Social media influencers have evolved significantly over the years, becoming key players in digital marketing and consumer behavior. This trend is also visible in Romania. In 2024, over 100 million EURO were invested in influencer campaigns in Romania, and the number of influencers has grown by 300% since 2020 (Grozea, 2024)Grozea(2024). Research indicates that Romanian users value attractiveness, trustworthiness, expertise, and similarity in influencers (Balaban & Mustățea, 2019)Balaban and Mustățea(2019). Besides being involved in brand promotion for marketing campaigns, Romanian influencers also play a crucial role in crisis communication, shaping public opinion and emotional responses (Barbu & Cmeciu, 2019)Barbu and Cmeciu(2019).

Defined as “deceptive practices or ethical violations” (Rynarzewska et al., 2025, p. 414)Rynarzewska, Nafees and Nikolov(2025), social media influencers’ transgressions (von Mettenheim & Wiedmann, 2023)von Mettenheim and Wiedmann(2023), or indiscretions (Sng et al., 2019)Sng, Au and Pang(2019) has gained significant attention in recent years, mainly as influencers play an important role in shaping consumer perceptions and brand relationship in the digital environment. Categorizing transgressions into various types, which can range from the use of swearwords, sharenting, and insulting followers to gossiping, von Mettenheim and Wiedmann (2023)von Mettenheim and Wiedmann(2023) highlight that they can lead to negative repercussions for both the influencer and the endorsed brand, affecting brand equity and consumer trust. Social media dynamics amplify influencer transgressions’ effects since such transgressions can become key events that may stir interest waves across different online platforms. Thus, these online events turn into what Pang et al. (2013, p. 333)Pang(2013) label as netizen-generated social media hypes. Organizations should become aware that netizens empower themselves as information providers, especially during critical or controversial situations. These rapid, collective online reactions to perceived misconduct of social media influencers may lead to online firestorms that refer to intense public outcries on social media, characterized by negative word-of-mouth (Qu et al., 2024)Qu, Yang, Chen and Kim(2024). The interconnectedness of social media platforms means that a single transgression can quickly become a viral topic, leading to widespread condemnation and potential loss of endorsements. Therefore, influencer transgressions can lead to significant emotional responses, which ultimately may trigger the cancelation of the social media influencer. In the digital environment, cancel culture is seen as a process (Haskell, 2021)Haskell(2021), which implies a catalyst that triggers the cancelation, supporters, resisters, and canceling strategies.

The body shaming inflammatory statements of a well-known Romanian tech social media influencer (George Buhnici) who had a contract with the Romanian Commercial Bank was the catalyst that caused a social media hype in 2022 in Romania. While attending a music festival, he made some inappropriate remarks about women’s stretch marks and said that his wife looked like a young girl. Several days after this transgression, the Romanian SMI tried to justify his statement by emphasizing that people should prioritize their health when going to the beach and that he did not intend to encourage pedophilia when appraising his wife for her minor-like look. Despite his clarification stance on obesity as a public health issue, Buhnici had to face several public repercussions. The Romanian bank terminated the partnership agreement with the Romanian vlogger, and the National Council for Combating Discrimination (NCCD) gave him a 4000 euro fine for his statements. In this context it is clear that this online firestorm stirred an online wave of outrage expressed on social media, especially on Facebook, the most used social media platform in Romania, in the end leading to the cancelation of George Buhnici as a public and admired public figure. This specific instance of (body)shaming and character attack of the social media influencer goes in line with “cancel culture as a social trend” (Samoilenko & Jasper, 2023)Samoilenko and Jasper(2023) that has been brought up by digital activism. The SMI’s body shaming remarks triggered a polarization between two ingroups: on the one hand, the cancelation supporters, the SMI’s opponents, those accepting body imperfection as something normal, and on the other hand, the cancelation resisters (the SMI’s supporters of bodily perfection).

Applying a Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis (MCDA, Machin & Mayr, 2023)Machin and Mayr(2023) on the multimodal texts present in the threaded comments of the most discussed Facebook posts on this social media hype in Romania, we will employ a corpus-assisted discourse analysis aiming (1) to identify the representation of the cancelee (SMI) as the other in the cancelation supporters’ and resisters’ comments and (2) to determine how the commenter as self is discursively represented.

