At the start of October, a popular lesbian couple on TikTok got married. People Magazine posted an exclusive on the wedding. With this increased attention came increased scrutiny. And, like a tale as old as time (or at least as old as Twitter), past tweets from one of their Twitter accounts began surfacing. Tweets that featured racial and xenophobic slurs.
Members of their audience demanded answers. Other social media users learned of the couple’s existence by way of this controversy. Two posts - a written apology and a link to educational anti-racist resources - now live on their TikTok page.
I’m not going to relitigate this controversy and whether this couple deserves a platform. But I think this phenomenon - the actual unearthing of these tweets and the resulting public outcry - is worth exploring.
Let’s first examine how these posts resurface.
Whenever someone gains online popularity, a subgroup will arise that makes a sport of hating them - it’s like the 35th law of the internet. This faction will hate-watch their content and religiously lurk (and post) on snark pages dedicated to that person and reasons why they suck. It’s not far off to posit that some of these individuals might purposefully look for reasons to despise them even more. They might search for more substantial reasons to justify their hatred and help recruit new members to their side of the internet.
We’re then faced with the question of the chicken or the egg: Did you shun the figure because of the problematic tweets? Or did you purposely search for this content to justify the ruthless Reddit threads nitpicking their entire existence?
While you’re allowed to dislike someone “just because”, dredging up cancel-worthy content transforms online hate into a moral imperative. Rather than unfollowing them, you alter your justification to gain moral high ground.
There’s an element of schadenfreude that plays into this as well. It can feel satisfying to watch someone’s soul-crushingly perfect life go up in flames. As I dove into the TikTok couple’s subreddit, I came across comments that seemed gleeful about them facing this controversy during their honeymoon.
There’s often a desire on the internet to be seen as the most virtuous person. I’ve written about this phenomenon before. And in pursuit of this public perception, people often disguise bullying as social justice.
Commenters may demand that the figure apologize and take accountability, which is fine on its face. However, I think crafting a sufficient apology is an incredibly high bar to clear. For some critics, no apology will be good enough. The figure must tar and feather themselves before others will be satisfied.
Commenters might also request that the figure unlearn their bigotry and share the process. This demand also seems valid in theory. It suggests that their audience knows that people, even minor celebrities, are capable of growth. But it also pushes the figure towards performative activism. It transforms a private process into a public spectacle, a process that they may have already undergone internally.
Flogging these individuals becomes less about educating and more about punishment. For those witnessing the controversy, there’s a desire to align yourself with the “right side of history”, as though there’s limited space on that side of the binary. It perpetuates a zero-sum game of morality.
In this unearthing of tweets, we often discount the operative word: old. We forget the very fact that they’re, by definition, outdated. They’re no longer a representation of the figure’s beliefs, as evidenced by the mountains of content and statements that the person has released since then. But some netizens find these statements and think that, by virtue of having to scroll so far back, these beliefs have been obscured from them. Identifying this old tweet (or tweets) is seen as a referendum on the figure’s current values, rather than a window to their past self. There’s a tendency to view celebrities as comfort food to be consumed rather than human beings capable of growth. If there’s an update to the recipe, followers get upset.
This reflects a criticism often levied against public figures, especially those whose fans tend toward the parasocial. If followers no longer like them, then we admit that they have changed, albeit for the worse (“you’ve changed,” derogatory). If the figure claims to have changed for the better we refuse to believe them. Change itself is either regrettable or a lie.
And, let’s be honest - who among us is proud of their social media archive? Most of us have decades worth of content that we’ve shared on the internet. And because we’re human, I’m sure some of the statements we’ve posted in the past don’t exactly align with our current beliefs. If you yourself gained millions of followers, I’m sure a certain subset of them could easily find a few off-color jokes you’ve made when you were younger.
The TikTok couple will likely be fine. They’ve stated that they’re working with a DEI coach and have returned to their typical #WLW couples content. But resurfaced tweets can have bigger consequences than a social media hiatus.
In 2021, a 27-year-old journalist was named the new editor-in-chief of Teen Vogue. She came from an impressive background, having received the 2019 Emerging Journalist Award from the National Association of Black Journalists. In 2020, she was named on Forbes’ annual 30 Under 30 list. Prior to this, she attended the University of Chicago on a full scholarship from Questbridge, a non-profit dedicated to connecting low-income and first-generation students to top universities.
In the days following her appointment, the journalist faced backlash over old racist tweets that had been unearthed. She’d faced this same backlash (over the same tweets) in 2019. The posts in question were made in 2011. When they first resurfaced in 2019, the journalist deleted them and issued a public apology. This time, the backlash snowballed.
Teen Vogue initially defended the journalist and their hiring decision, saying that their new EIC was hired “because of the values, inclusivity, and depth she has displayed throughout her journalism” and “she has dedicated herself to being a champion for marginalised voices.”
But the criticism kept piling up. A previous Teen Vogue EIC called the statements “indefensible”. A group of Teen Vogue staffers shared a public statement condemning the tweets and sent a letter to Condé Nast’s management. Some of the posts in question were racist jokes about Asian people. This helped renew discourse around anti-Asian racism in the fashion industry. This was also a moment when the #StopAsianHate movement was gaining traction as a result of increased hate crimes targeted at Asian-Americans. Advertisers like Ulta began pulling ad money from the publication.
The issue became one of money and optics, rather than bigotry.
Days before she was slated to begin her new role, the journalist announced that she was stepping down: “My past tweets have overshadowed the work I’ve done to highlight the people and issues that I care about – issues that Teen Vogue has worked tirelessly to share with the world – and so Condé Nast and I have decided to part ways”. Less than a month had elapsed between her hiring announcement and resignation.
There’s a post on the TikTok couple’s subreddit that defends the couple’s Black followers and their frustration with the old tweets. The original poster wrote, “When white teens make mistakes we’re told to move on, accept it, and get over it. If Black teens make a mistake, we are shamed and not given the same grace.” While the Teen Vogue resignation differed from that of the influencer couple’s “cancellation”, the aforementioned Redditor’s sentiment rings true (a sentence I loathe to type).
For the white TikTok couple, audience members refused to let them off the hook. This was justified as holding them to the same high standard that Black teens are held. To draw attention to an inequity, the same harsh punishment was invoked. Critics had taken their anger at the system and redirected it towards an individual.
The Teen Vogue resignation came as a result of more widespread outrage, with a much larger audience on the sidelines. The journalist served as a scapegoat for those upset and fearful about anti-Asian attitudes and violence.
At the core of these “cancellations” (over old tweets or otherwise) is a desire for justice. We know that the greater system is the issue, but we punish individuals because that is attainable. It can provide the illusion that you are seizing control, changing society for the better. It has an immediate but less significant impact. We’ve ripped the weed out of the ground but its roots remain, proliferating just beneath the surface.
Here are some things I’ve been reading/watching/listening to lately:
Emily Stewart’s Vox article on tipping culture (spoiler: no one’s forcing you to tip)
You’re Wrong About’s episode about justice (featuring Amanda Knox!):
Kendra Gaylord’s YouTube channel. I love video essays and interior design/architecture - her channel combines both and you should subscribe. A good place to start is her video on Steve Jobs’ house:
I love Caroline Winkler’s YouTube channel and I think you will too. I’d rec her video on self care, which is actually helpful and doesn’t just list out products you should buy:
Thank you again for your time and attention (and subscription, if you have one!). I really am grateful for every person that reads my newsletter and chooses to subscribe.
I know that the holidays can range from being terrible to neutral to lovely for people. Wishing you a tolerable holiday season - I’ll see you in the new year :)
Xoxo, Mia