[awb]

> Why is it different when it's done by a mob instead?

Because the "mob" isn't firing people, people in positions of power are doing that. Ordinary folks are powerless outside of their voice. So, they're complaining, sending messages, signing petitions, taking a stance, etc. and social media now lets their voices be heard.

You don't have to agree with it, but to describe folks you don't agree with as a "mob", or claim that they're using "groupthink", etc. seems like you might be quickly dismissing them.

Political parties engage in groupthink and flood the news and social media with their viewpoints. Are they "mobs"? They try to get their opponents fired and blacklisted.

I totally understand being against someone being fired. But being against a group of people who are outraged and speaking their minds seems anti-Free speech to me. It's the "cancel bosses" that we should be focused on, who are actually affecting people's lives, not ordinary people that are exercising their rights to free speech.