One feature of totalitarism is suppression of dissenting political views. Somehow modern democracy (de)evolved from "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" to current cancel culture.
> Somehow modern democracy (de)evolved from "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" to current cancel culture.
Brendan has a right to express his opinion. Mozilla has a right to fire him for it. There's nothing totalitarian here.
Personally I'm not OK with rule by lynch-mob, and I hope you see how allowing such a culture to take hold may one day backfire, also on the things you hold dear.
Cancel culture is probably toxic to public discussion. But what is the alternative if people want to vote with their feet? If people want to make choices based on their morals, that seems awesome to me.
It's only if people are bluffing things into being canceled that I see an issue here.
We can force people to provide service to customers. We can't force customers to demand service from certain vendors. Especially with culture (comedians, pundits, writers).