Blocking someone on media is not the same as a parent treating their child as a non-thing. The parent is punching down. The social media consumer is punching across. The child depends on the parent for the necessities of life. The social media consumer is not in a similarly vulnerable position.

There's a lot of toxic stuff on social media. There are cultists, trolls, bullies, bots, etc. And there are simply people we don't want to interact with. So I use Block and Mute functions to tailor my online experience so that it builds me up rather than tears me down. The social media consumer doesn't care that I've muted them in the same way that a child cares that their father won't look at them. They probably don't even notice.

A related matter is when a celebrity or brand is canceled, or when a company decides to pull or makeover its product to cater to changing public tastes.

In the latter, it's a corporation deciding that it no longer wants to present itself in a manner that its customers may find offensive. It's a business decision about what to do with its property. It's a flex with the times.

In the former, customers are deciding that they no longer want to buy a product. It's a good old-fashioned boycott, the free market at work. It's a punch-up.

Yeah, I know some artists take it very personally when the public rejects their work. RIP Sinéad O'Connor. OTOH, many artists and celebrities believe that "there's no such thing as bad publicity," and revel in public outrage. Cue TFG and his celebrity backers.

Neither is remotely comparable to a parent denying a child a basic necessity of life. Sinéad O'Connor comes close however she was re-living the abuse she endured as a child and as a teen.