There are a number of issues I have with cancel culture, but I'll stick to one: the speed of accusation is far quicker than the speed of investigation. By the time an investigation can occur into the accusations made about X misconduct, the 'canceling' has already taken place and the public's attention has moved on. So, the outcome of this investigation is irrelevant. The court of public opinion has spoken, and you are guilty.

I will mention a local example. A young, female teacher was accused by a number of parents of touching their children inappropriately. Some of this supposedly came from the children themselves, and in at least one case the parent 'saw' her do it. The community (and region) was outraged, the school board was notified, the teacher was forced to resign. Two months later I read an article explaining how the parent who 'saw' the event had lied, and that all the spoken of charges had been dropped due to people revoking their statements. The teacher released a statement explaining the situation and how none of it had been true, and that other teachers even knew this but couldn't say anything for fear of being attacked too. How many people do you think saw that article or that post? None. No one cared, she was a pedophile, and if she wasn't and we were wrong? Oh well.

Cancel culture is the product of people being able to unaccountable wield power online, and is an awful way of pursuing social progress. Holding people accountable for their actions on the other hand is absolutely vital of societal growth. We can drop the 'cancel' and still empower victims.

All-in-all I find it interesting, because already I see movements in activists circles to abandon the term because they realize how toxic it is. I guarantee 2 to 3 years from now no one will be using the phrase.