I don't think there is a world of difference between the two. You are shunning someone because it is very likely the did something wrong. If that is your close friend and you think they did it, then it's probably a good idea to shun them. The hope is that they will see they did something wrong, own up and change. This makes the world a better place.
Some person on the internet that has been accused of doing something wrong could be black listed from online life, but what does that achieve? We don't even know if they did it?
Then what happens when someone changes their ways and becomes a better person? Do we keep them blacklisted? This seems to be the way we are operating.
Right. Twitter hands out lifetime bans. I was very encouraged this week by Justice Thomas’ opinions on monopolistic platforms. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-th...
Almost no one is "cancelled" permanently. Maybe they go away for a few months or years, but they almost always are able to resume some sort of normal life eventually. It is much less severe than a jail sentence. If they truly do reform and become a better person, that usually speeds up the process, but it is rarely an actual requirement.
[1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the...
[2] - https://www.history.com/news/why-pilgrims-came-to-america-ma...
[3] - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history...
EDIT: This is being downvoted. I'm not sure if it is the Pilgrims comments, so I will point people to the Wikipedia article and the second sentence which notes that the Pilgrims "fled religious persecution in England for the tolerance of 17th-century Holland in the Netherlands." They spent over a decade in Holland. They didn't come to America due to persecution because they already had religious freedom in Holland.[1]
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrims_(Plymouth_Colony)