The concept of "malinformation" reveals that governments aim to control not just lies, but also truths they deem too upsetting or disruptive for the public to know, creating a dangerous precedent for censorship.
Trump likely believed releasing a massive document dump would overwhelm and bore the public, a tactic that failed in an era of persistent online analysis by a motivated, unemployed populace.
Humans are "the shout and the echo"; we require external feedback to process ideas. Censorship breaks this fundamental psychological process, preventing people from thinking clearly and leading to societal insanity.
As seen with Marjorie Taylor Greene, a politician's persona can change dramatically when they are no longer trying to gain or retain power. This brief period offers a rare glimpse of their actual thoughts.
When vast sums of money flood speculative, non-traditional assets like a Pokemon card, it serves as an alarm bell. It indicates the market is in a euphoric "ultra risk-on" phase, often preceding a crash.
One grim potential future involves escalating global conflict. The immense human and emotional toll of war would create the political will for a "great taking" and a total debt reset, as survivors prioritize stability over financial obligations.
Once dismissed as "dumb money," the flood of retail investors now accounts for a significant portion of daily equity trading. Their collective action, like consistently "buying the dip," has become a primary force moving markets.
When authorities like the DOJ cease releasing information on the Epstein case, they create a vacuum. This void is immediately filled by the public, who use available tools to build timelines, identify missing pieces, and generate theories, eroding trust further.
A hardline stance on free speech suggests different rules based on citizenship. While citizens should be able to advocate for any political ideology, non-citizens on visas who attack the nation's core values should have their status revoked.
Spain's proposed law making CEOs criminally responsible for platform content is not a broad policy move. It is viewed as a specific effort to control X, the only major social platform that hasn't "bent the knee" to government censorship demands.