Influencer vulnerability to cancellation is tied to brand dependency, not moral failing

Evidence

The most significant consequence, though, comes from a loss of brand collaborations, where branded products are simply pulled from shelves. … One of the few moments in which he did address the many criticisms of his past, the many attempts to “cancel” him, was in a YouTube video from 2017 titled “RACISM.” Yet, in this video, Star does not cry and does not apologize for his past actions. Instead, he distances his present self from his past one, suggesting that criticisms for past actions are motivated by people desiring to take him down, wishing him ill. He emphasizes his self-made existence and, in terms of the temporality of the internet, his exceptionally long career. — Grant Bollmer, Katherine Guinness, The Influencer Factory, 295

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s analysis of how the influencer-corporation distributes risk: Star’s self-ownership of products insulates him from the accountability that brand partnerships enforce.
• SEED: Angle: cancel culture’s real enforcement mechanism is brand-capital withdrawal, so only influencers who own their production are actually uncancellable - a class analysis of cancellation.