Within the present media ecology, organizations employing social media influencers may be vulnerable to any attitude or behavior expressed by their endorsing content creators. Besides wielding considerable power over consumer behavior, and brand perceptions, social media influencers’ influence is not without its challenges. They often face scrutiny for their actions, which can lead to significant backlash when they engage in controversial, unethical behavior or scandals (Sng et al., 2019)Sng, Au and Pang(2019).

The online conversation generating various waves of interest around a social media hype or online firestorm triggered by influencers’ transgressions may constitute the burgeoning terrain for cancel culture. Seen as “(…) an extreme form of character assassination, in which efforts are made not only to criticize and stigmatize the target but at the same time to exclude them from the public media arenas” (Samoilenko & Jasper, 2023, p. 458)Samoilenko and Jasper(2023), cancel culture may be directed at public figures and corporations (Mueller, 2021)Mueller(2021). Cancel culture has gained huge popularity in the past years since every person having a social media account could turn into a canceler.

Characterized by public shaming and social ostracism, cancel culture has been described as a mechanism for holding individuals accountable for their actions, particularly those in positions of influence, and initially, it focused on a “legitimate criticism of cases attracting widespread moral disapproval” (Norris, 2023, p. 149)Norris(2023). However, cancel culture is on “a slippery slope” (Norris, 2023, p. 149)Norris(2023), being critiqued for fostering an environment of intolerance and ideological conformity and raising questions about its impact on freedom of expression (Ng, 2020)Ng(2020). Mueller (2021, p. 12)Mueller(2021) argues that nowadays, a shift could be observed from cancel as an “act of ostracizing another” to an act of destruction of one’s future. In this line, exploring the emotional dynamics of canceling hashtags in connection to racism, Bouvier and Machin (2021)Bouvier and Machin(2021) note that the moral outrage expressed in these hashtags can lead to the dehumanization of those calling out. Therefore, this aspect is significant for understanding the psychological effects of cancel culture on both the perpetrators and the community (Bouvier & Machin, 2021, p. 324)Bouvier and Machin(2021).

Starting from a discursive pragmatic approach, Blitvich (2024)Blitvich(2024) distinguishes between cancel culture as a broad societal phenomenon (macro level) and cancelation (meso/micro level), which refers to the specific actions taken against an individual. While cancel culture encompasses the overarching discussions and ideologies, cancelation involves the actual processes and interactions leading to an individual’s loss of support. Haskell’s communication model of the process of cancelation (2021)Haskell(2021) is in line with the above-mentioned discursive approach and the sociocultural perspective, which views character assassination as a process of interaction (Shiraev et al., 2022Shiraev, Keohane, Icks and Samoilenko(2022); Samoilenko & Jasper, 2023Samoilenko and Jasper(2023)) among various agents (the attacker, the target, the media, and various active audiences). This model (Haskell, 2021)Haskell(2021) highlights some requirements for such a process to occur: the presence of a catalyst, resistance, support, and canceling strategies. The process begins with a catalyst, an event or action that triggers the cancelation. This could be a public statement, behavior, or incident that raises concern among the audience. Furthermore, Haskell (2021)Haskell(2021) argues that for a cancelation to take place, there must be both support and resistance. Support comes from individuals or groups who agree with the cancelation and actively participate in it, while resistance may come from those who defend the cancelee or oppose the cancelation. The model also includes various strategies that are employed during the cancelation process. Whereas grieving, negotiation, or work canceling are among the strategies used by supporters of cancelation, resisters may appeal to debating the validity of the catalyst, discrediting the victim, or expressing support to the cancelee (Haskell, 2021, p. 84)Haskell(2021). In their study of character assassination and reputation management, Shiraev et al. (2022, pp. 77-85)Shiraev, Keohane, Icks and Samoilenko(2022) mention several types of character attacks, which range from allegations (accusatory statements), name-calling, ridiculing, fearmongering to exposing, disgracing, or erasing. Therefore, the cancelation process emphasizes a negotiation of power (Haskell, 2021, p. 98)Haskell(2021), illustrating how online users can exert influence and bring change through collective action. According to Haskell’s model (2021)Haskell(2021), one can determine if cancelation is occurring by observing the presence of the catalyst, the dynamics of support and resistance, and the strategies being employed. If these elements are evident, a cancelation is indeed taking place. At the same time, a cancelation process serves as a reflection of the values held by the community (Haskell, 2021, p. 95)Haskell(2021), particularly on social media platforms. Thus, it demonstrates what behaviors are deemed (un)acceptable.

