> You are assuming without evidence that they are coordinated

The evidence is the highly abnormal behavior. The alignment of interests is a red herring.

> it is common for them to all support that something with the need for some central organization.

Sure, as is frequently seen with the conferences and administrative bodies surrounding treaties and the like. Would you care to point out this central organizing body that a bunch of people posting here appear mysteriously determined to deny the existence of?

What exactly is your position? First you object to an alleged lack of evidence on my part, then turn around and seemingly attempt to justify the observed behavior with the argument that coordination in the open is normal and expected. So do you acknowledge the presence of what appears to be centralized coordination in this instance or not?

What was your purpose in responding here?