I think this is such bad reasoning. This is nothing to do with Occam's razor, this is just the author making random assumptions about what happened without knowing the facts.
In most of the cases that the author talks about, they're literally just bringing their own assumptions about what happened and then deciding someone shouldn't apologize. PJ Vogt wasn't cancelled by a mob, he was cancelled by his colleagues for legitimate complaints they had, and he was absolutely right to reflect on his own behaviour. This article however, just seeks to minimize what happened to one accusation (anti-unioinization) which clearly was not the only problem, and then go "Oh that's not so bad". And he repeats this over and over, people aren't criticizing Andy Ngo for "documenting the worst excesses of the far left".
It's just so weird for a person to repeatedly look at someone apologize for something and say "No, actually I know better, they shouldn't apologize".
I actually think there are cases where the mob is wrong - "Bean Dad" is a great example. But the examples in these cases just seem like such weird right wing hobby horses.