Both still have profitable businesses and communication channels. Both are celebrities that still have large fanbases. If and when they end up poor and forgotten, then they'll be canceled, now they just lost the privilege of being promoted via some media channels.

I'm having a hard time defending wealth people who lost a Twitter account because they acted like dicks. Some of them literally.

There's a vast difference between defending them and saying their actions had no consequences. You seem to think that since they are not immediately forgotten, disowned by the public and de-celebrityfied, and plunged into poverty that nothing happened. That's not true, their actions did have consequences. You can not defend them while also acknowledging something did, in fact, happen when they were cancelled.

Sadly as the monetary system is getting more and more unfair and it's getting harder for people to survive, due process and respect of property and privacy rights are getting thrown out of the window.

I'm a benefitor from the low interest rate environment of the last decades (most of us in tech are), but I can understand the billions of people who haven't.

There are certain swimmers who acted not too fairly in a swimming competition, but Twitter management was defending that person. I have no problem with that as it's all politics, I just prefer not having the same political side in all media.