Writing this first part solely regarding what Carmack said and before I read what Hyde has written: It's all good claiming to be a "hard core free speech advocate", but as is clear with the example that Grummz pointed out regarding Palmer Lucky being fired, it rings hollow whenever these claims about being a "hard core free speech advocate" is thrown around only when it's regarding the extreme free speech of one side and not the other.

Selective application of such a principle is ultimately a betrayal of that principle. Sure, you didn't actively go against it, but you didn't stand by it either when it should have been stood by. It betrays where a person can ultimately stand on the matter.

And now reading what Sam has said, I don't disagree, and despite that, I still think it's at least important to try and maintain some principles while ending the endless benefit of "the doubt" that these people have been given time and time and time again. The Benefit of The Doubt is to be given on matters of doubt, not where a pattern of behaviour has been shown time and again. I agree with Carmack that these people should ultimately have free speech and not be punished for it, but that doesn't mean their words shouldn't be taken very, very seriously in telling you exactly the kind of people they are and informing you of just what their actions mean. Not punishing a person for their speech and totally disregarding what they say are two different things.

Also, while cancel culture is not exactly nice, it isn't necessarily an instance of censorship either. Freedom of association is also a human right, and nobody is entitled to a job, nor is there any definition where employment is a human right.