No matter the apology of the mistake, those who demand them to apologise will still reject it and push further for calls for the accused to be cancelled. The replies and amplifications will divert into real life instead of Twitter.
Which is to say, when you have a medium like Twitter, where the entire world can march in and get involved with conversation X, a proposal for de-escalation seems futile and a bit absurd. Among other things, a lot of media personalities have built their engagement by not letting go of opportunities for kicking whoever when they are down - giving this up would literally cost them money.
It seems like plans for de-escalation would do much better in situations where the participants are actually building a community, a group sharing values, a part of a reasonable forum/medium, not a stand-alone thing.
They can do this but they no longer have plausible deniability, since they're attacking something that the other user has unambiguously disclaimed. They'll just look like a loser who is obviously not acting in good faith.
It's either a tribal thing ("I can hurt the other tribe if I hurt that individual because they are part of the other tribe") or purity signalling ("Look, I am clean and virtuous, and I purge even our circle from the unclean").
The tribal thing is somewhat reasonable from a collective stand point (which is why groups tend to look at their members' differently than the actions of competing groups), the purity spiralling is counter-productive in the larger conflict, as you're hurting your own group, but individuals have individual interests as well, and to advance those, they may be happy to sacrifice allies.
People model behavior every day on Twitter. If people only see or recall others kicking people when they're down, that's what people will expect is the norm, and this will sway future behavior. If there are tools that offer alternatives, then we can alter those norms, and make change among the many people not at the extremes, swaying them toward more productive and respectful discourse.
That's true tautologically in the sense that different people follow different things and interests tend to cluster. But Twitter doesn't have communities that can easily kick people out of their entire group, IE, the only enforcement comes from Twitter's own lax rules.
People model behavior every day on Twitter.
Sure, on average. But determined person, say a troll, is in no way constrained to model anyone's behavior. That's kind of general problem of bullies - most people model the average and bully does what they want, so the average moves towards the bully over time.
Agree that's a problem, it puts a limit on how close a community can be if it solely relies on Twitter to operate (rather than on their own online or in-person fora). This is one rather legitimate reason for cancelling - its a way for communities to excise members they do not want in the community, using the rules of social engagement available to them on the platform. Cancelled people may still have accounts and be able to interact in other groups of people in the broader twittersphere, but largely become pariahs in the communities they are a part of on twitter. This is why cancelling on twitter is not uniformly a bad thing, it is simply a way for communities to maintain some level of cohesion and shared values within the rules available to them.
As far as trolls, yes that behavior will always exist to some extent online. Mea Culpa is just one way to improve discourse, not a complete solution. The issue in public fora like Twitter is that these types of personalities tend to have outsized impacts on the community, and that's still a problem to solve.
If you consider social interactions, they can be described as an interaction where signal is identified against noise - given a specific context. Its natural then for a context to exist such that the signal and noise are inverted, or neutrality is lost.
Not everyone can afford a mea culpa.
That said this is precisely the kind of interesting dynamic that is worth testing out to see what sort of affordance it creates, and how the medium changes to incorporate mea culpas.
On the flip side, I have never, ever seen an impactful apology that was extracted by demands. Such demanded apology is usually a punishment. Call it by what it is -- flogging (that strong inflict on the week). My 2c.
Would you happen to know what this refers to?
[edit: E.g see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_activity_in_the_British...]
And if there is no audience beyond a person you think is fighting instead of debating, then why reply?
This is not an apology.
You should not have to apologise for mistakes.
This is part of the problem, it's ok to make mistakes and most mistakes don't need an apology.
Meaningful apologies can be easily found via the search engine of your choice, "How to apologize" brings up lots of hits. The thing they all have in common though is an acknowledgement (in one form or another) that the person apologizing was legitimately in the wrong, and that they will endeavor to not do that again.
It's that last bit that is important. It's not sufficient for a company to apologize for dumping oil in the ocean or a person apologize for using a racist term. A real apology acknowledges harm caused, and shows how the entity apologizing will rectify past harm and prevent future harm.
This is why, in my opinion, at least, so few apologies legitimately improve anyone's standing. It's not that "cancel culture needs heads", it's just that people expect to say, "I'm sowwy", rub their toes in the dirt, and be let off the hook without doing anything to really undo the harm caused. People rarely even acknowledge the harm they cause, let alone do anything about it, in these so-called apologies.
So no: people who demand apologies don't just reject them after they're given. It's just that most of the time, the apology is meaningless.
One of the things I think about most in design, especially in design of social products, is limiting self-sabotage. This is because there's really significant emotional risk in social systems of feelings like being exposed, misunderstood, etc.
This is why I favored the approach of not including a Follow-up or further explanations. It makes the choice Mea Culpa very simple, favoring cooling off of conflict over continued debate. Basically people can go back in their corners and think about things, and figure out how to approach things again later if they choose. It is an intentional choice to favor respectful debate over maximal information exchange, acknowledging the medium's tendency to escalate conflict and the presence of many bad faith actors.
Also note this feature does not take the place of the apologies you're talking about, it just offers an acknowledgment of mistake and an opportunity to forgive.
Appeasing bullies doesn't work. They want to see you squirm and beg, because it's fun make someone grovel before you. The object-level discussion is secondary.
Some people call this dichotomy good and bad faith, right?
EG. A Manager who pressured people into sexual favors for promotions should lose the job of being a manager.
Yes, my preferences may include that some people should lose their jobs. But in my case, I think it should only be when that manager is convicted in court, not when someone or some mob) accuses them on twitter. And, actually, if they really did something bad- then let the legal system punish and rehabilitate them!
And then don't try and stop them from ever having a job again. Aren't we liberal? Aren't we meant to be for rehabilitation rather than emotion-based punishment? Restorative justice? Or does all that go out the window if you're not politically useful?
I haven't personally observed this nor have I witnessed studies about it. Could you link to me anything like that? I've seen people who have credibly discussed their abuses on twitter and people apologize. Criticism of the apologies are often 1) it is incomplete, 2) it is a non-apology, 3) it has not be followed up with action.
I haven't myself seen criticism outside of these things, which are valid critiques and not the sort of overdramatic spectacle you're describing. But I think it's valid that I just am in different circles than you, so I'm curious if you could educate me about this.
(Additionally, the legal system is inadequate to address nuanced power structures. Rape, sexual assault, and being a creep are extremely hard to gain redress for, and often make victims blacklisted from the industry. Why are we concerned about the careers of people who do bad things, and not concerns about the careers of people who are their victims? The victims often struggle to find work or are completely blacklisted from their industry.)
It turns out that Twitter mobs sometimes do not have the most discerning standards of evidence.
Also, I'm pretty sure you'd have a very different reaction to someone arguing against criminal justice reform on the grounds of "why are we concerned with the welfare of people who do bad things?"
The public is utterly bombarded with claims that this or that person or group was wrong or did wrong with respect to something or another.
It's extremely difficult to sort out which of these allegations are true or false. Unless you admit fault, then its obvious to everyone.
This also explains why both sides commonly feel victimized. Each only sees reasonable people on their side and not vicious extremists because they don't hang out with the vicious extremists and the extremists on their side are out victimizing the other side and not them. But they can see the extremists on the other side when they come to attack.