No, because the number of people who participate in an action influence its justness.

When 1 person decides to make a new law, that's autocracy, and it's a bad thing. When a supermajority of voters decide to make a new law, that's democracy, and it's a good thing.

When a couple dozen editors, CEOs, and DJs decided to end the Dixie Chicks' careers by banning them from access to all channels of outreach to the public, that was a bad thing and also censorship.

When tens of millions of people decided they don't want to go to Louis CK's shows anymore and he's finding it hard to find an audience as a result, there's nothing wrong with that. Lots of people independently deciding that they don't like you is not censorship.

> When a supermajority of voters decide to make a new law, that's democracy, and it's a good thing.

Is it, really? Even if the new law is extremely oppressive to the minority?

I mean, our drug laws are a mess that caused extreme grief (prison etc) to millions of people by now. But they were supported by wide majorities of the electorate. Were they a good thing? How about the Prohibition? Sodomy laws?

It’s generally a very small, unrepresentative number of people on Twitter responsible for canceling someone.

If that were true, why do you care?

If it's a small unrepresentative number of people who dislike a person, group, or thing, why would anybody care?

Because those small groups of people frequently cause people to get fired, for spurious or outright false reasons.

"Majority rules" is not inherently just or unjust, morality is totally separate from democracy. The world isn't black or white like your comment suggests