Pretty much. It’s only when you see over time who gets away with stuff and who gets the leash yanked hard.
If it’s working properly, then the process is mostly invisible because people with non-approved opinions will self-censor rather than flirt with termination or exile to a shitty position. When the only voices heard are the ones consistent with the approved narrative (anticipating the next question, the “approved narrative” is one where every human interaction is framed through the cultural Marxist binary of evil oppressors and virtuous oppressed with no middle ground between the two), it’s a tell, but it’s also the desired outcome. Note that two people covering Big Ten football^ got fired, while the person in charge of posting feminist poetry online^^ did not.
^ a sport
^^ not a sport
And as a bonus, where there’s no direct evidence such as a memo or an email, or maybe an ombudsman’s column, or another ombudsman’s column, there’s plenty of sweet, sweet deniability available for gaslighting. I get it, it’s fun to tell people that what they see isn’t there and watch them sputter. After all, management says, we aren’t suppressing opposing viewpoints, we are simply enforcing tolerance. And we define what tolerance entails and what must be tolerated.