I feel no cognitive dissonance, but maybe you can explain more why I should.
> "Blizzard Entertainment is a private company and can deplatform whoever they want".
I haven't seen anyone saying Blizzard's actions should be illegal. The common response seems to be "boycott", which Alex Jones' supporters were free to do as well
Would you feel the same way if the deplatforming was done by, say, AT&T, Verizon, or T-Mobile? Because Twitter and Facebook specifically get the same protection as if they are communication pipes (as opposed to being publishers).
On the other hand, the Chinese government has stepped in to block the NBA because of the NBAs stance on free speech of players, staff, etc.
How do you get a platform when it is the defacto platform?
Private banning of speech doesn’t prevent the individual from stating those claims elsewhere. Government mandated banning of speech does prevent that speech from being used elsewhere.
If I don't want someone to speak at my event and ban them, that's not the end of the world. There are probably others who would allow them to speak.
If the government bans someone from speaking, there is no recourse.
This is the state of the world in the USA and one of our cornerstone negative freedoms.
Deplatforming is deplatforming. If one supported the deplatforming of Alex Jones, and doesn't also support China on this, then they are a hypocrite engaging in severe cognitive dissonance.
Freedom of speech is not some "loophole" that allows people to say nasty things. It's a bulwark against authoritarianism. The ones who forget that need to study world history when it comes to freedom of speech and expression.