I'm struggling to understand both sides of this argument, so I need help grokking all these positions. I need more information before I know if I can support yo

I'm struggling to understand both sides of this argument, so I need help grokking all these positions. I need more information before I know if I can support your position. If I work for a large company, and I go out and do something that may not even be all that bad. Say, publicly berating an Uber driver like that woman doctor in Miami, my organization will fire me. Just as her organization fired her. Especially if people start publicly connecting me to them. This has happened forever, no internet need be involved. The difference here, at least one side claims, is that the large organization paying your living exists on the internet, and so should be viewed differently than any other large organization. Since those other large organizations are not internet-based? I find myself unpersuaded though, I'm honestly not really seeing much of a difference. So just so I understand what you're saying, is your position that no large organization should be able to separate themselves from that lady doctor in Miami for instance? Or is your position that only large internet-based organizations should be precluded from separating themselves from her? (Dr in Miami that berated the Uber driver is just the most analogous offline example I could think of. Large organization with enormous market power paying her living. They fire her, no one else will touch her. I'm sure there are many many more.)