Is this cancel culture?
The fact that Reddit had to have known about her background no later than 3/9, when special protections were put in place, complicates this.
It's possible that they were just taking time to get their (legal) ducks in a row before firing her. I've seen that happen, where a coworker who was creeping on younger female coworkers had his desk moved, and was only let go a month later.
Or maybe Reddit thought it was a great idea to have her as an employee given her background, and only fired her when it became a big deal. In that case it would be a cancellation.
It sounds like they put the same protections in place for other people. Reddit job descriptions promise pseudonymity protection too.[1]
[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20210325002519/https://boards.gre...
An organization vetted me to work with children. No one asked about my parents or people I hired.
This is a consequence for past actions. If you are involved in the kind of things this employee was involved with then you deserve no right to being employed by a private company and certainly no right to have others ignore that in their interactions or discussion of you.
Can't you say that about anything and anyone though?
Every instance of someone being "cancelled" is really just the "consequence" of their past actions.
In this case...I don't think someone who has definitive links to pedophilia and already been kicked out of two organizations for those links probably shouldn't be employed in a position at Reddit where they are working with youth.
Should she never get a job again ever? No! But probably not one with children or youth...
I think that's a much more interesting question than another to and fro about cancel culture.
This is exactly how people justify cancel culture and/or cancelling others.
Before anyone downvotes as they did to OP, I am in no way shape or form defending the person of interest. But unfortunately, this is what cancel culture is; there's no reason to redefine it.
Yet if you look at Reddit's homepage, you'd think she was the one charged with child rape.
If she was a software engineer or working on marketing, I would not advocate for her to be removed from reddit.
Much of the controversy is that this was an admin with control over subreddits which there is clear public information that perhaps they aren't best suited for.
Do I think someone associated with a pedophile should be treated like a pedophile? No.
Our justice system and legal ethics certainly don't believe in a transitivity of guilt like that. We'd consider that extremely unfair. In my eyes, a large component of cancel culture is when we ignore all that because we like the result.
It wasn't just someone in her extended friend circle or a passing acquaintance.
I think she shouldn't be treated as a pedophile. I think she should be treated warily in positions that involve youth. That feels like a pretty reasonable concern.
These statements don't square. Barring them from employment isn't just wariness.
Hiring her pedo dad is definitely a bad choice for a political campaign and it looks bad. That's different than: can't be trusted alone in a room with a child or can't be trusted to run a forum.
If this comes up as public information and we know that Facebook was aware of it, yes I’d rightfully be angry. Making a bad argument here I think.
That is why it's not public information. See how it only matters when it's public? Product managers certainly aren't responsible for the actions of others, either. Social media moderation is not a task many are willing to take, certainly one that some badly behaved individuals might be interested in.
Do I think someone who once hired a pedophile should be treated like one? No. Does the law or legal ethics think so? No.
I prefer a society where we make this distinction and give people the benefit of the doubt just like our legal ethics do.
No, I am not being tongue-in-cheek in an attempt to catch somebody out on hypocrisy (though I do believe many people are extremely hypocritical on this topic). Apologies - let me be more clear: I am not implicitly asking, "is this a case of cancel culture producing a good outcome", nor, "is this a case of cancel culture producing a bad outcome". I am not using the term "cancel culture" as a synonym for "unjust social punishment". I am asking: Is this an example of cancel culture, and, if not, what is the distinction? (And don't worry, I'm not stubbornly requiring an objective distinction in the shape of a formal argument, since this is a very subjective topic.)
I appreciate your opinion, but you're expressing it very generically - you're just saying she deserved her consequences, which is fine, and I agree, but are you saying you believe that whether or not the consequences are "deserved" or "just" is the primary/only distinction between cancel culture and "normal" social consequences?
Edit: As others have pointed out, I picked this topic not just because it's a case of social consequences, but also because it has other, more specific hallmarks of what is typically labeled "cancel culture". That is: The crime leaned more toward morality and social damage vs concrete actions; guilt by association; and a sexual topic.
People get "cancelled" when a large enough group of people think someone has done something wrong.
It just happens to be the case here that the group is very large, but it's fundamentally no different to other cases where people have been "cancelled".
This person has a demonstrative history that supports sex crimes against children (see: supporting her father, supporting her partner). This person is/was in a position to influence what was seen by children (a mod for /teen) on a website that links to gore and porn.
If this person was a software engineer - I wouldn't care.
If this person was my babysitter- I would care.
This person moderates content on r/teen - I care.
