3 ms·

I wonder how these firms coordinate actions like this?

slumdev 6y ago
It's more likely a domino effect. In other words, they've all wanted to do it for a long time, and now there's a social momentum that allows them to do it without having been the first firm to do it. It's just optics.
- Dma54rhs 6y ago
  The only momentum is changing administration or fear of attack for their profits, there's not much more to it.
GuB-42 6y ago
I don't think there is deliberate coordination. It is more like the dancefloor effect (is it the official term?). When the dancefloor is empty, no one dares to take the first step, even if they want to, the someone finally steps in, then another, then another, etc... Dancing becomes more and more acceptable as the dancefloor fills up. Past a certain point, the opposite happens, it becomes unacceptable not to dance, so people step in even if they don't really want to.
- vulcan01 6y ago
  It's called the first follower effect, I think. Derek Sivers wrote about it: https://sive.rs/ff https://sive.rs/ff
ordu 6y ago
As I understand you mean a hidden kind of coordination, not the obvious one, like "look at the news, they banned Trump, good idea, don't you think? shouldn't we do the same?". Why the hypothesis of such a coordination seems to be requisite? The obvious one explains facts nicely, I believe. I feel not the trace of a cognitive dissonance remained, so why to invent more complex explanations?
- x86ARMsRace 6y ago
  The Occam's explanation here (yours) is most definitely the correct one. I can't imagine the executives of these companies sitting on conference calls coordinating their decisions like some sort of technocratic United Nations. That's just not how things play out in reality. If anything, it's more likely people are tasked with monitoring public opinion on what other companies did. If the public reacted well, then the same thing may be implemented. There's no cabal, just people watching the news and thinking "well that's a good idea that people like".
Nbox9 6y ago
I think the firms do not want to be held responsible for hosting discussions that lead to violence during the transition of power. January 6th made organized violence look like a more real possibility.

It's more likely a domino effect. In other words, they've all wanted to do it for a long time, and now there's a social momentum that allows them to do it without having been the first firm to do it. It's just optics.

Dma54rhs 6y ago
The only momentum is changing administration or fear of attack for their profits, there's not much more to it.

GuB-42 6y ago

I don't think there is deliberate coordination. It is more like the dancefloor effect (is it the official term?). When the dancefloor is empty, no one dares to take the first step, even if they want to, the someone finally steps in, then another, then another, etc... Dancing becomes more and more acceptable as the dancefloor fills up. Past a certain point, the opposite happens, it becomes unacceptable not to dance, so people step in even if they don't really want to.

vulcan01 6y ago
It's called the first follower effect, I think. Derek Sivers wrote about it: https://sive.rs/ff https://sive.rs/ff

ordu 6y ago

As I understand you mean a hidden kind of coordination, not the obvious one, like "look at the news, they banned Trump, good idea, don't you think? shouldn't we do the same?". Why the hypothesis of such a coordination seems to be requisite? The obvious one explains facts nicely, I believe. I feel not the trace of a cognitive dissonance remained, so why to invent more complex explanations?

x86ARMsRace 6y ago
The Occam's explanation here (yours) is most definitely the correct one. I can't imagine the executives of these companies sitting on conference calls coordinating their decisions like some sort of technocratic United Nations. That's just not how things play out in reality. If anything, it's more likely people are tasked with monitoring public opinion on what other companies did. If the public reacted well, then the same thing may be implemented. There's no cabal, just people watching the news and thinking "well that's a good idea that people like".

Nbox9 6y ago

I think the firms do not want to be held responsible for hosting discussions that lead to violence during the transition of power. January 6th made organized violence look like a more real possibility.