Across the media, people argue about whether or not cancel culture is effective, leading many to the question of, “What is cancel culture?” In my opinion, cancel culture is a term used on social media that describes how users remove, ignore or no longer interact with a creator or influencer because of words they have said or actions they have taken. In many cases, cancel culture begins when a large group of people spread information about an offending influencer and their actions. Common examples I’ve seen include celebrities getting canceled for saying slurs or causing harm to a community, resulting in them facing backlash and posting explanations or apologies. Canceling someone is typically supposed to have a good intention of limiting the negative impact that a problematic influencer can cause. However, in recent years, I’ve observed a change in how cancel culture has been used and interpreted. From what I’ve noticed, people either see cancel culture as harmful because of the extent to which hate comments can take an excessive toll on a creator’s mental health, or useful, as it forces them to take accountability for their actions.
One of the ways I find that cancel culture can be too extensive is when fans don’t forgive creators because they tend to hold grudges or don’t believe the apologies, leading to the influencers receiving continued hate. When those situations come up, I often wonder what the intentions of canceling the creator were. Was the purpose to have them reflect, or be wiped off the internet?
Unfortunately, I fear that now, creators are also getting canceled just because people don’t agree with them, such as with Clara Dao, a social media creator on TikTok and Instagram known for spreading body positivity. After Dao received a cosmetic procedure in March 2025, her fans unleashed their anger on her through hate comments, claiming that she didn’t take her own advice. Despite the fact that her personal procedure had no intention of harming her viewers and Dao was open about why she got the surgery, her viewers disregarded her feelings and explanation, with many making videos promoting a mass unfollowing of her.
Today, I’ve seen that Dao still gets hate comments about her body. Her viewers most likely did watch her explanation—a 12-part series talking about her cosmetic surgery and reasonings behind it—with a narrow view instead of trying to understand her decision, which I think is unreasonable. I don’t understand the logic in hating on an individual if they caused no direct or indirect harm to their community and followers. Although some people have forgiven her since this incident, she lost around 500,000 followers in the immediate wake of her procedure and, as of March 2026, has three million followers on TikTok.
Despite the obvious effects of cancel culture, I’ve interestingly seen various TikToks where people claim that it no longer exists, while others completely disagree. People who don’t believe cancel culture exists anymore point towards a cycle: a creator is canceled but regains popularity once people decide they are relevant again. James Charles, for example, was canceled for controversially associating with minors multiple times in 2020. However after a couple years, he gained relevancy again because of his tendency to continue staying up-to-date with trends and people seeing him as an “icon”. Usually, canceled influencers resurface after a while because they attempt to stay validated by acting as if nothing happened. From what I have seen, the creators that do this tend to be the ones that haven’t taken accountability for what they did and the harm they caused. I call this being willfully blind, and I don’t think it’s right to ignore what they have done and move on. I suppose in this way, cancel culture doesn’t always work.
The effectiveness of cancel culture also relies on the unity of viewers who decide to stop supporting someone. In my opinion, people carrying the same opinion and being easily persuaded existed until a few years ago, but I no longer see it as much today.
Another idea I’ve noticed circulating is that the people in control are the viewers and followers. The act of canceling someone gives viewers the feeling of power, as if they are social activists backed by a large community. If that was the case, many creators wouldn’t regain their popularity and become relevant again. I have seen that when people get canceled, they have a higher chance of gaining all their followers back when their mistakes are forgotten. It’s all about the algorithm and if a temporarily canceled influencer participates in relevant trends or activities.
Frequently, celebrities are unaware that their harmful action would be harmful in the first place, as is the case with influencers who are canceled for saying racial slurs. TikTok creators Benny, Isa Escu, Nidal Wonder, Saidee Nelson and Mena Lux are all popular examples of this.
Isa Escu has been canceled twice for saying the N-word. The first time Escu got canceled was in Jan. 2024, and the second time was in Dec. 2024. When she posted her apology, she claimed that she had no intention of harming anyone as she grew up in a region in Florida where it was normal to say it. There was no deliberate racism behind her saying the N-word, and she meant it in a way similar to “bro” or “dude”. Escu faced comments full of hate in response, but I believe it would have been more productive to use the situation as an opportunity to educate her on the history of the slur and why it should not be used. After all of this hate, Isa said the N-word the second time. This could have happened because she wasn’t properly educated on why she shouldn’t have used the word but was instead extensively hated for it, or because her reasoning was an excuse in the first place and she was never genuinely sorry. Escu lost a couple thousand followers, but as of March 2026, still has over two million followers on TikTok. There is still a lot of back and forth between fans on if her apologies were truly genuine, with numerous hate comments still targeting her for her mistakes.
Cierra Ortega is another example of celebrities not intending on being offensive with their actions. Ortega was a former Season 7 “Love Island” star who was kicked off in the middle of the season in the summer of 2025. The reason for her dismissal was due to an old Instagram story she posted in 2024, where she had used a derogatory slur towards Asians when talking about her eyes. After she was eliminated from the show, Ortega made a video regarding her offensive choice of words, insisting that she had no idea it was a slur but wanted to take accountability anyway. Many of the people who saw her video still refused to move on and the hate became extreme. Viewers of “Love Island” would reach out to the Ortega family with threats, some even calling ICE on them, which I personally think is insane. Before this incident, I was unaware of how far viewers would go to show their lack of support for something they said or did. I think the best and safest way to respond to this is to not send threats or attack the influencer or their family, but instead, just not interact with them.
I find that Ortega’s situation had another level to it as well. Since the discovery of her slur came much after she began the show, I believe that some viewers had started to dislike her and thus investigated Ortega’s digital footprint to find a reason to instigate hate on her. No one would have known about this if she was a fan-favorite. The origins of her hate demonstrate another fallacy in cancel culture, with many viewers using their personal and not objective view to cancel someone.
Haters and spectators with similar behavior to this is the main reason why creators second guess talking about their opinion. Personally, I would be afraid to speak about what I support or disagree with because either way, I could be resented by people with the opposite belief. Creators on TikTok may even argue that personalized algorithms on social media have created users who are too soft and sensitive to the point that they cannot hear anyone’s opinion if it doesn’t align with their beliefs, which is an ignorant way of thinking. Social media should be a place where you are able to use your freedom of speech without harming anyone and getting hate because of what you believe. Unless an opinion is harmful or derogatory, everyone should have the freedom to state their opinion or perspective without being worried.
Ultimately, I think “cancel culture” can be both helpful and harmful depending on the situation. I believe that the motive of canceling someone should be to force them to take accountability of their actions, then later, forgive them when they genuinely learn from their past mistakes. In any scenario, it is not necessary to send threats or take it to the extremes, which I find to be the worst part of it. Whether someone says a slur or does something I disagree with, I find it much more mature and peaceful to just no longer engage with them or watch their content. From forcing people to take unauthentic accountability, to causing excessive hate towards a human being or creating limits on people’s freedom of speech, I believe that cancel culture isn’t as effective as it’s claimed to be. Instead, it teaches temporary lessons that don’t create lasting peace. However, I still think it’s important to call someone out for wrong or harmful behavior, but to do so in calm ways. Canceling someone has a line, and it lies between hate and defense.