As mentioned above, the body shaming remarks of the Romanian social media influencer served as a catalyst for his cancelation. Starting from Blitvich’s (2024)Blitvich(2024) idea that cancel culture should be understood as Big-C Conversation, body shaming alongside racism or sexism are issues belonging to the larger societal discourses that should be examined at the macro level.

“A popular term for a type of negative social interaction” (Schlüter et al., 2023, p. 26)Schlüter, Kraag and Schmidt(2023), body shaming can be associated with a form of social policing, where individuals are publicly humiliated for perceived transgressions (Cheung, 2014)Cheung(2014), thereby reinforcing societal norms around body image and behavior. Characterized by derogatory remarks about someone’s body size, shape, or overall appearance and being associated with expressions such as “appearance teasing”, “trolling”, and “cyberbullying” (Schlüter et al., 2023)Schlüter, Kraag and Schmidt(2023), it manifests in various forms, including direct insults, negative comments on social media, or subtle forms of ridicule in everyday interactions. The normalization of body shaming and hate speech can lead to a decrease in empathy among individuals who are exposed to such content. This phenomenon triggers both individual and societal consequences. This desensitization can create a culture where body shaming and hate speech are not only tolerated but also perpetuated, emphasizing harmful beauty standards and contributing to a culture of objectification, particularly among women (Vaughan-Turnbull & Lewis, 2015)Vaughan-Turnbull and Lewis(2015).

Cassidy (2019, p. 160)Cassidy(2019) considers that the dynamics of body shaming in the era of social media is based on a triangular relation involving three key participants: “the body shamer”, “the body shamed”, and “the audience of shame”. Whereas the body shamer is the individual or group that initiates the act of body shaming, often expressing judgments about another person’s body, the body shamed individual is the person who is targeted by the body shamer, experiencing the negative consequences of the shaming. The consuming viewer refers to the audience that witnesses the act of body shaming, which can include friends, family in real life, or the broader public, especially in online contexts. Cassidy (2019)Cassidy(2019) notes that values are negotiated in this triangular relation. The body shamer may seek to reinforce certain societal standards or norms by shaming the individual, while the consuming viewer plays a role in either supporting or condemning the shaming behavior. This dynamic illustrates the social context in which body shaming occurs, as it is not just a private act but one that is influenced by public perception and societal expectations. Cassidy (2019, p. 158)Cassidy(2019) talks about shame reversal as a form of backlash that may take place online against the body shamer. The author considers that not all participants in the triangle relation are equally affected by shame reversals. This aspect highlights the complexity of social interactions surrounding body shaming, as the consuming viewers often escape critical attention despite their role in perpetuating the cycle of shame. Therefore, this triangular relation in body shaming in the online environment is a complex interplay of actions and reactions among the body shamer, the body shamed individual, and the consuming viewers, all contributing to the broader societal conversation about body image and self-worth.

Efforts to combat body shaming and promote positive body image are increasingly important in this digital age. Body positive movements and campaigns aimed at raising awareness and fostering self-compassion among victims of body shaming have shown promise (Cohen et al., 2019Cohen, Fardouly, Newton-John and Slater(2019); Kristensen, 2023Kristensen(2023)). Examining the role of social movements, such as the body positive movement, in the context of the United Nations’ goals for sustainable development targeted to women’s empowerment and well-being promotion, Kristensen (2023)Kristensen(2023) analyses the body shaming comments directed at body neutral and confident social media activists and influencers. The author highlights a troubling trend where individuals promoting body positivity face severe backlash online. However, studies also show that not all social media interactions lead to negative outcomes, suggesting that exposure to body-positive content can mitigate the adverse effects of social media on body image. Cohen et al. (2019)Cohen, Fardouly, Newton-John and Slater(2019) found that viewing body-positive content on platforms like Instagram can improve mood, body satisfaction, and body appreciation among young women compared to viewing thin-ideal or appearance-neutral posts. This indicates that the type of content consumed plays a crucial role in shaping users’ perceptions of their bodies, supporting the idea that body positive content can foster a healthier self-image and emotional state.

