I forgot the number but there was a study done on how many users it took to have a "Negative brand interaction" on social media before the company would take note and "correct the issue", but it was shockingly low. Like 20 people tweeting fake outrage have gotten big corporations to take shit down.
Sorry for vagueness, but I think it was last year when an old computer game guy was going to get a lifetime achievement award, but there was REEEEEEing about it on Twitter so the group that was going to give it to him rescinded it. And not only did numerous women who worked with him at the time who were said to have been sexually harassed vehemently defend him, but they found out that it was literally only 12 people on Twitter who were complaining - including Brianna Wu.
And cancel articles, or 'Is (x) bigoted? Some people on Twitter think so...' articles, are often written with fewer than five accounts actually saying the thing in question is a problem, and often they have follower counts in the two digits as well. So it seems if one account with a few thousand followers makes a claim, and that claim gets two retweets, that's enough to cause an outrage, or at least 'start a conversation'.
I think it's in part due to corporations still thinking 1 interaction = 1,000 people who believe the same thing but didn't bother, like it used to be in mail-only days, and in part because the huge amount of internet 'journalists' who regard Twitter as an important resource to gather news from rather than a place where people can be mad about literally everything and anything, which makes it super-easy to craft a narrative.
That thing where people do the 'my enemies are a vast and consuming evil that are also all wimpy babies who couldn't handle a real fight' thing? PULL is doing that to themselves, where they're this mean and bitchy community on the internet that's managed to help take down a long-term predator ... but also so small and ineffectual that nothing they say should be taken seriously if anyone were to point out the consequences of what they're saying. They want the power to cancel people without anyone being able to ask, 'But why? Based on what?'