The only response I can really offer to somebody using your definition is "I too hate society" (with my tongue firmly in cheek). Which says to me that it is not

The only response I can really offer to somebody using your definition is "I too hate society" (with my tongue firmly in cheek). Which says to me that it is not a particularly useful definition? I mean, dictionaries are useful for the elaboration of terms, but picking a dictionary reflective of the legal environment might be wiser[0]. A crucial nuance that the definition you quoted lacks is that vigilantism is the enforcement of the law by parties not so empowered. It's monopoly-of-force stuff. The definition you offered turns the word into a nearly null term. "Hey, don't hire that guy or I'm not going to do business with you" is not a third-party attempt to enforce the law. It is a declaration of, like, a transactional condition. The company receiving that message can weigh whether or not putting up with that guy (or even if they are deserving of opprobrium in the first place--after all, maybe the person talking to them is wrong!) is worth the hit to their bottom line and decide accordingly. It's a transaction, it's not a violation of the state's monopoly of force, it's not "vigilantism" in any way that makes the term meaningful and useful in a sane discussion. There are bounds we have placed on some kinds of transaction--you can't sell yourself into slavery (by some definitions at least), a business can't refuse service to a protected class (unless it can for a set of prescribed reasons)--but "hey, that guy's a jerk and I'm not gonna do business with jerks" is far afield from that. [0] - https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vigilantism https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vigilantism