That's also trivial to manipulate; control the narrative, and you control the Overton window. People picking the middle of two fake options are still under the influence of whoever chose those options — just ask any stage magician.

Narrative is controlled by censorship.

This was the old world. In our world narrative control is not by restrictions, but by abundance. Flood the zone writ large.

If you don't know other sources, they are of no help for you indeed, but censorship does worsen the situation.

And/or propaganda.

Everyone can feel censorship, everyone can learn what they're punished for saying.

Propaganda, though, that can feel like learning, like personal growth and development.

If censorship comes with a stick, propaganda is a carrot.

And today, we have as much of a problem with metaphorical obesity as with literal obesity.

Propaganda works when it's the only source of information. This situation is created by censorship, especially in internets, where you don't need to walk to open a distant site.

Propaganda *also* works when it's the main source of information. This can be done in many ways.

One way is simple repetition of the exact same thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect

Another is to have many different lies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_the_zone and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood

Taking a step back, there is another way for propaganda to function that doesn't even require being the main source, but simply to make the lie so huge that people can't process the idea someone would be *that* level of dishonest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

Consider your own previous comment:

> you get one half truth from one source, another half truth from another source, then two halves make whole truth.

What happens when one source says that the Alpha Party* consists of child-eating devil-worshiping lizards from Alpha Ceti 5 who caused the 9/11 attacks to cover up how the mind-control chemtrail fluid they were making in the WTC burned hot enough to melt steel beams, and the other source says the Alpha Party is standing on a platform of reducing the tax burden on hard-working families?

The latter can be a half-truth, but you don't get even a little closer to a full truth by adding any part of the "other side".

* A made-up party, any similarities to actual persons is coincidence and all the usual disclaimer.

Your links give examples of campaigns that happened, but didn't quite work. You think the problem is their very happening? And the very fact that you know about child-eating devil-worshiping lizards from Alpha Ceti 5 shows that an opinion is available no matter what propaganda you use against it as long as it's not censored. You can suppress it only by censorship, not by propaganda. In any case using shitposting sites as a source of information is tricky, journalism isn't that bad yet.

> Your links give examples of campaigns that happened, but didn't quite work. You think the problem is their very happening?

They clearly did work, though.

Problem? No, the problem isn't their very happening, it's more that they are effective strategies. Some also used by advertising agencies.

> And the very fact that you know about child-eating devil-worshiping lizards from Alpha Ceti 5 shows that an opinion is available no matter what propaganda you use against it as long as it's not censored.

I don't know anything about child-eating devil-worshiping lizards from Alpha Ceti 5, that doesn't mean I can't talk about them. It's called "making stuff up".

Not sure where you're going with that sentence though. You do realise, I hope, that this was supposed to be a string of nonsense? That the point was that no matter which half you take from a string of nonsense, you can't combine it with a half-truth to get a full truth, you just get a half truth with a different false part.

Which in this example might be something like "the Alpha Party* caused the 9/11 attacks to cover up how the mind-control chemtrail fluid they were making in the WTC burned hot enough to melt steel beams, and wants to reduce the tax burden on families where the parents earn more than double the national average income between them".

The half-truth remains, at best, a half-truth. But that's the best case, and you only get that if you already knew what part was less than honest before you considered what to dismiss, at which point you didn't need anything from other statements in the first place.

> You can suppress it only by censorship, not by propaganda.

That's the point of disagreement: you, as a human, can only pay attention to so much. For example, if I buy all the ad space around you and fill it with only my own message, that is propaganda that denies the same space to anyone who wants to tell the truth.

> In any case using shitposting sites as a source of information is tricky, journalism isn't that bad yet.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/09/25/1-in-5-am...

* A made-up party, any similarities to actual persons is coincidence and all the usual disclaimer etc etc.

This assumes you have the cognitive resources to do that. Most people just switch to someone they trust to avoid exactly this. Matter of fact, that was the major advantage of the net back in the day.

I think people have to deal with pluralism of opinions in everyday life too, since different people have different opinions. Aren't they socially maladapted if they can't do that?

> That's why diversity of sources is the only way to escape censorship:

No, it's a page out of the old fascist playbook where flooding the stage with propaganda generates enough confusion to help fascists further their hateful agenda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Fascism means diversity of opinions, democracy means everyone is only allowed to have the opinions you want them to have?

Fascists in the original sense, Mussolini, didn't tolerate opposition.

I'm not sure about modern fascists, but US politics does look rather Kayfabe-y to me. Fake opposition, there for the purpose of being an opponent.

Of course then you get all the discourse about what even counts as fascism, and someone brings up that the origin of the word is the Roman "fasces" (bundle of sticks) and how that etymological root points to the concept of "strength through unity" which is also why the Lincoln memorial has Lincoln resting his hands on them[0] and why trade unions often use the "strength through unity" phrasing (and get annoyed/upset by the connection).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lincoln_Memorial_statue_a...

Democracy is having the laws Americans approve of, because God wrote their Constitution.

I find it hilarious when people who are pro censorship bring up Karl Popper and the Paradox of Tolerance.

You can tell they've never read his work because his conclusion in the end is that you should tolerate intolerance up and until it promotes specific violence.

So total freedom of speech up and until it starts inciting violence. It's basically the same stance the US Constitution has.

But RT is banned in most of europe