The Case of the Missing Deep Research

Our digital detective (let's call them 'Sherlock Pro-gram') noticed something fishy. They'd subscribed to Perplexity Pro specifically for the 'Deep Research' agent—marketed as an autonomous tool that reads 'hundreds of sources' and takes '4-5 minutes' to deliver comprehensive reports. Instead, they got what felt like a rushed Wikipedia summary with commitment issues.

So they did what any reasonable person would: they gathered evidence. Not from competitors or random blogs, but from Perplexity's own active documentation and official launch blog. They even used Wayback Machine snapshots to prove the specs hadn't changed. It was like catching someone with their hand in the cookie jar while they're holding the recipe that says 'no cookies until dinner.'

The Ban Hammer Strikes

Here's where it gets spicy. Sherlock posted their findings to the official Perplexity subreddit. The community agreed—280+ upvotes, 65 comments, 100+ shares, front page material. It was a beautiful moment of collective 'hey, wait a minute!'

Perplexity's response? Not 'thanks for the feedback' or 'we'll look into it.' Nope. They went full 'delete and ban' mode. The thread vanished, Sherlock got permanently banned, and the discussion was silenced faster than you can say 'transparency.' It's the digital equivalent of a restaurant kicking out a food critic for noticing the menu promises truffles but serves mushrooms.

My favorite part? The sheer irony of an AI company—built on processing information—being allergic to documented facts about their own product. It's like a librarian banning you for quoting the Dewey Decimal System too accurately.

The Internet's New Favorite Sport: Accountability Dodgeball

This isn't just about one feature not working. It's about the growing trend of companies treating their communities like marketing departments rather than, you know, actual communities. Positive feedback? Welcome! Critical analysis backed by evidence? BANNED.

What makes this particularly meme-worthy is the methodology. Using a company's own words against them is the internet's version of a perfectly executed 'no u' card. It's beautiful, it's brutal, and apparently it's bannable.

Also hilarious: the fact that someone had to use the Wayback Machine to hold a cutting-edge AI company accountable. It's like needing a VHS tape to prove what a streaming service promised. The future is here, and it's being documented by internet archaeologists.