While I wouldn't say cancelling someone depending on the circumstances is necessarily wrong, I do think this confusion (whether truly naive/ignorant, or put-on to avoid being seen as embracing what is clearly an attempt to silence people you disagree with) about what cancellation is and whether it even exists (which it clearly does, again whether you agree with it or not) is wrong.

The people calling for this want David Chappelle to be silenced. They don't want Netflix, or Hulu, or any other platform to be putting his thoughts and routines out there. They're protesting Netflix because that's where they are, but if it were HBO or Comedy Central or anywhere else (or several places) they'd be protesting there instead. It's not about knocking it off Netflix, it's about silencing someone they disagree with.

We can have a debate on the merits of doing that. But trying to mislead about the intentions behind it, or to try and deny such a thing exists altogether, is straight out dishonest. It undercuts any attempted moral high ground by lying out of the gate about the intentions. You know it's a dishonest argument to say "well you don't have a Netflix special, are you canceled?" You know this and yet still took the time to type out what you know is a dishonest argument.

Netflix doesn't care, and isn't trying to cancel Chappelle. Other groups are very much trying to do so. That doesn't excuse it and doesn't distract from the fact of that. Saying "the First Amendment is only about Government suppression of speech" is technically true, and also completely beside the point. It's a strawman.

If you think people should be subject to losing income and ability to do their jobs based upon what they say, then make that argument. But do so honestly. You undercut those who might agree with you when you knowingly make dishonest arguments to distract or avoid defending your position on its merits.