Which would completely invalidate the entire purpose of the SCIF, no? Unless it exists to feed fake info to the locals?

It's government. Security Theater/"Look, we're trying" is usually more important than reality.

It's weird. On the one hand governments are devious and brutal oppressors of freedom, on the other hand governments are calculating masters of subterfuge faking moon-landings and implanting microtransmitters by vaccination, on a third hand governments are money-wasting incompetent douches who can't even tie their shoes, and on a fourth hand governments are morally bankrupt and do everything to get re-elected. A strange beast, with four hands, no less!

"Enemy is strong and weak" seems like a universal trait for any propaganda, I really have no idea why some want to say that it's a special fascism trait.

It is the exact line the US is taking on Russia. “Ukraine need help now or soon Russia will be in SOME_NATO_COUNTRY” and “Russia is loosing hard” at the same time, often in the same “according to government officials…” speak.

You frame this as a contradiction but a moment of reflection reveals that it's not.

If the US continues to aid Ukraine, then it's likely that Ukraine will be able to beat Russia eventually, due to the West's superior military equipment and tactics.

If the US stops aiding Ukraine, it will be much more difficult for Ukraine to beat Russia. If Russia achieves its goals and gains control of Ukraine, then yes, other NATO countries will be in danger.

Some of the "russia is loosing hard" news is propaganda of course, to raise the morale of people fighting for their homeland. I find it hard to get too mad about that.

Most people's "knowledge of government" is more like "knowledge of stereotypes & tropes about government".

Also, it can be more about the emotions of the humans doing the attributing than about the real governments. Just look at all the bizarre, contradictory, and fridge-test-flunking attributes which humans have attributed to gods and related mythical beings.

With a creature as big as a modern government, there isn't as much contradiction in such claims as it sounds, especially if considered with regard to the task at hand. Tasks differ.

If a modern government wants an $unpopular_group exterminated, they can probably do so with brutal efficiency, given the tools at their disposal and the overall balance of power between the state and individuals.

If a modern government wants to win a war, well, half of those governments lose, because the other side is usually way more powerful than a random $unpopular_group.

If a modern government wants to achieve some nebulous goal such as "defeat disinformation" or "root out racism", I would bet on a spectacular bumbling failure with a lot of graft every time.

> Which would completely invalidate the entire purpose of the SCIF, no?

Yes. But if you belong in there, nobody is going to second guess you.

It’s probably not an all or nothing prospect. Raise the costs enough/mitigate the threat in atleast some of them etc

> nothing is technically stopping you from walking into a SCIF with a phone most of the time

That is ridiculous.

I've been to multiple embassies as a nobody and no electronics were allowed and this was strictly enforced.

I added “most of the time” to match my experience. If the entire building is a SCIF, I’ve usually left my phone in the car. If it’s just a room in a building, they usually have lockers outside and use the honor system.

I agree it's ridiculous (though not in the way you meant), but he is telling the truth. I don't doubt that there are facilities which are watched as closely as you describe, but not all are. I have worked in a SCIF where the only thing stopping me from bringing in a phone was the fact that I said I wouldn't, and I keep my word.

I've been to tiny embassies and I was thoroughly searched and anything remotely looking like an electronic device was temporarily confiscated.

They usually make a big deal out of it.

This in embassies between friendly nations!

Again, I don't doubt that some facilities do have that level of scrutiny. I'm simply saying that not all do.

It's not universal though: [https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/the-republican-scif-i...]

If you work in a scif, then I might assume you already have a security clearance and were read-in to the program. Is so, that might explain the trust.