Overall, this incident was not a good look for Hudgens from any angle, as it first, and most obviously, showcased the utter ignorance and indifference she felt toward a novel virus, public health measures, and the deaths and hardship that would come as a consequence. But, also, and possibly more importantly in exploring its place within this past year’s cancel culture, Hudgens’ “cancellation” revealed that consumers are more wholly becoming aware of the impact and influence behind public figures’ messages. So much so that when a celeb says something considered “out of line,” many media users feel less apprehensive in holding them accountable and expressing their personal discomfort and disagreement. 

 

Now, this wasn’t the first or last time that a celebrity was “exposed” for their misactions during the pandemic — see the cases of consistent traveling, non-mask wearing, and extravagant, shameless party throwing for reference. But, as multiple studies and researchers, like Syracuse University communications professor and media psychologist T. Makana Chock, note, “People do tend to be influenced in terms of our attitudes and behavioral choices by role models or celebrities. It can have an impact on people's beliefs about what is appropriate, what's effective, and the overall message they may be receiving.” This reveals that recent “cancellations,” especially those surrounding public health errors or disregard, may have at least partially arisen out of concern for others, specifically young, more impressionable people, in an attempt to prevent them from blindly buying into celebrities’ misinformation or mirroring their missteps. In a way, Hudgens’ “cancellation” acted as a sort of social buffer, so that others immediately began associating the star with negative feelings and would definitely not take her misshapen thoughts on the pandemic seriously. 

 

Further, Vanessa Hudgens’ cancellation also sheds light on the fact that people are becoming more comfortable calling out harmful displays of privilege when they see them. At the time of these comments, there were 200,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 worldwide. The pandemic was only beginning, but its effects were already large and devastating. 

When Hudgens made those remarks, she presumably wasn’t thinking about the way that 8000 people across the globe had already died as a result of the spread, or about the way that minority populations are being disproportionately affected by COVID, or about the more than 100 million people that the virus will push into poverty by the end of 2021. But other people were. And in “cancelling” Hudgens, those people, as sort of proxies, were simultaneously acting as advocates for public health and equity. This importantly reveals one way that cancel culture can be inextricably linked to advocacy — sure, maybe in a somewhat complicated, roundabout sort of way, but still, in standing up for the moral good and letting celebrities and others know that careless moves are no longer “okay.”