>Opponents of cancel culture absolutely considered Donald Trump to be a victim of it. I have no doubt you can find some opponents of cancel culture who believe

>Opponents of cancel culture absolutely considered Donald Trump to be a victim of it. I have no doubt you can find some opponents of cancel culture who believe that to be true, the point is whether this is a meaningful or influential subset next to the vast majority that believes that it's the material harm of mob action that makes the practice barbaric and harmful. >they also argue that social media companies hold monopoly control over the majority of human communication This is an objective fact by all reasonable measures of the words "monopoly" and "majority". Are you saying this to support their argument or to contradict it? >being banned from them is equivalent to being erased from modern society. "Erased" is a bit of a strong word, being banned from social media is probably for the better interests of the banned person's mental health and IQ. But it does amount to silencing, the oft-repeated example here is how telephony companies and mobile providers can't censor or degrade the service according to the content that users share across their networks. I have never seen a convincing argument for why social media is any different than mobile phones such that this doesn't hold.