I don’t think it’s much different than it’s ever been before. There’s always been efforts to control information (aka propaganda), and when people are confronte

I don’t think it’s much different than it’s ever been before. There’s always been efforts to control information (aka propaganda), and when people are confronted with propaganda they disagree with I think they naturally gravitate towards propaganda that they do agree with. The way this conflict escalates doesn’t typically resolve around disputed “facts” at all. I would say it typically revolves around disputes in the interpretation of facts, or the attribution of motive, or the likelihood of particular outcomes… These interpretations or opinions are naturally quite seperate from “the facts”, but the appetite for propaganda demands that each faction asserts their own interpretation as “the correct interpretation”. This article for instance doesn’t really present many disputed facts. But it does describe what it believes was the motive for a particular decision, and asserts that this explanation is clearly the correct explanation. I think this sort of thing has been around forever, and the only thing that’s different now compared to 20 years ago, is that the internet has made controlling the flow of information a slightly more efficient endeavour.