The problem with your reply is a lot like what is wrong with outrage culture. It is hard to defend against. You can justify it.
Those people shouldn't be allowed to say things like that! Those things harm people. Why should we allow them to say it if we can stop it? The ends justify the means.
Do they though? You only took on two of three ideas in my post because of that.
The former CTO of Mozilla made donations that many viewed as incompatible with Mozilla. The outrage against him was easily justified. No one can come to his defense. How could you?
The two guys that made a joke between themselves at a conference were viewed as crude. The outrage against them was easily justified against the way women are treated at conferences. Few could come to their defense in the light of day. How could you defend sexism at conferences with the way women are harassed there?
Do YOU support the harassment of women?!
The last one is harder though. YouTube removing ads from channels which help give a voice to survivors of abuse. It started as a response to the backlash against horrible content, but the damage is still continuing. Those survivors did nothing wrong. They followed the rules of the website and put up content that viewers strongly believe in. The donations they are getting to support the channel are a clear enough example of that.
What do these all have in common? They do more harm than good. Each example more than the one before.
The former CTO of Mozilla could have helped Mozilla navigate a time when we are moving to mobile helping to ensure billions can communicate freely without hindrance or proprietary lock-in. The good he could do with his unique technical skills could impact the lives of billions.
The person who reported the joke was fired along with the person who told it. The act of drawing the outrage of the Internet over a joke caused problems for their employers, the conference, and them. Have we learned that public outrage isn't the best way to handle this?
No.
The YouTube debacle is another example of people going after the livelihoods of the people they disagree with. This ad is running on a channel I disagree with?! I'll protest the advertisers until the ads no longer run on channels that help survivors speak out! VICTORY..?
If you can't see a difference between a congressman "writing a note" aka trying to get someone fired and public backlash at someone for being a homophobe or making sexist comments in the presence of a woman in a professional context...I don't know what to tell you.
If you want to try to draw a line in the sand between this outrage and that outrage, this person trying to get someone fired for political/social views and these people doing the same, I won't stop you. The outcome is the same. It is hard to defend against. It is easy to justify. The unintended consequences will stack up. Rinse and repeat.
Very different than a politician personally going after someone because they believe in universal healthcare.
tl;dr No, it isn't. It is just a progression of the same outrage culture we've seen before. It is just getting worse.