It’s easy to gather some sense of what seems like “good material” or “bad material”, and easy to imagine solutions that try to block what enough people consider

It’s easy to gather some sense of what seems like “good material” or “bad material”, and easy to imagine solutions that try to block what enough people consider bad. And yet, this is not what should happen all. It is too simple, and it hides the real problem. People need to have critical thinking skills, about everything. “How could this be misleading?” is a valuable question to be able to ask in life, whether it is about news or the latest TV commercial or something else. It is certainly useful in capitalist systems; for instance, when being sold something and an advertisement boasts “up to 40%!”, that kind of verbiage should always raise questions like: “how often will this be 0% or even negative, values which are also in that range?”. This kind of thing is used very frequently in advertising alone but certainly in news and even in discussions with other people. Wording is crucial, comprehension is crucial. If you ever suspect you do not really understand what you see, you need to take it as a cue to educate yourself. Echo chambers, or silos or whatever you want to call them, should also be recognized. Skills need to be practiced, and you cannot practice critical thinking if you are surrounded by agreement all the time. This can be a hard sell because you can certainly feel a lot happier when not encountering things that challenge your views but that is not how an intellectual discussion works; you need to at least accept the possibility that even your long-held beliefs are not exactly right. It is dangerous for suppression tools to exist for news or anything else because, like so many things in security technology, something that’s possible to do can eventually be abused by anyone. Claims that “only the good guys will be able to use this” are not relevant to the discussion. At some point in this case, there will be someone capable of masking something that he or she personally does not like, and “propaganda” will have nothing to do with the mechanism by which the material is hidden. In any scientific endeavor, you can never universally support results; you always need to know what was considered to understand if the results make sense within those parameters. And this applies to any source of information. Even in heated political discussions, it is way easier to understand why somebody may hold a view that you consider strange if you can figure out exactly what they have and haven’t heard about.