Drawing on cancelation and body shaming as processes in the digital environment, this study addresses the following research questions:

RQ1: How is the social media influencer represented in the cancelation supporters’ and resisters’ comments?

RQ2: How do cancelation supporters and resisters portray themselves in the threaded discussion on body shaming?

“Sticks and stones do break bones, but in the case of cancel culture, words will most always hurt” (Mueller, 2021, p. 12)Mueller(2021). Following Bouvier and Machin (2021)Bouvier and Machin(2021), we also add that images have the same effect as words in cancel culture. Since this study focuses on online conversation around the social media hype triggered by the Romanian social media influencer’s transgression, we will start from Cassidy (2019)Cassidy(2019)’s idea that body shaming in the online environment focuses on a triangular relation. We will apply the same triangular relation in the cancelation process against the social media influencer, adopting two approaches:

-On the one hand, a multimodal critical discourse analysis (Machin & Mayr, 2023)Machin and Mayr(2023) since the online canceling process involves three main participants: the cancelee (the social media influencer – the body shamer), the cancelation supporters (the online users supporting the cancelation of the social media influencer), and cancelation resisters (the online users defending the cancelee and opposing the cancelation of the SMI). The analysis focuses on the discursive representation of these actors and their actions. Thus, the study will be situated at the micro level, focusing on localized interactions and specific linguistic and semiotic resources used in discussions about cancellation (Blitvich, 2024)Blitvich(2024).

-On the other hand, in line with Samoilenko & Jasper (2023)Samoilenko and Jasper(2023) and Shiraev et al. (2022)Shiraev, Keohane, Icks and Samoilenko(2022), a sociocultural approach to character assassination focuses on various types of character attacks (name-calling, ridiculing, exposing, disgracing, or erasing).

Since the sociocultural perspective examines “the individual’s social identity—or a sense who we are as members of social groups” (Shiraev et al., 2022, p. 49)Shiraev, Keohane, Icks and Samoilenko(2022), this study focuses on Van Dijk’s (2000, p. 267)Van Dijk(2000) ideological square perspective where each ingroup either emphasizes the self’s positive actions and expresses the other’s negative actions. Therefore, this article has two main objectives: to identify the representation of the cancelee as the “other” in the cancelation supporters’ and resisters’ comments and to determine how the commenter as “self” is discursively represented.

CrowdTangle was employed to extract all the Facebook posts embedding the word ‘George Buhnici’ or ‘Buhnici’ (the name of the social media influencer) over the period 16/07/2022 – 12/11/2022. In total, 7304 posts were extracted. The top 5 posts with the highest number of comments were retained. They were posted by the influencer’s partner bank, a Romanian journalist and two media outlets. The Exportcomments tool was used to extract all comments and replies. Out of the 14408 comments and replies, only threaded comments (N = 964) were anonymized and included in the analysis. Blitvich (2024)Blitvich(2024) includes user-generated comments in the genre ecology relevant to the analysis of cancelation as a meso level phenomenon. At the same time, online user threaded comments, formed of initial comments and replies, allow users to engage more meaningfully with each other’s contributions. Users can directly respond to specific points raised in the parent comment or in prior replies, thus fostering a more interactive and deliberative environment (Aragón et al., 2017)Aragón, Gómez and Kaltenbrunner(2017).

Mueller (2021, p. 7)Mueller(2021) states that “text analysis of narratives leading up to call-outs for cancelation will indicate the polarity of words and phrases. Linguistic inquiry and word count software will reveal characteristic profiles among cancel culture originators”. Therefore, Corpus Assisted Discourse Analysis (CADA) was employed in the analysis of the representations of the cancelee, cancelation supporters, and, resisters. One of the advantages of the CADA approach is to reduce the researchers’ biases (Baker, 2023, p. 33)Baker(2023) by analyzing the corpus with specialist software. In this study, MAXQDA was employed since it provides “new ways to describe and visualize different ways of thinking, by creating simple and meaningful lists, tables, and concept maps” (de Lima, 2024, p. 33)de Lima(2024). The analysis involved six stages. The threaded comments (comments and replies) were imported into MAXQDA. MAXDictio was initially used to explore the word frequencies and word combinations (2 to 3 words) in the comment threads. MAXQDA also provides a frequency of the emojis present in the texts. Due to “their high degree of dependency on language,” Zappavigna and Logi (2024, p. 2)Zappavigna and Logi(2024) consider that emojis make meaning “in terms of the relations they form with their co-text,” emphasizing the intermodal convergence. Therefore, we also employed an analysis of emojis, thus emphasizing the multimodal dimension of the critical discourse analysis.

