>But the examples you gave don't really meet that objectively bad definition. I'm not trying to write a dictionary definition. You are correct that my way of

>But the examples you gave don't really meet that objectively bad definition. I'm not trying to write a dictionary definition. You are correct that my way of phrasing this definition is really objectively bad. What is a non-celebrity, how do we quantify this? If you google people who lost their jobs for facebook posts etc you'll find some example. The ones that concern me more are the people who flashed across your screen, an image, a video, some "Karen" who did something on social media or someone video'd them and their company saw it, then they got fired. The context doesn't get picked up by the news so there really is no story other than a post by someone who was picked up and a life that was ruined. >This is sort of why the sky is falling concerns about cancellation don't resonate with me. The definition you picked is, I'd argue one that frames cancellation as an objectively unfair thing. And one that is concerning even when it ultimately makes the right choice. Fairness, is for courts and groups of people who have time and inclination to look at context to determine. My issue with cancellations I've seen is if you get a post blown up (even moderately so) and you lose your job, no one knows or cares. This is not a sky is falling issue, but it is a new issue that's come up in the modern internet era and Laws lag behind this sort of thing. You should not be able to be fired for being pro-Insert your politician here-. Even annoyingly so. That should not affect where you work, I believe that right now that freedom is at risk on both sides in the US. Is it a top 10 political risk on my whiteboard? No, I don't have a board. But it's an issue, and we can agree to disagree that it even is an issue. You won't get any argument that I made a good definition.