More relevantly, if you've got a motivation to pay handsomely for the falsehoods to be propagated because they serve your purposes, you end up with truth having to compete with heavily subsidized falsehoods. That's a big ask.
It's not only about whether the falsehoods (say, National Enquirer type stuff, nonsense that hooks gullible people) are sexy in that they latch onto people's assumptions and fears. It's also about who's paying to keep pumping them out. None of this is organic. A lot of money goes into subsidizing this stuff. Follow the money and you end up with rival countries who actively want to see their enemies harmed, and have arrived at this very effective way of sowing chaos and sabotage.
People don't have to be that dumb, if you can flood their zone with crafted information to sway 'em. You just have to hook them and then lead them. You don't have to rely on people being incredibly, organically obtuse if you can play 'em and manipulate them, and that's where social media turned into a superweapon. It was for sale, and not very concerned about who was buying it, or why they were doing it. And here we are.
That doesn’t really work if your holy speech is merely mediocre.
There is a reason people try to lump in any criticism with absolute insanity like the pizzagate conspiracies. They need the contrast to be as big as they can make it, so their story appears better than it is. Because on its own it really isn’t quite good enough.
You are quite literally proving to those people that there is a conspiracy to suppress the information. I don't think banning pizzagate from public discourse does anything beneficial. I say this as someone with a nutcase qanon family member.
