In a capitalist economy, companies are guided by profit (in theory; Cloudflare has yet to actually be profitable IIRC). If people manage to affect that, they will take notice.
For instance, if they don't like you, they report you to your employer. If your employer defends you, they attack your employer's relationships with their customers, suppliers, and employees.
Basically, cancel culture exploits social networks to force the submission of an opponent.
I think there's a line that most reasonable people can determine between "I disagree with $CURRENT_VIEW" and "I am against $PERSON_OF_CATEGORY existing." For example, frequently someone on Twitter will say things like, "calling for more bike lanes is ableist." I think - and am not afraid to have my name attached to this sentiment - that this is an absurd take. Every aspect of society cannot possibly serve everyone, but that doesn't mean we should fail to do something because a minority of that society can't participate. If the action actively harms that minority, then yes, close examination of it is warranted.
However, if your publicly stated opinion is that gay people shouldn't be allowed to be teachers, you deserve to be pilloried, because that opinion is harmful and without merit.
And who gets to decide what views are sufficiently shitty to deserve life ruination?
Please remember this post if someone ever decides that something you said now means that you qualify for it.
If someone disagrees with me on, say, whether or not the USG should subsidize EV manufacturers, I wouldn't expect a 3rd party to call either side of that debate deserving of, well, anything. However, when someone holds an opinion that $GROUP is less deserving of x _due solely to their existence, not their choices,_ I expect that opinion to be questioned.
Also, it's very possible to be wrong on the internet, be corrected, and become a better person without having your life ruined. I used to be somewhat of a troll. Not 4chan level, but I was definitely a crueler person than I was in real life. Someone once had the patience to engage me in questions, I realized what I was doing was harmful or at least not helpful, and I stopped the behavior.
Obviously there is always a "but my beliefs" aspect, but I believe that these arguments can be ethically reduced to "do not harm others, unless in the defense of others."
For example, murder is arguably ethically wrong. However, at least in most states in the U.S., you are allowed to murder someone if they are themselves attempting to murder you, or someone else. Taken further, if I was on a jury, and the defendant had murdered someone who had severely harmed their child - for instance, rape - I would have no qualms about finding them not guilty, even if the murder had occurred days or weeks after the first crime. I'm fully aware that this is illegal, but I don't consider it ethically wrong. If you're curious, I do consider the death penalty to be wrong, because I don't believe the state has the right to take life. Whether or not these two views are incongruous I don't know; it makes sense in my head.
On a more relevant level, I believe that teenagers are able to determine things like "I am gay," or "I have gender dysphoria." I also understand that I am not a doctor, and defer to the American Medical Association, who has stated[0] that:
> It is imperative that transgender minors be given the opportunity to explore their gender identity under the safe and supportive care of a physician.
Given that, I assert that the beliefs KF members have espoused are the ones that are harmful, should not be encouraged, and should be actively discouraged.
[0] https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-sta...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
When you let that percolate for a bit, you get to, "Treat others only in such a way as you yourself are alright with being treated.
Your self-defense example resonates with this way of life, as the person seeking to do you harm has telegraphed they are fine with you reacting in kind.
You cannot just murder anyone, as if no one is engaging in you, the idea is that one best should reciprocate only in kind. Most moral systems pre Kantian Categorical Imperative, are crippled by not being able to justify being moral as an end in and of itself just from the tenets within the system itself.
I would not, under the categorical imperative, censure either group in this case, as I am not willing to accept mob justice as something I am comfortable being applicable to me. Both parties, however, have have demonstrated that they are willing to accept being treated in that manner through their actions, though Transwomen moreso at this point than the users of KF. KF has merely existed.
Therefore, at this point, any follower of the Categorical Imperative can engage in mob/vigilante justice against either Transwomen/KF with clear conscience, as it has veen clearly evinced, that is how they wish to be dealt with, and this doesn't taint not engaging in mob justice/vigilantism against anyone else, as it is always the first mover that sets the level on which the interaction takes place.
It's where the Golden Rule "Treat others as you would have them do unto you" stems from.
https://twitter.com/lizthegrey/status/1566301416917856256?t=...
"Those people," and myself, view KF and their ilk as harmful to society. What exactly do you suggest should be accepted if not victory?
> file lawsuits
And here a glaring issue with this approach is apparent. Even _if_ the harassers meet the criteria for law-breaking, anonymity and civil suits having the burden of proof be on the plaintiff make this extremely difficult. I can think of any number of defenses, starting with "Someone guessed my WiFi password / took over my forum account."
It is far easier to pressure companies to de-platform hate than to individually find and file suit against the harassers.
Deplatforming using Twitter pressure is a terrifying tactic that tosses out the rulebook and replaces it with a popularity contest.
It's bullshit.
"Boycott" comes from the last name of Charles Boycott. Protesters threatened and beat up people that worked with him, threatened shops not to sell to him, and ramped up to such a point that it cost more for the police to defend his harvest than the harvest was worth. His blacksmith was threatened with murder, and a 12 year old carrying his mail was threatened not to keep doing it. It was definitely not a polite "Oh, we don't buy from this particular guy" stand.
Now I'm not saying that threatening people is a good thing. What I am saying is that this narrative of that once upon a time people were civilized and suddenly this new "cancel culture" thing get everything out of whack is fiction. If anything, the past was a scarier and a rougher place, because if somebody stopped you in the middle of a rural road and threatened you, there were no cameras and no recording devices.
Primary boycott: I buy from you now, but you did something bad and now I don't like you and refuse to purchase your goods/services anymore. I'm going to campaign for my friends to not buy from you either.
Secondary boycott: I don't buy from you directly, but I don't like who you work with or sell to, don't associate with them. If you don't stop my friends and I will hurt you
In some jurisdictions, secondary boycotts are illegal, usually as a measure to prevent unions applying muscle to people tangentially related to a core business.
I'm not sure of the legal status of these things in the mess of jurisdictions involved in this controversy, though.
This is, if I recall, the same legislation that normally outlawed "unfair" practices in Capital/Labor relations, which included making illegal blacklisting, wildcat strikes, secondary striking, retaliation, etc...
Every boycott has detractors; if those detractors are too numerous, the boycott fails. Boycotts are marketing campaigns like everything else in the world.
> In a capitalist economy, companies are guided by profit (in theory; Cloudflare has yet to actually be profitable IIRC). If people manage to affect that, they will take notice.
The point is to observe which direction this pressures companies to lean towards, and what this says about who holds grassroots or institutional power at any given time.