People online are really good at reacting —not as good at critical thinking. But in the current zeitgeist of hot takes and dark humor memes, that sort of outrageous engagement is encouraged and even rewarded. The irony is that the very attention intended to punish someone only serves to amplify it instead. All press is good press.
Typically, the timeline starts with a polarizing event that starts trending. People naturally take sides, of which one will start making jokes about this event or person, usually at their expense. It snowballs to a point where others will start reacting based not on the event or person themselves, but the reactions of other netizens.
Instead of a minor controversy which may have simply faded away with the news cycle, people’s reactions drive extreme counter-reactions and escalate the event or person to heights unproportional to the original offense. To the extent that “cancel culture” is a hallmark of the recent internet lifecycle, its success rate is quite low in comparison.
The paradox of negative attention is no more significant than in the online political divide. One recent example is Sydney Sweeney and her now infamous American Eagle campaign, “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans.” The tagline’s perceived wordplay of “jeans” with “genes,” paired with Sweeney’s image as a blue-eyed, blonde, white-American actress immediately triggered widespread accusations of subliminal references to eugenics and white supremacy, primarily from the political left.
This backlash, in return, triggered widespread defense of the campaign and elevated portrayal of Sweeney as a “martyr” for the political right, including a post from President Trump, “Sydney Sweeney, a registered Republican, has the HOTTEST ad out there. Go get ‘em Sydney!”
Despite the scale of the controversy, or perhaps because of it, American Eagle reported a 33% increased stock valuation earlier this month. It’s interesting to imagine how much less the impact would have been if instead of uproarious backlash, there had been a simple, quiet disengagement from American Eagle and the campaign altogether.
This concept isn’t unique to just advertising campaigns or ignorant celebrities. Politicians, influencers and even anonymous trolls understand that outrage fuels the fire. Many relatively minor figures have built entire careers off of being “canceled,” using viral outrage to turn into book deals or podcasts. Looking at you, Ned Fulmer.
Silence denies attention. In 1971 psychologist and economist Herbert A. Simone coined the term “attention economics.” Herbert understood the growing dichotomy between the amount of information and reduced allocation of attention. The decisions we make each day on where, what and on whom we spend our attention are finite. Now, as we approach the $1 trillion mark spent on global advertisement revenue, it is clear that our time and attention is more valuable than ever and we as consumers must learn to spend it wisely.
Of course, there isn’t a unanimous answer. Hundreds of events worldwide deserve even more of our time. Humanitarian crises, wars and natural disasters continue to persist every day. The re-allocation of attention and care towards real people is important. There has to be more nuance with how we interact with the news and each other that goes beyond temporary virality.
As a writer and avid reader, I know that words have power. The ability to share unfiltered thoughts, exchange ideas and make an impression on people far and across is both more accessible and more important now, than ever before. But maybe, sometimes the most radical, powerful and effective response is simply nothing.