B) "Criticizing" an idea to get it expunged from various media to manipulate what ideas people are exposed to.
If you even pretend that there is no difference between A and B, you're not worth intellectually engaging with.
"The Times also errs by utterly failing to grapple with the problem that “cancelling” represents free speech and free association."
It's a strawman conundrum that White constructs all on his own. It might seem very clever to people who think freedom of speech is some kind of mechanistic rule to puzzle over. Not clever at all when one considers the reason why it became a value for modern societies.
Not only White conflates the two behaviors I mentioned in my post above, he reinforces the confusion by equivocating a riot at Berkley with ridiculing someone.