[dogma1138]

Coordination doesn’t mean collusion, there are plenty of reasons why to coordinate such as to avoid platform hopping and not having to deal with a bunch of angry people flocking to your platform and to share the news cycle.

The likelihood of high profile bans like these not being coordinated is slim.

[Gibbon1]

I'm pretty sure social media platforms all have the same problematic groups set up for one click deletion. If one pulls the trigger it's trivial for the rest to do it too.

It's the same coordination you see in penguins jumping off an ice flow. They'll all bunch up looking for sea lions they know are lurking. Eventually one jumps in or gets pushed and they all jump in right after.

[dogma1138]

Ban waves aren’t that simple they take time to prepare the legal, PR, community relations and tech support etc required.

While it probably isn’t as spontaneous as the penguins I also don’t see it as some smokey or well these days vapey dark room where they sit around the table with a bunch of dossiers laid out in front of them taking a vote.

[slg]

Collusion has an obvious negative connotation, but any coordination that happens in secret is inherently collusion.

Either way, my request still stands. Is there any evidence to suggest these companies are working together instead of us all just assuming that is the case?

[dogma1138]

Define evidence, companies share information all the time including their legal departments.

We have had multiple simultaneous ban waves this is not a new occurrence, at this point one would ask for evidence to show its not the case since the fact that this happening is self evident.