Cancel culture and boycotts are similar but different. I'd argue that a boycott is a collected effort by a group of organised people to coordinate the absence of their finances at an equal cost to themselves. See Montgomery Bus boycott as an example of this. The community made a decision and implemented that decision.

Cancel culture takes the nature of what a boycott is, but changes it in a few subtle ways. Firstly it often doesn't have a political or legal agenda, it's a kneejerk response to disagreement. Rowling's opinions on Trans people are not the same as her oppressing them - they might feel oppressive, but the two are different things altogether. Boycott's genearlly have an agenda that goes further than 'I disagree'

And secondy 'Cancel Culture' usually involves very little thought, consideration or processing from those involved. They simply receive instructions on whom to cancel and a reason for that cancellation. They don't attempt to engage in the process at any other point. It's virtue signalling (which is why it doesn't work, unlike boycotts which generally do). People aren't outraged at injustice, they're faux outraged at perceived offence. The amount of people who care about trans right and the amount of people who pretend to care about trans rights are wildly different.

This is an excellent article, but I'm afraid I disagree with your premise. Cancel culture can and should be put in the bin as an exercise in experimental human stupidity.