Maybe not, but it strikes me as a really dangerous path. If we don't believe the electorate acts from a position of moral authority, but rather are downstream of elite power and influence, then there are other more direct ways of controlling populations. And they tend to be a lot more bloody.
It's the path we've been on for a long time and one that is made a lot more dangerous in the era of social media. Today more than ever people live in echo chambers and believe what they want to or what they think they need to so they can conform with their group identity. More than ever a few wealthy people or state actors have direct control over the reality people see without even the pretense of being "unbiased" media or any sort of ethical guidelines which in the past used to semi-exist for the traditional media/news etc.
Propaganda's job is to influence those people who think they're acting from a position of moral authority but lack the education, or critical thinking skills, or access to information, to be able to see through the manipulation.
I'm not sure what's the answer but I am sure this is not what the proponents of free speech had in mind.
The reason the more direct ways are more bloody is why we want to stick with democracy. Democracy is supposed to be based on an exchange of ideas in an open discourse. This is why it’s important to not let any one party have too much control over the discourse. That is also why freedom of speech exists. Somewhat paradoXically, banning a foreign-controlled platform can serve the same purpose as defending freedom of speech.
