[dogma1138]

> Seems odd for multiple independent companies to act in concert like this

Yes and no, this is less collusion and more to avoid platform hopping basically if one platform bans them they’ll flock to another even if the medium isn’t identical or the platform is not optimal for their use case any platform would do in times like these.

I’m pretty sure at this point when the behavior pattern is known the platforms inform each other of high profile bans.

The others follow suit to avoid being branded as the one that didn’t or worse as the one that accepted the now pariahs “with open arms”.

[at_a_remove]

If it were platform hopping, it would be ban, then hop, then ban, then hop. It takes time to hop and move all of your content and followers.

This time has not elapsed.

[dogma1138]

It’s to prevent this, so you don’t have their user base hope to the other platform to express their anger, it also helps when you share the news cycle.

This isn’t an opinion for or against this pattern just an observation on why it makes sense.

[at_a_remove]

Sort of a pre-emptive revenge, then.

[paulpauper]

Moloenux has been on YouTube for over a decade. He wasn't evading any bans.

[ALittleLight]

I don't know about that. Twitter didn't ban Molyneux and I've not seen people branding Twitter as "The platform that permits Molyneux". (Until me, just now)