If you don't believe in the power of boycott and divestment you have clearly never met someone who unhingedly tries to deface, defame, and discredit their exes
because if they ever connected they'd hold them accountable for their actions by disclosing mutually horrid experiences to potentially unaware victims.
And in all of this- the perpetrator is almost never sorry they hurt anyone, they may see this as an act of ruining their future experiences and this provides another avenue to gaslight whomever new in their life that whomever from their past is attempting to harm them.
These are not the same fear. Exes in situation A are concerned for the potential harm that could be endured by others. A person in situation B is concerned for how their behavior may inhibit their ability to routinely continue to harm others. The idea that whatever momentary stress you go through that's relieved when you 'get away' with something of that nature is not penance or payment for the atrocities you commit against others, not now, not then, not in future.
Exes in situation A have been harmed already, the variables are the same but the values are what make a drastic difference in the pain; mathematics wise you could say that
X = 0 + N +(-H) x S ÷ T
With X representing the overall score of a person's outcome on an infinite scale of how well or poorly they behave.
With 0 representing the baseline value we will assign to someone with no positive (supported) or negative (harmed) experiences.
With N representing the value of the perceived person being assessed in the situation on a scale of 0 - 10.
With H representing negative experiences relating to some form of harm within the relationship or caused by it. Always a negative number or 0.
With S representing positive experiences relating to some form of support within the relationship or caused by it. Always 1 or more.
With T representing time as the notion of time and events can sporadically change any person for any novelty of reasons and their perception of its passing.
So an ex in situation A that's been done dirty, ghosted, and hurt in less than a month may have an equation look like this:
X = 0 + 0 + (-3) × 1 ÷ 1
X = -3 and that ex has definitely been wronged. Now wait three months (3), socially things have spread, some friends support the ex (2), but more support is given publicly for the other side regardless of fault-to-outcome (5). the same ex is defamed, and lied about in order to boost the other sides overall support (-0.5), (+1).
Now the ex in situation A has an equation like
X = -3 + 0 + (-0.5) × 1.5 ÷ 3
X = -3.25 and it becomes clearer how support and time still don't change much if any degree of harm is carried out again.
On the opposite hand the person causing harm may have an equation that starts like this:
Z = 0 + 3 + 0 × 1 ÷ 1
Z = 3 and this person has had a better relationship experience overall as evident by number when you recognize being allowed to live unchallenged in the face of harming others is a positive whether you reap the privilege or not
And then the same scenario explained above turns their equation into:
Z = 3 + 0.5 + 0 × 6 ÷ 3
Z = 3.5
Now when you add in telling two others about their actions, which they view as harm:
Z = 3 + 0.5 + (-2) × 4 ÷ 3
Z = 0.833 and this dramatic drop in overall value of the relationship can sometimes be mistaken as being harmed when in reality the ex has been existing consistently at -3.25 since this relationship occurred.
That's how a good thing can be a bad thing can be a good thing for some, but harmful to many more no doubt.