(Also this is only tangentially related but why is being prude a bad thing? I had a female friend in high school that would get insulted for being too prude. I don't think people really realize the way these concepts get applied in reality. People are allowed to be prude just as they're allowed to be libertines.)

There isn't? Are there not people calling for someone to be fired/resign because of some action they did?

Nobody’s calling the shots here… nobody went and decided “aim the twitter outrage cannon at Joe Rogan, he ran afoul of the Cancel Culture and must atone.” It’s just a phenomenon that happens due to the tendency of humans on social media to amplify outrage rather than ignore it.

The idea that nobody organizes to push around political muscle seems pretty naive, like suggesting that there are no guerilla ads on reddit.

It extends far beyond social media.

This is a great analogy.

Rupert Murdoch, on the other hand, has a history of running news at a loss to push his angle.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jun/11/rupert-murdoch...

That's not my claim. I'm claiming that if you actually watch CNN, they tend to literally put a camera to a big computer monitor and show you a bunch of people's tweets. I'm not talking about bias/etc here, I'm talking about how they literally feature tweets as part of their news coverage.

Of the typical stories on CNN that one would qualify as "cancel culture", they typically go something like: "<Celebrity A> said a controversial thing on Twitter! Let's take a look at some of the reactions..." etc etc. Their coverage seems to be focused on "what do the people think of X", all the damned time. Yes, this makes CNN quite useless as a news organization.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/style/starbucks-gay-agend...