I think it's definitely an example of cancelling, but for me, as a pejorative, cancel culture is when cancelling isn't justified. I just learned of this person's existence today, so I'm not really informed, but I think the argument that "someone who has seemed permissive of pedophilia and child-rape on multiple occasions should not be in charge of administrating a forum that is used by young people" is pretty compelling. Because I think cancelling is justified, I don't think it's cancel culture. Of course, one implication of this definition is that people who support someone's cancellation will never think they're engaging in cancel culture.
The best case would be for reddit (and others) to have actual convictions and be able to articulate them. If there's some reason why this person shouldn't be fired reddit could make that case and stand by their employee. If there is no such reason reddit shouldn't have hired this person in the first place.
That's what cancel culture is... Retribution for past actions, not justice for current ones.
I think removing this person from employment in a role that involves youth/children given their past actions and associations seems like a reasonable reaction, NOT "cancel culture"
This sounds like the Cultural Revolution.
Not defending her other actions re. her husband, but the thing with her father isn’t so bad given her age, given he was still legally innocent (note: he was later convicted), and given how common it is for children to maintain relationships with terrible parents in prison.
I’m not going to pick a side overall, really, but I think a lot of people assume she was an adult during all of this.
Ok, so to be clear, it's "a consequence for past actions" when you know what's going on and agree, but "cancel culture" when you are out of the loop or when you disagree.
Make no mistake, i have no views on this person, and had never heard of them until this thing showed up. I also vehemently disapprove of the way reddit handled it (censorship? No!) And will always be up to giving reddit a bloody nose over the crap they do.
But make no mistake this is cancel culture, and this has wide reaching implications.
Come now lets be honest here...
Especially not when Reddit admins can likely see private correspondence between users and can definitely see personally identifying information about them.
Cancel culture is a powerful weapon. Like all weapons, it does not care where it is pointed. It can be used both for good or for ill. We ignore that characteristic at our peril.
(Obligatory disclaimer: I have no opinion on the person at the center of this and do not particularly care to form an informed opinion. I am more interested in this on the societal-level than the this-incident level.)
I think the difference is that in my mind cancel culture is "we need to remove this person because they did/said/think something I don't like" whereas this is "we need to remove this person because they might pose a very real danger in this position based on their past behavior"
Cancel culture is indiscriminate. It punishes people for having the wrong ideas or saying the wrong things regardless of whether or not people are in any situation to cause harm with those things. People get fired from jobs as a waiter at Denny's because of cancel culture. It is a punitive measure meant to punish the transgression.
As a society we already have an understanding that some positions are important, they contain authority that makes them open for abuse. Things like elected office, teaching, anything where you have authority over more vulnerable populations. We also have an understanding that there are things that disqualify you from those sorts of positions.
We also understand that sometimes people who should have been disqualified end up in those positions. When their disqualifiers are brought to light, we tend to agree it is reasonable to remove them from those positions, essentially disqualifying them retroactively. This approach is preventative not punitive and I think it's distinct from cancel culture in that regard.
I would argue that this is a case of the latter. She should never have been hired.
On the surface it looks like cancel culture because the outrage mob looks the same. Maybe some people are just motivated to cancel her. I think that's misguided, but calling for her removal is justified in this case not to punish past transgressions but to prevent future possible abuse.
As best I can tell, the paedophile she "has strong ties to" is her father. No?
The initial problem wasn't that the employee was hired, it was Reddit's heavy-handed filtering, censoring, and autobanning. Firing the employee doesn't fix the actual issue.
Between Reddit and the employee, there's stuff we don't know and won't ever know. Did he hide info during the hiring process, and so on. Maybe the firing was justified, maybe it wasn't. He was never charged or convicted of a crime, and the idea of continuously punishing him just because of suspicions or associating isn't right. On the other hand, I think it would have been sensible to Reddit to have avoided hiring him in the first place.
We might have to see whether the opprobrium spreads to future employment, social media accounts, and so on. That would definitely be cancellation, and wrong.
Also, isn't "everybody" incorrect given OPs statement?
Based on that, I think it was fair to say that they seemingly went out of their way to use the wrong pronouns. I did not, however, accuse them of being anti-transgender on that basis alone.
Clearly the voting disagrees with my observation, or simply agrees with mis-gendering Ms. Knight.
Having said that, I agree with you that OP may have intended to be mean. I've no idea though - perhaps it's better to be kinder and assume innocency than attacking OP? Or perhaps asking OP to clarify?
I'm not sure the down-voting implies an agreement with mis-gendering. To write that says a lot and I don't think many on hackerrews would agree.
Either way, would be easier to use the person's name in place of pronouns.