The untold impact of cancellation

GitHub open letter and signatures

• The Scala community’s open letter repo remains online with a note discouraging issues; people debate whether refusing removals is unjust or a justified record of “mob” participation.
• Some see keeping names as moral accountability and a deterrent against future pile‑ons; others argue it’s unethical to leave a defamatory list unmaintained and undeletable.
• Several recent commit messages removing signatures explicitly express regret about lack of due process and recognize the letter as the wrong approach.

Courts, due process, and mob justice

• Many argue allegations of serious misconduct should be handled only by police and courts, stressing “innocent until proven guilty.”
• Others counter that legal systems often fail sexual abuse victims, are slow, expensive, and biased, so people resort to public pressure as a last resort.
• There is broad concern about “witch‑hunt” dynamics: pile‑ons, virtue signaling, social pressure to sign, and no meaningful path to redemption once accusations go viral.

False accusations and punishment

• Some commenters advocate harsh criminal penalties for provably false allegations, even mirroring the potential sentence of the accused; opponents say this chills legitimate reporting and conflicts with free speech.
• Defamation/libel is highlighted as the formal remedy, but practical barriers (cost, jurisdiction, anonymity) mean many never sue.

Law vs community norms

• Repeated debate over whether only criminal behavior should have social consequences.
• One side: communities must be allowed to shun people for non‑criminal but harmful behavior (e.g., boundary‑violating, manipulative, bigoted).
• Other side: letting “implicit communities” enforce shifting moral codes without process invites abuse; if conduct deserves serious penalties, it should be legislated and adjudicated.

What’s actually known in this case

• The article’s author obtained a UK consent order: four open‑letter signatories admitted they had no evidence beyond unverified accusations and paid costs/damages.
• This order did not involve the original accusers or adjudicate truth; it only established that those signers couldn’t substantiate their public claims.
• Accusers’ blog posts describe power‑imbalanced, alcohol‑mediated sexual encounters and later feeling harassed; some readers find these narratives highly plausible, others see ambiguity, self‑contradiction, or possible collusion.
• Multiple commenters emphasize that outsiders cannot know the full truth; the real issue is the community’s willingness to act decisively on unproven claims.

Impact of cancellation and behavior changes

• Many are struck by how thoroughly social ostracism destroyed the author’s career and mental health, even after partial legal vindication.
• Several men say this and similar stories have made them more guarded with women and children (e.g., avoiding mentoring, never being alone with women, disengaging from distressed kids in public).
• Others worry that fear of cancellation will worsen loneliness and reduce cross‑gender collaboration, while still not stopping truly predatory behavior.

Broader reflections on #MeToo, shame, and status

• Some see #MeToo as necessary correction with limited “overcorrection”; others think social media justice has gone too far and delegitimizes real victims.
• Distinction is drawn between justified shaming/ostracism to enforce norms vs online mobs seeking status and “moral thrills.”
• Several note cancellation activity seems to have cooled since 2020–21, but reputational risk remains asymmetric: high‑status or wealthy offenders often shrug it off, while niche community figures are ruined.

Miscellaneous

• A noticeable subthread complains about the article’s font choice as unusually hard to read.
• Another subthread revisits the original 2021 HN discussion, contrasting its near‑unanimous acceptance of the accusations with today’s more skeptical, process‑focused tone.