Thread by @jonst0kes

Meant to say this yesterday, but these sudden, coordinated (IMO now) moves from the platforms are about 2 things: 1. There’s another wave of unrest brewing & 2. New power in DC will blame them for it. washingtonpost.com/technology/202…

January 20 will get nuts and the platforms know it, as does the security apparatus. These bans are CYA for whatever unfolds & whatever kinds of scrutiny they’ll get afterwards from the Dem congress and executive.

I find the resistance to the idea that this was coordinated pretty odd. A few reasons. 1st, when I suggest that there are only in the low single-digits # of ppl who'd need to be in the loop on such a de-platforming at any large platform, I am not entirely speculating.

You really don't have to imagine more than a few ppl at Twitter, FB, Google, etc. involved in a moderation decision like this. Internally, the bar here is quite low, any pattern matching you may be doing re: major BigCo strategy stuff is the wrong pattern. Moderation is...

..its own mechanism that operates in its own silo, & they can do what they need to do w/out a ton of ppl in the loop.

Second: The ppl in these circles know their counterparts at other platforms, & they chat, & this can all be done informally. Again, not a high barrier.

Third, & important: It is not in any way illegal for them to coordinate like this. The optics may not be great, but there's nothing technically wrong with it.

Finally, & related to #3, these companies ILLEGALLY coordinated hiring practices and LIED about it, & there were a ton of ppl in the loop, & barriers were MUCH higher.

So why do you imagine they coordinated on hiring to form a cartel, but would not coordinate on deplatforming?

Occam's Razor to me says "coordination." If it quacks like a duck... The triple-bank-shot explanation is this stuff about incentives and peer pressure and so on. Nah, that's too complicated. A handful of ppl pinged their counterparts on it, & a consensus formed, & they jumped.