Photo by John Noonan on Unsplash

While cancel culture is a phenomenon often attributed to the left, I believe it’s ubiquitous, taking place on all sides. Dissenting against the dominant narrative can get you ostracized, fired, de-platformed, or worse, whether you violate standards of political correctness, speak out against Trump, or believe in a false god. Cancel culture is a problem for innumerable reasons, reinforcing groupthink and polarization while quashing diverse perspectives. This article lays out the game theoretic mechanics driving cancel culture, as understanding how it works is key to defeating it.

To begin, we must understand two concepts integral to cancel dynamics:

1. Pluralistic ignorance: Wrongly perceiving the minority position on a certain issue to be the majority position, or vice versa.
2. Preference falsification: Publicly altering what you believe to fit in with the crowd, e.g. lying or not speaking up to avoid being canceled.

Caving to False Majorities

A vicious chicken-egg cycle emerges here: People misdiagnose how many people subscribe to a particular view, and then alter their real views to conform to their idea of what others believe. For example, let’s say I have criticisms of Black Lives Matter, but to avoid being canceled, I won’t publicly broach my views in fear of retaliation. But what if the crowd secretly holds the same views that I do? Here is the trap: Withholding my criticisms of BLM signals to everyone else that I actually support BLM, which reinforces everyone else’s belief that everyone supports BLM. By not sharing what we really believe (preference falsification), we reinforce everyone else’s misperception of what everyone else believes (pluralistic ignorance). Everyone believes everyone supports BLM, which drives preference falsification, which feeds pluralistic ignorance, and on and on in a vicious cycle where all dissent is suppressed. Even if the cancel mob is purely imaginary (pluralistic ignorance) people act as if it’s real (preference falsification). Acting as if it’s real reinforces the belief that it really exists.

This is how the chilling effect from a small minority captures the behaviors of the dominant majority, giving birth to the “silent majority.”

Of course there are situations where the majority really will cancel you for a bad take; cancel mobs aren’t solely a product of PI/PF feedback loops. But understanding this is the first step to mobilizing against it.

Now let’s turn our attention to game theory, the study of strategic interdependence. Central to game theory is the prisoner’s dilemma. Prisoner dilemma traps (also known as multipolar traps) are quite common, and the general dynamic goes like this: if we all cooperate, we all benefit. But if I defect from cooperation, I win big and you lose. So we’re all incentivized to defect from cooperation and pursue strategies that maximize personal gains. But when we all pursue a self-maximizing strategy, we all lose, as collaboration dissolves into selfish pursuits.

Courageous Dissenters and Free Rider Militias

Cancel culture is a prisoner’s dilemma, a tragedy of the cultural commons. If we all speak out against something bad, we all win. However, no individual wants to broach that topic alone in fear of cancellation. So we all want to free-ride off the courageous dissent of a small number of people, hoping we will benefit from their dissent without us risking our own necks. But when everyone free-rides, no one speaks out. Which means we all lose, as the unreasonable mob, which may be a small minority, dominates the discourse. The community’s collective intelligence is hindered, leading to suboptimal outcomes from catering to extremes. We all become victims of the collective mob, whether real or imaginary.

Coordination is the key to overcoming the prisoner’s dilemma, as a critical mass is mobilized towards collective action. Thus, pluralistic ignorance can become pluralistic wisdom. So how is coordination achieved? First I must know what others truly believe. There are several ways this can come about. On a smaller scale, such as a workplace, confidential meetings can be held to probe into the genuine beliefs of others. Once “common knowledge,” or the knowledge that we both know each other’s beliefs is established, scaling can occur fractally by gradually expanding the sphere of mutual knowingness. Employees can then coordinate to speak out all at once (e.g. during a meeting).

I’ve also used anonymous Zoom polls to detect unpopular opinions on cancel worthy subjects, like certain DEI protocols. I then had my team generate arguments for the unpopular position as a kind of “role play” exercise. The holder of the cancel worthy opinion doesn’t need to reveal themself, but can have their perspective affirmed by others in the group during the role play. The group then sees the benefits of the minority perspective without anyone sticking their neck out to broach it.

On a larger scale, anonymous polling can be conducted to accurately assess the crowd’s beliefs, which is the first step to overcoming pluralistic ignorance. Overcoming pluralistic ignorance is necessary but not sufficient, as trust is needed to guarantee that when the time to act arrives, those who hold similar beliefs will indeed act, trusting that their allies will stand openly in solidarity. I may know that many people have similar beliefs, but will they have my back when I need them? Or will they defect/free ride out of self-interest?

Smart Contracts for Quiet Consensus

Trust issues can be offset by “kickstarting” initiatives using smart contracts. A tool can be designed using blockchain technology: only when a critical mass of individuals anonymously sign on in support would such a message be openly disseminated (e.g. a statement won’t be released until 5,000 public intellectuals — or 5,000,000 people — sign on). Until such critical mass is accrued, the positions of others would be protected from public view. Smart contracts negate incentives to remain silent, avoiding the trap of preference falsification. A majority of necks are stuck out simultaneously, with trust ensured by the smart contract’s codification.

In a democratic context, secret ballots can enact the will of the silent majority. If assured anonymity, how many Republicans would have voted to impeach Trump? How many Russians would vote to oust Putin? In a secret ballot, initiatives are enacted without revealing who supported them. Secret ballots are useful in situations where the benefits to remain anonymous outweigh the benefits of speaking out, even with the majority on your side. Secrecy negates the incentive to cave to preference falsification.

In short, key ingredients to overcoming cancel traps include:

1. Mechanisms to overcome pluralistic ignorance, such as polls
2. Tools to overcome preference falsification, such as anonymity and secrecy
3. Common knowledge, or the mutual knowledge that all of us know that we all know
4. Trust — knowing that others will indeed follow through on what they believe in solidarity
5. Mechanisms to coordinate collective action, such as smart contracts and kick starters

These ingredients aren’t always needed, and all have ups and downsides (secret ballots only work when groups have decision-making power). Each situation is unique and will demand different approaches to galvanize dissent.

Full Coordination beats False Majorities

Here’s a key takeaway: We can’t blame individuals for cowardice when they don’t speak out. Instead, we need coordination mechanisms to overcome the trappings of pluralistic ignorance, preference falsification, and perverse free-riding. Let me know what tactics you come up with!