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.

While there is majority public support for banning teen social media use in the U.S., regulation is blocked by 'whataboutism'—a lobbying tactic of raising endless hypothetical objections (e.g., VPNs, privacy) to create legislative paralysis and prevent any action from being taken.

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.

Cable news and social media don't show the average person who votes differently. They blast the loudest, most cartoonish "professional lunatics" from the opposing side. This creates a false impression that the entire opposition is extreme, making tribalism seem rational.

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.

Algorithms optimize for engagement, and outrage is highly engaging. This creates a vicious cycle where users are fed increasingly polarizing content, which makes them angrier and more engaged, further solidifying their radical views and deepening societal divides.

Despite Congress passing and the Supreme Court upholding a law to force a sale of TikTok on national security grounds, the Trump administration is simply not enforcing it. Instead, it's pursuing a private deal, demonstrating how stated national security imperatives can be abandoned for political or business expediency.

To circumvent First Amendment protections, the national security state framed unwanted domestic political speech as a "foreign influence operation." This national security justification was the legal hammer used to involve agencies like the CIA in moderating content on domestic social media platforms.

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.