In the dead of night a plot unfolded to quietly remove those who were guilty of wrong think. Those monstrous characters who felt the need to not only disagree, but to do so publicly. They had to be stopped for the greater good, for the safety of others. Didn't you know that exposure to dissenting opinions and harsh tones is akin to physical violence? These things must be removed from the internet, they are unfit and unsafe for public consumption. Only the pre-approved, feel-good, advertiser friendly content should remain. And if you happen to disagree? Well, you saw what happened to the last guy.

Seeing the wave of deplatforming was surprising but the response to it was not. People took to social media to express excitement at other people's freedom of speech being infringed upon. They shouted from the rooftops that they were victorious, how they were finally able to silence their opposition. Instead of engaging in a battle of ideas, the new strategy was to remove their opponents from the playing field. The people who make endless claims of oppression once again engaged in actual oppression. Whether it's leveraging tech companies or the government, the goal is to control the narrative and other people.

It was odd seeing people go out of their way to defend the actions of these companies. The type of people who would typically blame "Corporate America" for the ills of the world were now siding with their new found allies, big business. This alliance of convenience seems contingent on the companies supporting the approved line of thought and if the allegiance leads to increased viewership or profits. While there might be small political gains from what was essentially censorship, the real winners were the people pulling the strings, the legacy media outlets and their parent corporations.

The legacy media appears to be struggling to maintain its audience pool. Alternative media has reached a level where it is in direct competition with the legacy outlets who failed to see the potential of internet platforms. Every minute people spend consuming alt media is money and influence siphoned away from the old guard. Over the years we've seen legacy outlets publish content targeting alt media personalities, possibly an attempt to diminish the efforts of the competition and to regain their position in the market.

Main stream outlets appear to have been the driving force behind the censorship all along. They were the little birdies chirping in the ears of the tech giants, planting the idea to have people removed from their platforms. They spent the time and effort to comb through years of content just to find any morsel of questionable content, hoping it could be the magic bullet that breaks the terms of service. This deep dive into the internet history of individuals and organizations is the beginning of a new game they want to play. It's just another way of manipulating the system to wield power over others.

None of this was done to protect marginalized groups, to stop "fake news" or to support some flavor of the month activism. It was done to remove the competition and retain power. The long-term damage of the deplatforming wave has yet to be seen but it is probably a safe bet it won't end well for anybody. In the short-term it seems that elevating content to a "forbidden fruit" status has had the opposite effect people were hoping for. The news surrounding these events created greater interest in the people that were deplatformed, it drove traffic to whatever is left of their online presence and it encouraged users to sign up for alternative social media platforms. A hopeful side-effect of these events has been that of motivating people to stand up for free speech and to have more conversations about the issue.