What's behind the curtain?

I notice that reporting on BLM malfeasance is now allowed, though so far it is restricted to reporting on financial improprieties. I guess they came out underdogs in some covert contest. I'm not versed enough in the American version of kremlinology to know who came out on top.

Parsing out who's who can be complicated. BLM was nominally about blacks, but if you looked at who was running it, and what sorts of materials they offered to schools, it was clearly more about changing sexual mores. (I read their web info about dismantling the family before they realized it was bad PR and scrubbed it, read the resumes of their local leaders, and read and skimmed the materials they offered last year.)

It feels like conspiracy theorizing. I like having clean data to work with. But lockstep reporting, questions that are answered with "Shut up you epithet-du-jour", and the obvious lies leave me wondering what's left out. Whether coordinated or emergent, the reporting has direction and shape. So, I don't know, but...

Perhaps the struggle is within BLM--it always seemed a strange marriage. Homosexuality wasn't widely applauded in the black community--though maybe that changed in recent years.