Oleh: Romaldus Suwataton (Mahasiswa Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Unika Santu Paulus Ruteng-Prodi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris)
In the digital era, social media has changed the way society responds to behavior that sparks controversy. One phenomenon that has emerged is Cancellation culture, which is a collective action when internet users stop terminating individuals or institutions deemed guilty.
Cancel culture is often seen as a means of demanding accountability for victims, especially when the legal system or institutions are unable to provide an effective response.
However, this phenomenon can also turn into collective bullying in cyberspace, which damages image and mental health without sufficient verification or dialogue.
In some situations, cancel culture acts as a form of public responsibility. For example, Indonesian dangdut singer Saipul Jamil was sentenced in 2016 by the North Jakarta District Court for sexually abusing a teenage boy.
After gaining freedom from prison in 2021, his efforts to return to the world of entertainment invited firm rejection from society. More than 500,000 supporters were collected in a petition, and the hashtag #BoycottSaipulJamil became popular on social media.
As reported by the Tempo report, a number of television stations also canceled plans for his appearance. Although the legal system has produced decisions, pressure from society shows concern about the normalization of sexual violence against children.
In this situation, cancel culture can strengthen social responsibility when society believes that the justice implemented is still inadequate.
On the other hand, cancel culture can also turn into mass bullying in cyberspace, especially when allegations circulate before verification. One striking example is the case of Gofar Hilman, a broadcaster and automotive influencer from Indonesia.
In June 2021, a Twitter user claimed that he had committed sexual harassment that allegedly took place in 2018. The allegations soon spread virally, triggering a wave of criticism, loss of cooperation with many brands, and major reputational damage.
However, in February 2022, the accusing party issued a clarification and public apology stating that the accusations were inaccurate and based only on personal imagination. As reported by a report from Tirto.id, the issue was finally resolved peacefully without any legal action.
Even though there was an explanation, this incident had already had an impact on Gofar Hilman’s career and public reputation. This case shows how cancel culture can develop into online group behavior that leaves almost no room for verification, defense, or the opportunity to right wrongs.
These two different examples reflect the complex nature of cancel culture. On the one hand, this phenomenon can strengthen victims’ voices and encourage institutions to act. But on the other hand, cancel culture also has the potential to encourage people’s hasty judgment.
Social media often values quick responses more highly than in-depth analysis, making the distinction between legitimate criticism and personal attacks blurry. As a result, a person can experience severe reputational damage even before the full facts are revealed.
In summary, cancel culture shows both the potential and the dangers of engagement in the digital world.
This phenomenon can be a way to seek accountability, but it can also escalate into dangerous online bullying if fueled by unverified information. Therefore, digital communities must move from a “cancel” culture to a more responsible culture of accountability.
This involves ensuring the correctness of information before making judgments, encouraging positive criticism instead of personal attacks, and also providing opportunities for dialogue and learning from mistakes.
With these principles, public criticism can continue to function well without transforming into a destructive digital crowd.