The second stage of the analysis focused on a concordance analysis (KWIC – Keyword-in-context) that “can be helpful in revealing evidence for discourses within texts” (Baker, 2023, p. 135)Baker(2023). Therefore, each word, word combination, and emoji with a frequency of 5 was explored in relation to the surrounding words and emojis to understand the context better. The third stage focused on turning these words and emojis into codes, either maintaining their names or using words from a higher abstraction level as parent codes (for example, “stupid” is a form of “name calling”). De Lima (2024, p. 38)de Lima(2024) mentions that the organization of the Code System in terms of parent codes and subcodes allows the researcher “to think about the relations between the identified words”.

In the fourth stage of the analysis, the analytical feature MAXMap was used, and the code co-occurrence model was activated in order to visualize how various subcodes co-occurred in the representation of the cancelee and the self-representation of the two types of users (cancelation supporters and resisters). In the fifth stage, a qualitative analysis was employed. In line with Bouvier and Machin’s (2021)Bouvier and Machin(2021) idea that social media texts are discursive scripts representing “participants, their motives, actions, processes, causalities, ideas, values, times and places” (p. 313)Bouvier and Machin(2021) in the threaded comments under analysis, there were present various discursive scripts that involve the identity and action of the cancelee as well as the identities and actions of those representing themselves either as cancelation supporters or resisters.

The final stage of the analysis included the visualization of a map embedding the relations within the cancelation process triggered by a social media influencer’s transgression, underlying how various discursive (character attack) strategies materialized in the representations of actions and actors.

Name calling, ridicule, social identity denial, and disgracing were the four main character attack strategies identified in the cancelation supporters’ comment threads. As observed in Figure 1, some words or word combinations had a higher frequency (the thickness of the line indicating a higher frequency of the code).

Name calling. The cancelee, the social media influencer, is referred to in the first three strategies in terms of interpersonal dissociation through negative appraisements. Van Leeuwen (2008, p. 45)Van Leeuwen(2008) states that “social actors are appraised when they are referred to in terms which evaluate them as good or bad, loved or hated, admired or pitied”. ‘Stupid/ fool,’ ‘pedophile,’ ‘misogynist,’ ‘old man,’ or ‘douchebag’ were the depreciative words and word combinations employed by online users to suggest the SMI’s inappropriate and objectifying attitude towards women, particularly younger women:

Although outnumbered by those supporting Buhnici’s cancelation, the resisters try to protect the cancelee (the body shamer) from losing his social capital. The most frequent words and word combinations emphasized four main strategies (Figure 2) that resemble the crisis response strategies in the crisis communication literature (Coombs, 2019)Coombs(2019): minimizing, bolstering, transcendence (freedom of speech), and attacking the accuser (the canceler).

Minimizing as a form of diminishment posture in crisis communication (Coombs, 2019)Coombs(2019) focuses on a social actor’s attempt to persuade the audience that an action is less serious than presented (Shiraev et al., 2022, p. 141)Shiraev, Keohane, Icks and Samoilenko(2022). ‘Scandal,’ ‘hypocrisy,’ ‘cancel culture,’ or ‘Budeanu’ were the words and word combinations used by the online users who tried to defend Buhnici, highlighting that cancelation had gone too far.

”Canceling has become the most modern form of public shaming in a hyper-aware global digital community” (Mueller, 2021, p. 12)Mueller(2021). This phenomenon of ostracism has emerged as a significant topic of discourse in the digital age, mainly when targeted towards celebrities or influencers due to their transgressions. Alongside racism, homophobia, or bullying, body shaming as a form of sexism constitutes one of the reasons for canceling individuals.

