They didn't use the FCC, they used mob rule and social terrorism instead.

Different means, same end.

The means in which this happens do matter. When the government does something to limit speech it is characteristically different from people choosing to freely-associate (or disassociate) because of their systems of belief or how it would affect their relationship with others that they prioritize more. The state, in an ostensibly free polity, is suppose to remain neutral. This is especially true here in the U.S where there are strong first amendment protections that heavily limit the state's ability to police speech-content. 

The purpose of the FCC is to manage the public resource that is broadcasting, and to make sure there is a minimal degree of competition in the communications industry. It's not to police speech. 

You can't simultaneously say you believe in liberal democracy and not see the difference between the government doing this and regular everyday people choosing to disassociate according to their own beliefs or prioritized associations. 

I'm not arguing in favour of current right wing cancel culture, I agree that the government should not be doing this and that it is wrong.

But whether it's enforced by official agencies or by freelance extremists on the internet, the end result in terms of stifling freedom of expression is the same.

The alt left relentlessly punished those who didn't conform to their ideology for almost a decade, now the right is doing the same. 

My argument is that it is not the same result. Having the government involved in policing speech-content is a fast way for the U.S to become an unfree society along the path of Russia. The U.S is already in a problematic state as it is. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index#/media/File:Press_freedom_2025.svg

There is a clear power-differential between what the Government of the United States of America can do and what a collection of extremely online twitter leftists who represent a percentage of a percentage of the population can do. This is not "right wing cancel culture" when the government is involved, but an authoritarian state suppressing the speech of its population. There is no equality or symmetry in this. It's not tit-for-tat. 

I agree that this is a troubling development and that it poses serious risks.

The alt left also used government power to enforce their ideology though; there are countries where you can be sent to jail for sharing a meme or saying something they deem politically incorrect.

In the context of the United States (this thread is called "US Politics") there has never been an "alt left" in control of the branches of the federal government. The most left-wing governments we ever had in the U.S were social liberal governments, which are at best center-left, and some would argue right down the center. Basically that describes the period of 1932-1953; 1961 - 1969; and maybe if we stretch it far back -- 1861-1875. 

In almost every other period, the U.S has had divided government, centrist governments, or right-wing governments. 

Whether achieved through hard power or soft power, cancel culture is cancel culture.

This is indeed government overreach and it's a bad thing. I still find it noteworthy though that a lot of those crying foul about cancel culture now were quite happy to do it to the rest of us for most of the last decade. (And vice versa, those who cried foul before seem to be quite happy now that it's happening on their terms)

To give more international context, what in the US is considered "far left" would be something in Europe the Christian Social parties or other Center-Right parties would do. Here in Luxembourg, the Cristian Social People's Party was originally called Rietspartei, meaning Party of the Right...

Except when enforced by the point of a gun (that is what government does) it isn't simply "cancel culture" but authoritarian controls of speech. That is an entire different category of a thing. If the so-called "alt left" went to employers and put a gun to their head telling them to fire people, then that would be a more comparable situation. 

And no, my solution to "cancel culture" has always been that workers should have more rights. The only reason cancel culture works so well here in the U.S is because of at-will employment where you can be fired for any reason (barring being part of a protected class.) If there were real contracts, then employers and unions would investigate more before deciding to let an employee go, because it can be costly to let them go. 

It’s pretty insane to me that we are doing the whole “both sides” by comparing random twitter users to the federal government in terms of cancel culture.

One is clearly 1000x worse but let’s pretend they’re the same thing.