Propaganda without censorship can be very weak. There are numerous examples of government officials attempting to convince the population of an official narrative, but the population largely ends up not buying it. We don’t even need to talk about things like the JFK conspiracy theories.
For example, during Brazil’s Operation Car Wash, many government officials from the ruling Workers’ Party initially attempted to present a limited view of the corruption allegations. These allegations revolved around massive kickbacks involving state-controlled oil company Petrobras, leading construction firms, and high-ranking politicians. But journalists sifted through financial records, collaborated with international news agencies, and conducted interviews with insiders. As a result, a large web of illicit payments, money laundering, and collusion between politicians and business leaders was exposed, despite obstruction and statements from government officials downplaying the corruption. Many politicians were jailed as a result.
Without cracking down on the people exposing your lies, it’s often difficult to maintain the lie for long.
I absolutely agree that propaganda without censorship can be very weak. However, it can also not be very weak. The JFK situation doesn’t seem penetrable by open-source researchers like Zvi, because it’s oversaturated; redundant information can drown out truth by making it unreasonably expensive to locate.
There’s also the use of modern psychology to manufacture “vibes” or steer people’s thinking in specific directions. That’s a whole can of worms on its own. I happen to be >90% confident that elites like Zvi can be duped by techniques (including but not at all limited to the use of LLMs to label content) that are widely employed but not known to the public. However, I’m less sure about the success rate, i.e. 20% versus 80%, but even a 20% success rate can still dampen the spread of true information:
Propaganda without censorship can be very weak. There are numerous examples of government officials attempting to convince the population of an official narrative, but the population largely ends up not buying it. We don’t even need to talk about things like the JFK conspiracy theories.
For example, during Brazil’s Operation Car Wash, many government officials from the ruling Workers’ Party initially attempted to present a limited view of the corruption allegations. These allegations revolved around massive kickbacks involving state-controlled oil company Petrobras, leading construction firms, and high-ranking politicians. But journalists sifted through financial records, collaborated with international news agencies, and conducted interviews with insiders. As a result, a large web of illicit payments, money laundering, and collusion between politicians and business leaders was exposed, despite obstruction and statements from government officials downplaying the corruption. Many politicians were jailed as a result.
Without cracking down on the people exposing your lies, it’s often difficult to maintain the lie for long.
I absolutely agree that propaganda without censorship can be very weak. However, it can also not be very weak. The JFK situation doesn’t seem penetrable by open-source researchers like Zvi, because it’s oversaturated; redundant information can drown out truth by making it unreasonably expensive to locate.
There’s also the use of modern psychology to manufacture “vibes” or steer people’s thinking in specific directions. That’s a whole can of worms on its own. I happen to be >90% confident that elites like Zvi can be duped by techniques (including but not at all limited to the use of LLMs to label content) that are widely employed but not known to the public. However, I’m less sure about the success rate, i.e. 20% versus 80%, but even a 20% success rate can still dampen the spread of true information: