@rw hyper information clarity and instant factual confirmation speed of knowing exactly who said what when in what specific order and down to the specifity of the dot of an I and the second of the day, definitely enables the quick excommunication of anyone who says current year's boogey-words or can be mis-direct-quoted. combined with the fact that people cannot comprehend that people change over the course of a year (most people's self perception is that they've ALWAYS been the same, ALWAYS had the same thoughts, ALWAYS had the same beliefs, but if they did a political compass test in a vacuum each year without remembering last years results, they'd find they'd swam from point to point to quarter to quarter depending on age, from age 10 to age 60)

add the extra fact that if you only have one side who has a true public facing account, combined with a name and face, defending or attacking a person who has no public name, no always online presence, and no public face, then the no-always-online-presence person is at a major disadvantage by default, so everyone HAS (doesnt actually, but the perception of needing to is more important here than the truth) to be always-online if they decide to attack/defend someone. it directly affects one argumentor's credibility. if neither is public, both are equal. if one is public but the other is a pseudonym, the public one has more at stake (seemingly to the public's perception), and has a higher odd of winning a myword vs ur-word battle. if both are public, neither has the advantage, but both have more at stake.

the situation is quite severe from my small far-away perspective when i look and hear of angle-sphere online-presence related news, but still a far cry from certain dictatorships of today fortunately. but the linear predictable trajectory is frightening to me.

i think outrage media/culture is completely inevitable based on the very low-effort 2nd paragraph's gametheory 2x2 square i wrote out there, and i dont see a pleasurable solution to online outrage media, outside of either
a) ultra-extreme-unprivacy, where every second of a persons day is logged to prevent any and all false outrage, ruining many lives in the process and what i could best describe as a hive mind culture
b) return to forced privacy, again fucking up many things and destroying certain societal links we have

i cant think of other methods to avoid outrage culture, a feature which is historically ingrained inside of every layer of humanity throughout time, a feature which is amplified by everyone being able to see the outrage fact first. "Man is popular, man said X is bad, but i think X is great, thus this man shouldnt be popular!" This is the first thing people see when they see a new article or 50000 times retooted biased take from a bad faith actor. The first-time-see-er person doesnt know if he is a satirical comedian, if that quote was out of context quoting literal-hitler, if the image was just outright paraphrased to sound worse, or complete fiction. So it's a good motivation for the average public facing persona to avoid those out-of-context-able phrases and sentences. "i really dont wanna deal with silly people yelling counter-slurs at me in the tens, let alone in the thousands."

obviously it (outrage/cancel culture) has the positive effect as well, of detoxifying the old internet culture, of just pure shock-culture for shock's sake. the negative effect its a counter-toxic toxic culture, of in my eyes, equal annoyance online, but much greater devastation, if it spills into real life, than just 30 people joining a courtroom skype call with Jaffa as their avatar. one is a bad prankster (or small group of) annoying a group of people for fun or spite. the other is a mobmind bent on hating, and potentially ruining the life of people who said "nigger" 25 times 11 years ago by getting them fired. i guess shock culture pranksters would probably also try to do that, if anyone took that seriously years ago.