Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Mini-Conference
Browse By Division
Browse By Session or Event Type
Browse Sessions by Fields of Interest
Browse Papers by Fields of Interest
Search Tips
Conference
Location
About APSA
Personal Schedule
Change Preferences / Time Zone
Sign In
While there is disagreement over the severity of the “cancel culture epidemic,” scholars and practitioners largely agree that digital technologies like social media change are changing the dynamics of public shaming in ways that can easily blur the line between accountability and harassment. But in framing these discussions in terms of the desirability of online public shaming—whether we shame for the right reasons or not—I argue we largely overlook the question of whether online public shaming works. While there is a consensus that the scale of social media is to blame for "cancel culture run amok," I argue instead that public shaming's success depends on social organization.
Drawing from the work of Christina Tarnopolsky, among others, I argue that public shaming is effective—and democratically valuable—when it occurs within a specific context: a well-defined, self-conscious community of peers. With this in mind, I then analyze a number of high-profile cases of online public shaming on Twitter—especially those of Amy Cooper and Justine Sacco—to show how the platform’s lack of community ties led these “cancellations” to be ineffective. Online public shaming often fails, in other words, not because of the scale but because of the lack of community on many high-profile social media platforms. I conclude the paper by turning to examples from Reddit and Wikipedia to suggest how we might design digital platforms that afford more effective public shaming campaigns.