousands of hours of conservative Biblical teaching by which his followers lived their lives.
While I would defend the ability of anyone to disagree with, and influence others against, a teaching they don’t agree with, I doubt this cancelation would have happened in a world without social media algorithms and sound bites. It seems that 30 years ago, a pastoral response like that might catch some disagreement, discussion, and debate, and maybe an eventual realignment of allies (where and to whom you have a voice), but light-speed cancelation of Begg’s ministry, without careful consideration, would have been unheard of.
Maybe we should stop being entertained by criminals like Cosby, or perhaps we should push back on the cancelation of a faithful pastor who gave an answer that garnered disagreement, but either way it’s important to us to understand the nature of cancelation and the things (including culture, and technology) that promote it.
[1] 298
[2] 255
[3] 6
[4] 49
[5] https://www.wsj.com/articles/social-media-algorithms-rule-how-we-see-the-world-good-luck-trying-to-stop-them-11610884800
[6] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/social-media-algorithms-warp-how-people-learn-from-each-other/
About the Author
Tim Clark
I'm on a lifelong journey of discovering the person God has created me to be and aligning that with the purpose God has created me for. I've been pressing hard after Jesus for 40 years, and I currently serve Him as the lead pastor of vision and voice at The Church On The Way in Los Angeles. I live with my wife and 3 kids in Burbank California.12 responses to “Canceled by an Algorithm?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
THANKS Tim! You wrote – “As an example, if I preach that God calls us to unconditionally love the alien, I might feel abused if I was canceled, but if I preached the Bible was not the word of God I might agree with the cancelation.”
Taking a stand on a biblical mandate (let’s say Deut 10:18 – Orphans, Widows and the alien amongst us). Has to be where we draw the line in the sand.
I wonder if “immigration” will be cancelled by our MAGA folk.
I believe that polarization of politics has highjacked many of our churches.
P.S. It saddens me that Begg was “cancelled” for erring on the side of love.
P.S.S. I quoted you in my post.
Selah.
Russel, I am always in AWE of your commitment to the immigrant. Such a Biblical mandate, yet so many in the Evangelical church have no idea. Thank you for your work in this space, I’m honored and humbled to know you and believe God will use your efforts to make a significant change in our world.
Tim, I saw/read a piece in Christianity Today about Begg’s situation, but because I’m not on social media, I’m not sure what the “arguments” for / against / whatever have looked like online. I can imagine he received no shortage of pushback, and that is probably putting it kindly. I remember a respected pastor who I will not name saying something similar many years ago — and today there’s crickets (no one ever addressed it online…”cancel culture” had not yet taken root).
Your statement “I had a hard time finding a place where they properly explain who gets to decide who ‘gets torn down’, and why, and how it gets to be decided” requires a great deal of reflection, and in a pluralistic society, I would imagine that would be hard to do without appealing to core universal values (I think Mounk does this a bit in his Conclusion in The Identity Trap), but still, that would be a challenge. Great post.
Travis, thanks! Yeah, I understand the need for some people to not have a significant voice to culture but at the same time I struggle with who gets to decide that line! It seems that social media and mob mentality is the order of the day, and I’m not convinced that is a healthy reality. I don’t really know the answer, but this book encouraged me to struggle with it.
You brought up social media…allow me to quote myself, from my reply to Travis’ blog post…
“Social media…I think antidotally one could make a strong case that there is a correlation between the rise of the cancel culture and the rise of social media. No question in my mind. They are kissing cousins. Social media has given the platform for a degree of anonymity, and unfettered/unfiltered public reprisal. What used to be limited to a “letter to the editor” in a local/regional/national periodical, now is 24/7 access to the whole world.”
I too didn’t see any reference in “The Canceling of the American Mind” about the connection to social media algorithms. Nor did find the “line” regarding when it is OK to “cancel.” That would make for an interesting and helpful discussion in our upcoming Zoom call.
John, i’m not as concerned about whether people should be ‘cancelled’ as I am who should be the ones who have the authority to cancel them. That’s the bigger question for me. I hope that’s part of our class discussion this week.
Tim,
I am curious about your statement: Algorithms are designed to “control the flow of information people see” and to “amplify information that drives engagement.”[6] and how you are connecting this to the authors naming of 2014 the years when cancel culture hit campuses. Please correct me if I am wrong but wasn’t the drive behind cancel culture first with academics who were writing scholarly articles about such things?
Second, I had not heard about Allistair Begg and I am so sorry that happened to him! He is a godly, faithful preacher of the Word and I cannot imagine the backlash if he responded in an opposite way.
Tim, Forgive me for thinking out loud in my response above –I think I am wrong. Do you recall if the authors talked about Safetyism as the open door to cancel culture on campuses? It would be helpful if we could discuss this topic as a cohort on the chat. Thanks for thinking through issues in this space.
Pam, I’m so grateful for your responses.
Algorithms create a reality where posts are pushed to people who might click/dwell on a particular subject. I think we now live in a world where we don’t have ‘natural’ conversations but are ‘pushed’ into spheres where we either only agree with others or STRONGLY disagree in such a way that it polarizes us.
I, too, am looking forward to a conversation.
Wow, I did not realize that about Alister Begg, I listened to him for years. That really is a shame that one moment of sharing his opinion “disqualified” years of quality content and a life of genuine faith. I agree that this is an issue on both sides of the spectrum.
I’ve been reading Tom Hollands’ (not Spider man lol) Dominion, GREAT book. In it he gives an interesting overview of Christian, Western history. He talks about a dark time in Christian history when whole villages would be killed because they held the “wrong beliefs”. What really stunned me were the people with “right beliefs” who were ordering or doing the killing, were a million miles away from Christ’s heart. Their beliefs did nothing to nurture the Spirit of God in them. It was the same type of thing that happened with Alister, except much more violent. A fixation on conformity over Jesus’ love. Loved the posts!
So glad you clarified Tom Holland was NOT Spider Man (LOL). I’m very concerned that we live in a culture that, while not KILLING people, seeks to kill people socially because of their wrong beliefs.
I guess there’s othing new under the sun, just new ways of expressing it. “Right Beliefs” are still the foundation of “killing” others. If only we could all realize that nobody has a corner on the truth. (thanks Jack Hayford).
Hi Tim!
Thank you for your very enlightening post. I’m intrigued by your words. You wrote, “While I would defend the ability of anyone to disagree with, and influence others against, a teaching they don’t agree with, I doubt this cancellation would have happened in a world without social media algorithms and sound bites. It seems that 30 years ago, a pastoral response like that might catch some disagreement, discussion, and debate, and perhaps an eventual realignment of allies (where and to whom you have a voice), but light-speed cancellation of Begg’s ministry, without careful consideration , would have been unheard of.”
I agree with your opinion. The internet and social media make cancel culture even more massive and destructive, without even giving a chance for someone who is canceled to defend and explain, but insults, insults and punishment are already imposed on him.
In your view, how do churches and pastors view this phenomenon? Are there any concrete and relevant efforts to your service context to foster an anti-canceller culture?