Just to be clarify, he wasn't a victim of cancel culture, he voluntarily took his blog offline to avoid his real name being punished in the New York Times.
He had to leave his job due to the politically motivated attack, which the Times said they would continue even after he told them that it would screw up his job. Doxxing is definitely a part of cancel culture.
From the original article, "NYT Is Threatening My Safety By Revealing My Real Name, So I Am Deleting The Blog" "Unfortunately, he told me he had discovered my real name and would reveal it in the article, ie doxx me." "I’m not sure what happens next. In my ideal world, the New York Times realizes they screwed up, promises not to use my real name in the article, and promises to rethink their strategy of doxxing random bloggers for clicks."
So maybe he's saying that the Times doesn't realize they screwed up, so there's no "ill intent". But in my moral system, if you know you are causing serious harm to an innocent person for no good reason but are so callous that you don't even care, you are still responsible for that harm.
I don't want to split hairs over cultural terms. I will accept your definitions for you.
What you quote is of course the essence of the problem, but I don't think it's cancel culture (and also parent commenter doesn't think it is that either).
Because cancel culture seems to be when someone does something (discussing eugenetics, speaking Mandarin that sounds like a racial slur ... or blurts racists shit on live TV, sexually harasses others, and so on) and a mob attacks them and their host institution. Some of that is really justified some doesn't seem so.
In this case Scott wasn't attacked by any mob. He simply wanted to keep his relationship with his patients that, a strictly exclusively doctor-patient relationship, no need for a third channel (eg the NYT, and his blog linked by the NYT).
