Defining shame can be a difficult task. According to Klonick, something that can be agreed upon is that shame is different than guilt or embarrassment, as it is external and enforced socially. Since shame is enforced socially, an element of the shaming process that is essential is exposure to the public eye. David’s friends (or The Vlog Squad) are constantly put in this public eye, as he films their interactions on a daily level. Filming and editing his own videos allows him to construct the reality of the personas of these characters to his audience, inviting them to laugh and join in at his jokes revolving around their appearance or actions. Creating these personas invites people to scoff at their identities, as their actions become their identity.  

 Online shaming involves similar elements to cyberbullying, as it involves repeated verbal aggression over time. The one key difference is that it involves the attempt to enforce a perceived violation of a social norm. Within these videos, Dobrik often attacks the physical features of his ‘friends’ not aligning with norms, and uses these abnormalities as jokes. As Klonick stated, social norms empower society to influence individuals' behavior by assigning social significance to different actions they undertake. This means that rather than facing harassment for their actions in the vlogs, they face shame for this tying to their identity.

When it comes to the two female main characters in his videos, Corinna Kopf and Gabbie Hanna, he shames the characteristics of them having numerous sex partners or being overweight. He also induced shame onto one of the members Seth Francois for being tricked into kissing another man, which will later provide insight on the effectiveness of holding powerful people accountable. 

When someone was no longer comfortable with being shamed for these insecurities, they were no longer apart of the group. 

 Corinna Kopf

When negative emotions are consistently approved or linked to certain individuals or groups, people may develop automatic and unconscious responses lacking empathy toward those individuals or groups (Hirdman, 2016). Individuals may find themselves reacting without empathy in an ingrained manner towards these sexist jokes at Corinna, as these negative feelings are a repetition of the character she is portrayed as. “As pointed out by feminist scholars, it is through the repetition of norms, and social forms rather than by rational argument, that the world materializes and boundaries are produced (Hirdman, 2016).” Through the repetition of these social norms of being a slut rather than a rational argument, the world materializes the treatment and boundaries of Corinna within the public sphere. 

Gabbie Hanna

This same lack of empathy is seen towards fellow member Gabbie Hanna but with her weight rather than her sexual history. Dobrik constructs the reality of Hanna being a fat woman, and this is expliplified through shaming her body in irrelevant contexts. Although Hanna works out on a daily basis, since it is not included in the video it is seeming to not exist in the real world (Lageson, 2020). The societal trait of shame is very prevalent in this example, as It involves an internal evaluation of one's own shortcomings, coupled with the anticipation of how others will perceive and judge those shortcomings (Hirdman, 2016). With Hanna’s history of eating disorders, she is forced to be judged for her shortcomings in attaining a healthy physique to an unknown audience. This judgment is harshened online, as the emotional health of citizens is being more influenced by what is not considered normal when she is shown by more exposure and less free thinking (Nussbaum, 2006). An audience sees her as being shamed for her weight by numerous members of the squad, and wants to fit in with the same viewpoint of the majority. She stated that being treated this way made her believe it was all that she was worth. 

Seth Francois

This idea of someone being scoffed at for their actions overtaking their identity is extremely prevalent in the case of Seth Francois. Francois articulates a sense of betrayal and exploitation, recounting his experience as a mere prop in the public domain, where he was subjected to broadcasted humiliation for being strategically induced to engage in a staged kiss with another man. The underlying purpose of the video was not only to degrade him for succumbing to the prank but also to shame him for the act of kissing another man. By reacting in a negative connotation to the shame of unconsently being with another man bestowed onto him, he only faces further shame. Coming forward about his feelings surrounding the bit, he believed his identity would become the guy who was sexually assaulted. Male victims in terms of sexual assault (which will be defined as being intentionally sexually touched without consent according to the Sexual Offenses Act of 2003) are hesitant to reach out for help due to going against the social norms of perceptions of men. One of these perceptions include that sexual assault by someone of the same sex causes homosexuality, causing him to face social rejection of his identity of being straight (Turchik et Edwards, 2012). This places him in a perceived stigmatized group as his identity, which would be homosexuals. A stigmatized group is one who suffers pain from mockery, an assault on their human dignity, and discrimination on social functions (Nussbaum, 2006). When thinking of Francois also being from an urban environment, stigmatization can be more apparent in the degrees of maintaining a facilitating environment due to a larger population, as well as how the culture of norms is enforced by the society. A facilitating environment, as mentioned by Winnicott, refers to the social and familial conditions that contribute to the emotional health and well-being of individuals (Nussbaum, 2006). It is described as a context that supports the achievement of mature and generous love, competence, and maturity in adults. Francois spoke on the shaming ritual he faced stating, “They made me that guy, I didn’t have a choice.” 

There have been numerous efforts to hold Dobrik accountable for his actions. The only time Dobrik’s public shaming was effective was when the Business Insider article was released, as institutions no longer wanted to support him. 

In response to this, YouTube demonetized his content. Demonetization refers to YouTube withholding a creator from the YouTube Partner Program, which is the ad revenue-sharing arrangement (Caplan et Gillespie, 2020). YouTube is known for its practice of sharing advertising revenue with creators, so as much as it can be shared it can be withheld. When a video is demonetized, it is seen as a penalty for violating YouTube guidelines for posting non-advertiser-friendly content. So while a video can remain on the site, the ad revenue is halted (Caplan et Gillespie, 2020). Dispo, the application he created, also issued a statement of their support towards his departure as they stated their values on his controversy did not align.  

 Shame in these videos is not just exploited for financial gain but is transformed into a marketable entity. A commodification of shame involving public humiliation has become the culture in these videos, as a large profit is made doing so. Reflecting on a term coined by historian Nicolaus Mills, we can see a culture of humiliation within these videos. This culture not only encourages further humiliation but rewards those who humiliate others, which would be Dobrik. By attaching more and more humiliation onto the identity of his ‘characters’ he is able to continue gaining views and profit. This commodification also allows for stereotypes of these characters to be reinforced and perpetuates aspects of “othering” for those experiencing shame. Othering is termed as witnessing others who have violated social conduct and treating and perceiving them as fundamentally different than oneself (Hirdman, 2016). While these characters were not excluded from the group for their stereotyped identities, they still hold aspects of othering due to being dehumanized for their perceived identities. 

With his cancellation online, numerous videos were released to provide coverage of the event as well as call out the past behavior of eliciting shame onto his friends. There is a large commercial dimension to the commodification of these videos, as significant advertising revenue results in a large profit for these creators (Lewis et Christin, 2022). This form of bandwagon hate can create an incredibly toxic mindset for the individual being shamed but can be seen as necessary for accountability. With this commodification of shame towards his name, institutions choose to distance themselves as a commodification of tabloid media expressed his values as unacceptable, and could tie them into sharing these same outlooks (Lewis et Christin, 2022).  

We can see throughout this case that enforcing norms online relates to power dynamics that can control the public sphere. Those considered elitists or institutions hold the power to convey policy decisions that can impact a creator online, and hold the chances of sparking a larger debate on individuals' actions and values. The act of “cancellation” can often only be effective when payment is lost or damage to a reputation is exemplified, as seen in the numerous attempts from other members calling for his accountability and failing at achieving. The actions of his previous shaming tactics were not brought to light until he was held accountable on an institutional level, due solely to class and power.