Respectfully disagree quite a bit:

1. Cancel culture is about a hyperscrutiny-- a trial by social media that isn't as fair about acquiring or judging information as a real trial. Granted some of these figures might never go to trial tragically, but there could also be more push to get them pushed through legal means and actual information. It also encourages people to be hippocritical and judgey of celebrities rather then examine and improve themselves.

2. In the case where people cancel people for being bigoted, it necessitates a larger discussion for what is bigoted or the degree to which we hold people accountable for pasts. When the concept of the digital footprint was introduced, people like Monica Lewinsky (the first generation of people cancelled) herself spoke of the negative impacts of cancel culture. Most of the people who speak against it never get cancelled.

3. Not everyone who gets cancelled is rich, and that's not a defense for treating people horribly. A lot of times it is professors in academia, and the problem is that they might teach more safely of getting cancelled. With issues of transgenderism or race, there are now many professors in the social science who are afraid of even doing clinical research on those subjects because it's too hot button and they pre-emptively fear cancellation.

4. With regard to the left or right, I think it's the opposite. Cancelling is a left-wing value, and people like Nick Sandmann, Louis CK, and Aziz Ansari became far more right-wing in their views AFTER getting cancelled. Cancelling shows a lack of compassion and a dogmatism over what should and shouldn't be permitted in society and it turns people off to the left.