You might be interested in reading Robin Hanson’s extended writings on this and similar subjects, for example here:
I’ve said before that it might be better if we had formal laws against the kinds of evil that cancel crowds now seek to punish. Because at least then there’d be a formal trail before punishment, which could exonerate many of the accused. But it doesn’t look like such laws will be passed anytime soon.
I agree with him that this solution is unlikely to satisfy people’s desire for cancel culture:
People engaging in cancellations enjoy doing so; they would not get this benefit from passively watching a court proceeding.
Court proceedings give defendants the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, present their own evidence, be judged by their peers, and so on, which increase their likelihood of being exonerated.
Often people are cancelled for activities that either were not a norm violation at the time, or are not in broader society, and hence would not be against the law.
Cancel culture allows a small number of crazy people to exert disproportionate influence because they care more; laws determined by the median voter would be and are much more moderate.
Engaging in a cancellation mob allows people to signal how woke they are; passively accepting an institutional process would not.
Enforcement through highly random bullying creates a climate of fear, where people aggressively self-censor to avoid falling anywhere near the line. Encoding this in law would allow people to say things that were just on the permitted side of the line without fear.
Because there is little logic to cancellation, allies and high status people can be exempted from punishment for the same behaviour which would be cancellably ‘creepy’ or ‘racist’ from others.
Laws can take many years to pass; cancellation mobs sometimes want to punish people for things that were not forbidden very recently.
Passing such laws would require them to be debated, and many of them might seem absurd. By instead only raising these rules in the context of individual transgressors, principled opposition can be dismissed as supporting the bad person.
Thanks for the link; I should read Overcoming Bias more. I liked Hanson’s Futarchy idea, specifically the idea of replacing the Fed with financial instruments (which I can no longer seem to find anywhere). (Though I think the idea of tying returns of a policy’s implementation to GDP+ is doomed for several technical reasons, including getting stuck at local maxima and a good policy choice being a losing bet because of unrelated policy failures). I think he probably influenced my prison and immigration idea, and really my whole methodology (along with Alvin Roth’s Who Gets What and Why).
For a few of the reasons you outlined, I wrote, “[people would also be fined] for the offence of participating in an online pile on”. Which, quite possibly, is not technically feasible (at least not without requiring the major platforms to verify real-life identity). But making pile-ons illegal doesn’t fix your last point (i.e. how to agree upon the rules especially without throwing mud at each other).
I don’t think expansive laws will ever solve the whole problem. But something like adultery, for instance, is seen almost universally as morally wrong, but there’s no fine associated with it (in fact, there can actually financial benefit if you’re not the main breadwinner).
But yes, I do not think making laws more expansive is a good solution at all. I’m trying to signal my level of confidence by separating ideas into posts (proposals that I’ve thought about a lot and considered many alternatives) and questions (proposals that I’ve just loosely considered, and I’m asking for better alternatives).
You might be interested in reading Robin Hanson’s extended writings on this and similar subjects, for example here:
I agree with him that this solution is unlikely to satisfy people’s desire for cancel culture:
People engaging in cancellations enjoy doing so; they would not get this benefit from passively watching a court proceeding.
Court proceedings give defendants the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, present their own evidence, be judged by their peers, and so on, which increase their likelihood of being exonerated.
Often people are cancelled for activities that either were not a norm violation at the time, or are not in broader society, and hence would not be against the law.
Cancel culture allows a small number of crazy people to exert disproportionate influence because they care more; laws determined by the median voter would be and are much more moderate.
Engaging in a cancellation mob allows people to signal how woke they are; passively accepting an institutional process would not.
Enforcement through highly random bullying creates a climate of fear, where people aggressively self-censor to avoid falling anywhere near the line. Encoding this in law would allow people to say things that were just on the permitted side of the line without fear.
Because there is little logic to cancellation, allies and high status people can be exempted from punishment for the same behaviour which would be cancellably ‘creepy’ or ‘racist’ from others.
Laws can take many years to pass; cancellation mobs sometimes want to punish people for things that were not forbidden very recently.
Passing such laws would require them to be debated, and many of them might seem absurd. By instead only raising these rules in the context of individual transgressors, principled opposition can be dismissed as supporting the bad person.
It’s worth noticing that Hanson eventually proceeds to make an alternative suggestion, which is quite different from the suggestion in the OP.
I think that others have made similar suggestions.
Of course, the success on these kinds of informal courts entirely depends on whether they are seen as legitimate by relevant players.
Thanks for the link; I should read Overcoming Bias more. I liked Hanson’s Futarchy idea, specifically the idea of replacing the Fed with financial instruments (which I can no longer seem to find anywhere). (Though I think the idea of tying returns of a policy’s implementation to GDP+ is doomed for several technical reasons, including getting stuck at local maxima and a good policy choice being a losing bet because of unrelated policy failures). I think he probably influenced my prison and immigration idea, and really my whole methodology (along with Alvin Roth’s Who Gets What and Why).
For a few of the reasons you outlined, I wrote, “[people would also be fined] for the offence of participating in an online pile on”. Which, quite possibly, is not technically feasible (at least not without requiring the major platforms to verify real-life identity). But making pile-ons illegal doesn’t fix your last point (i.e. how to agree upon the rules especially without throwing mud at each other).
I don’t think expansive laws will ever solve the whole problem. But something like adultery, for instance, is seen almost universally as morally wrong, but there’s no fine associated with it (in fact, there can actually financial benefit if you’re not the main breadwinner).
But yes, I do not think making laws more expansive is a good solution at all. I’m trying to signal my level of confidence by separating ideas into posts (proposals that I’ve thought about a lot and considered many alternatives) and questions (proposals that I’ve just loosely considered, and I’m asking for better alternatives).