> The entity who performs the act of cancelling isn't the employer who fires the "offender", but the angry mob who lobbies the employer to fire said person.

Boycotting, publicly denouncing or even attempting to convince an employer to fire someone falls within the bounds of legitimate free speech. The effects of cancel culture lie within the power of employers, platform owners, etc. The angry mob isn't putting a gun to anyone's head, they're just complaining loudly.

>The only solutions I can think of involve limiting the dissemination of false or exaggerated information and fact checking.

Which would, itself, be cibsuderedd Orwellian and denounced as an attempt to create a Ministry of Truth to punish wrongthink, all while questioning who gets to define what "falsehood" or "exaggeration" is, and who watches the watchers?

That's a solution, but it's one that the opponents of cancel culture would probably vehemently oppose as being no different than cancel culture itself.