Censorship in social media, academic, professional organizations and various other fields became increasingly prevalent as Wokeism began taking a foothold.
Reclaim The Net reports on recent censorship events.
Speaking of ‘the illusion of change by activism’: what I have noticed, whilst pottering around the world-wide-web, is that those of a sinistral statist ideology (such as your ‘marxism/ postmodernism/ feminism’ wording is suggestive of) are apparently extracting meaning and/or purpose from busying themselves in the redressment of systemic cultural ‘wrongs’, via the heavy hand of state compulsion, through retaining tight control of ‘the public narrative’ – having long-ago seized the high moral ground of minority-group injustice (as per your ‘fighting for the rights of the vulnerable classes’ words) – on a yet-to-be-demonstrated premiss that an equitable society can be legislated into existence (i.e., imposed on all citizens at the point of state-owned/ state-controlled guns), in a ‘majority-rules’ society, on a ‘minorities-rule’ basis. —ref
The Woke has arrogated Mr. Karl Popper’s “Paradox of tolenrace” to advance their authoritarian Censorship and deplatforming measures. The irony here is that, when Mr. Popper’s “Paradox of tolerance” is followed to the tee it would result in the deplatforming of the Woke themselves. u/LotsRegret explains this:
From a, pre-censored Wikipedia article:*
Deleted by an editor, presumably as an act of Censorship so as to artfully prevent a casual critical reader from being cognizant of this bias.
Meat is controversial given that Vegan Propaganda* have got many otherwise intelligent people by the balls, even to the point of peddling pseudoscience for decades. It is no surprise then that the Wikipedia article on 🥩 Carnivore diet suffers from censorship. Here’s where reviewing the Talk page is particularly illuminating.
Wikipedia is not trust worthy in controversial topics. Here’s a trick I use to extract heterodox views on topics which are otherwise censored in Wikipedia.
So what would our tech bro saviors have found out if they had actually bothered to talk to anyone black? Well, at least this black person would have told them that calling the branch master is not offensive. Furthermore, black people as a collective are not triggered by words like master wherever they appear in the wild. Context people, context. Banning a word because you think it’s offensive is basically telling us what we should and should not be offended by. There are bigger problems around inclusivity that deserve our time, let us put this drive for change into those.
This explains why social media was captivating in its early years but has become increasingly restrictive and of average quality over time, largely due to censorship.
[…] A simpler thesis would be that the reason so much of “Big Tech” spontaneously coordinated [to censor] as it did was a political calculus aimed at avoiding onerous regulation by currying favour with the incoming administration.
I predict essentially identical Censorship/deplatforming policies across all layers of the legacy Internet stack. Client-side & server-side ISPs, cloud platforms, CDNs, payment networks, client OSs, browsers, email clients. With only rare exceptions. The pressure is intense. —Marc Andreessen
Losing control (over Censorship)