Lately, on social media, the term “cancellation“, Used to designate a kind of boycott of artists, brands or people, who do not express their opinion, comment on any kind of injury or prejudice or simply have different opinions from the large concordant mass.
In great evidence in recent years, the cancellation appeared with the internet entering a new phase, in which the web is more used to debate social and political agendas.
With a generation of more socially engaged users, certain attitudes and speeches emitted by artists and politicians, who a few years ago would have been beaten before the great mass, have been taking great proportions on the web.
It is evident that the country is experiencing a period of bipolarity of ideas, on the one hand those who value conservatism and on the other those who value the freedom and visibility of minorities. With the intense demand from the public, the positioning of artists and influencers became vital for the permanence and support of a large part of those who follow through social networks.
As a result, several artists with controversial opinions and attitudes were “canceled” by a large part of the Internet users, that is, suffering a certain type of boycott and, in theory, having songs not on the radio and broken contracts.
In theory, cancellation seems to be a great alternative to complain, as it offers minorities a form of protest to those who do not offer any support and are consumed by themselves, however, given the reality, it can be observed that this new form of a boycott exists only in this social bubble called the internet, in which several users criticize such an artist or brand.
However, the large mass outside the bubble still consumes in the same way, only causing an uproar without any impact, because, in a country where jokes, songs and films still offensive to minorities are still being made, it can be seen that they continue to be made, because most still consume.
A great example of a failed cancellation is that of the singer Anitta, who in 2018 suffered enormous pressure from Internet users to take a stand against the bipolarization of the population in the elections and, for not taking a stand immediately, suffered rejection and attempted boycott by the internet which, in turn, did not succeed, since the following year the singer made several hits on the charts in Brazil and obtained more than 1 billion on Spotify.
Another great example is the 20th edition of the program Big Brother Brazil, in which it was elected by many as a historical edition. The program brought different participants who, over the course of 3 months, suffered rejection for lines and / or attitudes that were not seen by the public, which led to the cancellation of all the Brothers. However, without success, since most participants (even those accused of serious crimes) sporadically increased their number of followers on the networks and the program broke audience records and votes, with 32.7 in April, and more than 1 billion votes. Proving, once again, the inefficiency of cancellation without awareness.
With that, it can be seen that cancellation is the most inefficient form of protest on the networks, since there is no point in boycotting the internet if the large mass still consumes, and that users are trapped in a social bubble, in which all problems are solved when the unfollow is conceived and the “twitterers on duty” do a virtual lynching lasting a day and a week, until the act of “canceled” falls into oblivion, continuing this vicious cycle. Proving that most internet users remain alienated and unaware of the world behind their cell phone screens.