How I read your stance: You are not allowed to hear what they have to say. They have poison thoughts that will infect you and others around you. We must protect our children from poison thoughts.

We can either strive for an educated populace that can identify propaganda or we use propaganda ourselves on ourselves. Propaganda is winning.

Bold of you to read something completely different than what I actually said. Self-propaganda?

I'm engaging in curiosity to understand. I'd love to understand your position better. You wrote:

> What is being prohibited is an adversarial government having complete control over an entity that can decide which speech is delivered to which specific audience.

That seems to imply that certain voices or ideas must be excluded to prevent this control. Isn't that, at its core, a decision that some poisonous thoughts should not be allowed to reach certain people? If not, how do you see this distinction? Does freedom of speech not include freedom to hear what others may find objectionable?

Not sure what's hard to grasp about a country deciding it's a bad idea to allow adversarial nations to run psyops on its populace at-scale.

Your solution is to open the floodgates, allowing all manner of military/intel-grade psychological manipulation, bots, AI, etc. to be unleashed on our population, but try to educate the entire population to become professionals at identifying and resisting these tactics?

Seems absurd on its face. It's strange to see someone trying to make that sound like the reasonable option.