The literature (Cassidy, 2019Cassidy(2019); Haskell, 2021Haskell(2021)) showed that in the online environment both canceling and body shaming are processes that involve a complexity of social interactions between several participants. Whether we talk about a body shamer, a body shamed, and consuming viewers (Cassidy, 2019)Cassidy(2019) or about cancelation supporters and resisters (Haskell, 2021)Haskell(2021), the concepts of ‘self’ and ‘other’ are present. Therefore, this study has brought a national perspective on cancel culture that should be seen as a process. The analysis focused on the consuming viewers, both cancelation supporters and resisters, of the social media hype triggered by a Romanian social media influencer’s body shaming statements.

The findings are discussed in terms of a threefold relationship (Figure 4) underlying the cancelation process targeted towards a SMI who started as a body shamer and ended up as a canceler.

Firstly, the cancelation process starts with a relation of exclusion. The first instance of the “other” is activated by the cancelation supporters. It is related to the cancelee, the social media influencer as a body shamer who is excluded from the ingroup of cancelation supporters. In line with previous research on character assassination (Samoilenko & Jasper, 2023)Samoilenko and Jasper(2023), Romanian online users employed name calling, ridicule, and social identity denial to distance themselves from what could be labeled as a societal complicity where a concerning normalization of certain social norms around body image is reinforced (Cheung, 2014Cheung(2014); Schlüter et al., 2023Schlüter, Kraag and Schmidt(2023)).

Although there is a debate on what incivility is, Masullo Chen et al. (2019)Masullo Chen, Muddiman, Wilner, Pariser and Stroud(2019) state that “research shows that incivility is in the eye of the beholder.” We consider that the Romanian online users’ lexical choices through negative appraisements (depreciative evaluative adjectives or ad hominem arguments) resemble a discourse of incivility and aggression that is “antithetical to accord and usually stands in violation of social norms” (Ifeanyichukwu, & Hoffman, 2025, p. 4)Ifeanyichukwu and Hoffman(2025).

Contrary to these attack strategies that may seem uncivil, other online users employ disgracing as a strategy to criticize the social media influencer’s accountability avoidance rationally. The role of apology in cancel culture has been debated in the literature. Whereas Bouvier and Machin (2021, p. 317)Bouvier and Machin(2021) indicate that apologies for outbursts are “an evidence of inauthenticity and flawed character and often used as fuel for humor and brutal sarcasm,” Mueller (2021)Mueller(2021) argues that immediate apology is a key predictor of involvement in cancel culture. Our findings showed that Romanian online users expected SMI’s immediate apology, which is in line with an efficient crisis communication response (Benoit, 2015Benoit(2015); Coombs, 2019Coombs(2019)), but the delayed apologies were refused, leading to the strategy of disgracing.

Secondly, a relation of reciprocity is present in the cancelation process. The cancelee is perceived as “one of us” by the cancelation resisters. Denouncing double standards and moral relativism and portraying the cancelee as a victim of media scrutiny, some Romanian online users employed minimizing as a strategy to diminish the SMI’s transgression. The analysis of online users’ threaded comments emphasized the argument of moral evaluations as subjective, an idea that resonates with Haidt’s (2012)Haidt(2012) assertion that people apply different moral standards based on personal beliefs and cultural contexts. Therefore, minimization as a strategy to support the cancelee suggests that public outrage can be selective, influenced by the specific circumstances surrounding each social media hype. Besides minimizing, online users employ transcendence as a crisis communication strategy to downplay the severity of the SMI’s action to mitigate backlash. Appealing to freedom of speech, the commenters praised the SMI’s courage by portraying him as a hero and by emphasizing their desire for self-identification with him. This argument of cancelation resisters is in line with previous research (Haskell, 2021)Haskell(2021), where questioning the validity of the catalyst is mentioned by the cancelee’s supporters.

The same discourse of incivility was also found in the cancelation resisters’ threaded comments. The negative physical evaluations of the outgroup members (cancelation supporters) underscore a pervasive discrimination rooted in societal conventions that sustain biases associated with physical appearance. The presence of interpersonal dissociation from the other through negative appraisements (Van Leeuwen, 2008)Van Leeuwen(2008) in both cancelation resisters and supporters is consistent with research by Meyer et al. (2019)^[ref25], which shows that in online threaded user comments, both ingroup and outgroup members ridicule the opponent as a way of delegitimizing the other’s claims.

