[tal8d]

Enforce existing law. You remember the last several times that a person/alt-service was permabanned across multiple platforms in a period of time so short that it looked coordinated? It looked that way because it was. That kind of coordinated gatekeeping should have drawn heavy scrutiny, but it didn't - for obvious reasons.

[ceejayoz]

> It looked that way because it was.

Maybe, but I don't think so. It's entirely likely large corporations have fairly similar thresholds for action on such things, especially when reporters are calling for comment on a specific act.

If you go around poisoning the neighborhood cats, chances are your neighbors will all rapidly think you're a dick, even without a neighborhood meeting and vote to decide it.

[cesarb]

> It's entirely likely large corporations have fairly similar thresholds for action on such things

It's also likely that there's a higher threshold for being the first to take action. Once the first one takes action, the rest can hit their (now lowered) threshold much faster or even immediately. That can give the appearance of coordination, but the only coordination being that everyone was waiting for someone else to be the first.

[tal8d]

That would be a good argument if there weren't public conferences, discussion panels, and work groups that these companies send representatives to in order to coordinate their efforts in "combating the rising threat of <insert boogeyman>".

[ceejayoz]

I'm not aware of any interpretation of antitrust law that forbids networking at conferences.

[tal8d]

lol, yeah, "networking". That kind of self delusion will come in handy as the cartel activity becomes increasingly bold and the regulatory capture ensures no way out.