I am not talking about shunning in the sense of social disconnection, and neither is the article. First, let's note that, for companies in particular, there is

I am not talking about shunning in the sense of social disconnection, and neither is the article. First, let's note that, for companies in particular, there is no way to cancel them other than to not purchase goods and services from them, since the typical company cannot be bought out and dissolved the hard way. So, who are the public figures that the article wants to talk about? When we actually dig in, we find a few journalists who were fired for various causes. Did the public cause them to be fired? No, their employers caused them to be fired. Does the public owe them employment protection? No, their union owes them employment protection; we the public owe them tax-funded unemployment benefits. The fact is that jobs are so important in this country because we have next to no social safety nets and we have institutionalized a lack of empathy and a desire to see the weak struggle and perish. As a result, when somebody's job is threatened, their very life is threatened. Should we endorse this sort of histrionic mania, or should we fix our society so that people are not starving if they do not report to some corporate overlord? And once we've taken this massive step back, then by what measure should we punish corporations who unfairly punish their employees? Well, by not purchasing their goods and services! So we are indeed back at the concept of boycotts. Please do not confuse any of this with actual shunning, as practiced today mostly by religious cults. If a public figure finds themselves suddenly without as much of an audience as they expected, then that is not at all comparable to a private person finding themselves bereft of their closest and most intimate relationships.