Many foreign-based social media accounts promoting extremist views aren't state-sponsored propaganda. Instead, they are run by individuals in developing nations who have discovered that inflammatory content is the easiest way to gain followers and monetize their accounts. This reframes the issue from purely geopolitical influence to include economic opportunism.

The problem with social media isn't free speech itself, but algorithms that elevate misinformation for engagement. A targeted solution is to remove Section 230 liability protection *only* for content that platforms algorithmically boost, holding them accountable for their editorial choices without engaging in broad censorship.

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was established in 1983 to overtly perform functions that had become too scandalous for the CIA to do covertly. Its founder admitted it was created to fund foreign groups that would be compromised if their funding was traced directly to the CIA.

Even when transparency is mandated, there are levers to control the narrative. The allegation regarding the Epstein files is that they will be redacted to protect powerful figures, with "national security" used as a convenient and difficult-to-challenge justification for censorship.

Making misinformation illegal is dangerous because human progress relies on being wrong and correcting course through open debate. Granting any entity the power to define absolute 'truth' and punish dissent is a hallmark of authoritarianism that freezes intellectual and societal development.

The AI systems used for mass censorship were not created for social media. They began as military and intelligence projects (DARPA, CIA, NSA) to track terrorists and foreign threats, then were pivoted to target domestic political narratives after the 2016 election.

Effective political propaganda isn't about outright lies; it's about controlling the frame of reference. By providing a simple, powerful lens through which to view a complex situation, leaders can dictate the terms of the debate and trap audiences within their desired narrative, limiting alternative interpretations.

High-level US military and intelligence figures see independent online voices as a primary geopolitical threat. They fear that uncontrolled narratives can foster nationalism (like Brexit), which could lead to the dissolution of key alliances like the EU and NATO, disrupting the established world order.

The modern concentration of media power isn't a recent phenomenon. It was formalized during WWII when the Pentagon centralized control over radio, print, and Hollywood for propaganda purposes. This government-media relationship persisted and expanded through Cold War intelligence operations like Project Mockingbird.