Thirdly, the cancelation process ends with a relation of mutual exclusion, the instance of a second “other” being activated. This relation highlights the dominance of collaboration with other-liked minded people in threaded comments (Meyer et al., 2019)^[ref25], thus excluding any form of cooperation with persons who have different opinions. This type of relation applies to both cancelation supporters and resisters who form their own echo chambers. Cancelation resisters adopt an exclusion position from a collective ‘us’. Engaging in cultural self-reflection, they critique the normalization of gossip as a Romanian trait. This delegitimizing of a collective Us is contrary to what Bouvier and Machin (2021, p. 318)Bouvier and Machin(2021) found in their analysis of cancel culture hashtags where the plural pronouns indicated “a sense of imagined collective interest.” The inclusion versus exclusion cleavage is determined by the collective behavior associated with the group. In this case, gossiping is not seen as a bonding mechanism (Conein, 2011)Conein(2011) but rather as a source of conflict within the Romanian cultural context. The acknowledgment of moral relativism among cancelation resisters reflects broader themes in discourse analysis. Van Dijk (2000)Van Dijk(2000) emphasizes how individuals navigate moral judgments in social contexts. As the findings showed, cancelation resisters suggested that everyone can make mistakes, thus highlighting a shared understanding of human fallibility.

On the other hand, cancelation supporters reject any form of civilized debate with resisters and adopt a position of superiority by assuming the roles of experiences and social advisers in calling out the body shamer. Embracing body positivity, these online users claim credibility through personal experience, providing humorous instances of stretch mark agency. This usage of personal authority as an argument is consistent with research by Breeze (2021, p. 5)Breeze(2021), which showed that online users employ this discursive strategy providing “first-hand experience as potential source of trustworthy information.” The social adviser role constitutes another form of empowerment of online users in the digital environment. Research by Glozer et al. (2019, p. 639)Glozer, Caruana and Hibbert(2019) indicates that the commenters’ normative appeals act as a collective “moral compass”.

This study explores the dynamics of cancel culture, focusing on a Romanian social media influencer’s transgression. The timing, context, and nature of the transgression play crucial roles in shaping audience reactions, while the rapid dissemination of information on social media can exacerbate the effects of misconduct. Brands that have contracts with social media influencers must proactively manage their relationships with influencers and address any transgressions to maintain consumer trust and loyalty. This article reiterated the impact that SMIs’ transgressions can have on the consuming viewers, as important participants in the triangular relation of body shaming (Cassidy, 2019)Cassidy(2019). The analysis showed a clear polarization between cancelation supporters, advocating for body positivity, and cancelation resisters, often upholding ideals of bodily perfection, promoting an “objectification of women” (Enache et al., 2022, p. 59)Enache, Militaru and Panait-Ioncică(2022). This division reflects broader societal attitudes towards body image and social media influencers.

The main contribution of this study is the proposed framework of the cancelation process in SMIs’ transgressions. Employing a multimodal critical discourse analysis and a corpus-assisted discourse analysis, this article highlights how the three main participants (the SMI – the cancelee – the body shamer, cancelation supporter, and cancelation resisters) are represented in the exclusion, reciprocity, and mutual exclusion relationships present in the threaded discussion triggered by the Romanian SMI’s inappropriate statements on body shaming. Personal distancing (“my stretch marks”) from the SMI versus personal identification (“one of us”) with the SMI plays a significant role in how online users respond to cancel culture. The analysis of the multimodal threaded comments revealed the importance of including emojis in understanding verbal interpersonal meanings since they upscale online users’ attitudes (Zappavigna & Logi, 2024)Zappavigna and Logi(2024). The identification of cancelation strategies has a twofold implication. On the one hand, identifying these various strategies employed by cancelation supporters and resisters enhances the understanding of how online users navigate the complexities of online discourse and the sociocultural norms surrounding body shaming. Therefore, brands that employ influencers should monitor public perception and educate influencers on sociocultural sensitivity in order to mitigate risks and potential crises. On the other hand, the findings suggest that influencers are held to high standards of moral conduct, and any perceived indiscretion can lead to severe repercussions, including cancelation. This reflects broader societal expectations regarding moral behavior and accountability in public figures. Therefore, these discursive strategies may serve as lessons for social media influencers who should mitigate online transgressions before they turn into online backlash, ultimately leading to the SMI’s loss of social capital.