No, initially he refused to apologize, then he withdrew from the hosting gig, then he actually apologized, more than once.

Had he just apologized when the academy first brought up the issue, he could have gone right on with hosting. As it was, he pulled out of the deal because he didn't want to be a distraction.

You say Kevin Hart "got cancelled", yet he's still working on a Jumanji sequel, another film called Fatherhood and has been in commercials since the Oscars.

It seems like you're gravely overestimating how much power angry people on Twitter have.

Cancel culture may be running out of steam, but did Kevin Hart or whomever else know ex ante (meaning right after the scandal outbreak) what they were going to face.

As it stands now outcomes vary wildly. Some people like Kevin Spacey were literally erased from movies that were already filmed; some others have just claimed back their place (maybe not their peak fame) on their own like Louis CK. And then there are neutral outcomes like the one you mention.

And then there's Jussie Smollett who isn't a sex situation but was caught in, uh, something that's not a good look.

> And then there's Jussie Smollett who isn't a sex situation but was caught in, uh, something that's not a good look.

He was caught framing innocent white men for hate crimes. He was going to send people to prison to boost his 'clout'. It's not just 'something'. It was a vile crime

(Sarcasm.)

> You say Kevin Hart "got cancelled", yet he's still working on a Jumanji sequel

> "got cancelled"

> Jumanji sequel

A part on the sequel to a reboot of a mediocre 90s movie? WOOO living the dream!

The reboot made 960 million dollars. You could argue about artistic merit of reboots and sequels, but he'll be getting a hefty paycheck for these.

Indeed. Those who apologize must submit to a struggle session.

There was actually an article on HN recently about just this: executives who retained their position or high status (regardless of employer) despite "scandal" did not admit fault. Those that did never recovered.

Even from a law perspective many lawyers will advise against apologizing[1] to a victim because the apology can be used as evidence of guilt in a civil case. I think it works the same way for most situations including online mobs.

—Adding this to expound on what DanBC writes.

[1] Goes on to explain that this varies by jurisdiction and many have passed laws protecting apologizers.

[1]https://accidentlawyerhenderson.com/is-saying-im-sorry-an-ad...

For any English people reading this in England: this advice is both wrong and harmful. If you've done something wrong you're allowed to apologise. You're not admitting liability and it doesn't open you up to further legal action. Not apologising may in fact increase damages against you.

I don't know how other jurisdictions handle this.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/29/section/2

> Apologies, offers of treatment or other redress

> An apology, an offer of treatment or other redress, shall not of itself amount to an admission of negligence or breach of statutory duty.

This is especially true if you're a healthcare professional or work in a healthcare organisation. Your professional registration tells you to apologise; your organisations registration body tells them and you to apologise; your medical defence body tells you to apologise; a bunch of arms-length bodies are clear that you need to apologise if you do something wrong.

> If you've done something wrong you're allowed to apologise.

mc32 wasn't saying an apology will increase damages, just that it is often seen as an admission of guilt. In some places (e.g. Canada) an apology is not a sign of guilt. But you seem to be saying something different?