In early 2022, Joe Rogan — the host behind The Joe Rogan Experience, one of the most popular podcasts in the world — found himself at the center of controversy. Including Spotify, which had signed an exclusive deal with Rogan for his podcast. In which these old podcast clips began resurfacing of moments where Rogan could be seen to spread misinformation about COVID-19 and use of racial slurs. The backlash was seen to be immediate to both parties. Artists like Neil Young and Joni Mitchell pulled their music from the platform in protest, and the hashtag #CancelSpotify started trending across social media.

The controversy quickly evolved into a broader cultural narrative. Critics saw Rogan as reckless, saying his words carried real-world consequences, especially during a public health crisis. Supporters, meanwhile, viewed the backlash as an overreaction — a sign of an increasingly intolerant climate where even difficult conversations are under fire. In his response, Rogan acknowledged his mistakes and apologized for the offensive language, but also emphasized that he brings on guests with a wide range of perspectives. To him, his platform for his podcast was all part of having honest, unfiltered discussions.

But the situation sparked a much bigger debate: where do we draw the line between holding someone accountable and censoring them? Is it fair to call for someone to be removed from a platform because of the harm they may cause — or is that a slippery slope that puts free speech at risk? In Rogan’s case, he didn’t exactly get “canceled.” Spotify stuck by him, and his podcast still pulls in millions of listeners. But the firestorm around him revealed just how complicated cancel culture can be — and how there’s often more gray than black-and-white.

While debates over cancel culture have been going on for years, public opinion remains split. In a 2022 Pew Research Center survey, most Americans said calling out others on social media can be a way to hold people accountable — but a sizable portion also felt it can go too far and unfairly punish people. Joe Rogan’s case sits right at the intersection of those perspectives. His platform is massive, and while some argue he should’ve been removed for spreading harmful content, others believe silencing him would only shut down important (if messy) conversations, rather than encouraging open debate.

As students navigating the internet daily, we see cancel culture unfold in real time — sometimes on a celebrity scale, sometimes in our own circles. What should the response be when someone says or shares something harmful? Are we aiming for punishment or progress?

Cancel culture doesn’t always have a clean beginning or end. It forces us to think about who gets held accountable, who gets forgiven, and who gets left out of the conversation. In the case of Joe Rogan, the question remains: Did we cancel him, or did we just start paying closer attention? And what should the goal of calling someone out be — cancellation, or change?