Transcripts:
than society. Modern democracies and autocracies alike are facing growing concern that combined forces of propaganda, entrenched ideological agendas, and aggressive censorship, a phenomenon we call propagensorship are eroding public trust and undermining democratic norms. Today's propaganda leverages 21st century technology, social media algorithms, bots, microargeting far beyond the posters and radio broadcasts of the 20th century.
At the same time, ideological conflicts have seeped into politics, education, and corporate messaging, turning social institutions into arenas for culture wars. Meanwhile, governments and platforms impose new forms of censorship from legal fake news laws to content moderation policies, further reshaping what information people see.
This report examines the historical roots and evolution of these forces with case studies in China, Russia, the US, and Europe. We document how propaganda and ideology now operate in digital media and institutions. Describe the surge of censorship in law and technology and analyze the effects on public trust, political polarization, information quality, free speech, innovation, and democracy as a whole.
Historical roots of propaganda and censorship. Propaganda is not new, but its scale and sophistication grew dramatically in the 20th century. Totalitarian regimes perfected state controlled messaging. Nazi Germany, for example, placed all newspapers, books, art, film, music, and radio under party control, using media to enforce Nazi ideology.
Criticism of the regime was outlawed. Even jokes about Hitler could be punished. Soviet Russia likewise used mass media as a political tool, nationalizing, publishing, and purging disscent under Stalin with Glavit censorship offices and Pravda is vestier as mouthpieces. Democracies also mobilized information in war and politics.
During World Wars one and two, Allied governments ran poster and film campaigns to build public support, and Cold War powers sponsored radio broadcasts. Voice of America and Radio Moscow to spread rival ideologies. Meanwhile, modern public relations pioneers imported propaganda techniques into corporate and political marketing.
Edward Bernay, dubbed the father of public relations, openly harnessed crowd psychology and psychoanalysis to shape consumer and voter opinions. He admitted using the masses by tapping their herd instincts and critics note his campaigns, eg promoting smoking by women as torches of freedom or pro-American messaging in Guatemala 1954 often subverted democratic values to corporate/government ends.
In short, 20th century propaganda and censorship ranged from overt state control in dictatorships to subtler PR and ideological messaging in democracies, setting the stage for today's interconnected information environment. Digital propaganda and computational influence. In the 21st century, propaganda techniques have migrated on the platforms have become new battlegrounds for influence operations.
Academic operations extremist groups and other actors now routinely deploy automated bots and hidden sock puppet accounts to amplify or suppress information streams. For example, an open access study of Russian social media during the 2022 Ukraine invasion found 20% of accounts sharing pro-Russian messages were bots.
And these bots genetic volume of reposts, helping reach over 14 million. In effect, inorganic bot armies are giving way to more sophisticated semi-organic campaigns, combining coordinated human operatives and AI tools. The Journal of Democracy notes trends like paid influencers, encrypted group mobilization, and even deep fakes as the next wave of private data and microtargeting have further transformed propaganda.
In 2016, controversies over firms like Cambridge Analytica illustrated how personal profiles could be used to deliver highly tailored political ads on Facebook. Advanced analytics allowed campaigns to push customized messages to receptive audiences, blurring lines between persuasion and manipulation. Even mainstream media outlets can serve ideological ends.
Algorithms often favor sensational or partisan content that drives engagement, indirectly skewing public discourse. In short, digital platforms have turbocharged classic propaganda. Citizens now confront a barrage of algorithm curated news, memes, and ads designed to reinforce pre-existing beliefs and suppress contrary views.
Ideological agendas in institutions beyond direct propaganda. Ideological agendas have seeped into politics, education, and business. polarizing social institutions. In politics, parties and interest groups increasingly frame issues in existential or moral terms. One Pew study found Americans view politics with deep pessimism.
79% describe US politics in negative words like divisive or corrupt, and strong majorities feel exhausted or angry about the state of political debate. This emotional landscape makes people receptive to simplistic ideological slogans or narratives. Political leaders often appeal not just to policy but to broader identities, nationalism, religious values, cultural grievances.
The rise of populist movements worldwide which reject pluralism and demand unchecked power on behalf of an ingroup exemplifies ideology supplanting deliberation in politics. In education, curriculum battles reflect ideological division. influence bias in 90% of parents should be places for learning not found 84% sharing personal political views in class yet textbooks and school mission statements increasingly embed values few research notes that schools illustrate that ideological conflicts have permeated what once were considered straightforward subjects
corporate culture has also become ideological Businesses now engage in woke capitalism or social responsibility campaigns that reflect progressive or nationalist agendas. Companies have issued statements on political events, adopted diversity, equity initiatives, or lobbied for policy changes aligned with particular ideologies.
Critics argue that corporate activism, eg boycots, pledges to address climate change or social justice, can amount to propagating an ideology to employees and consumers. here too consultants to engineer consent and frame issues in ways that advance their interests or values. The rise of censorship and cotrol alongside propaganda.
Censorship has resurged in multiple forms. Authoritarian regimes employ overt laws and surveillance to suppress disscent. In China, the great firewall, officially launched in 2000, blocks foreign media, social networks, and news outlets from domestic view. Sites like Twitter, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal are inaccessible in China.
And even using VPNs to circumvent the censorship can lead to arrest. Under President Xi Jinping, not only state agencies, but also online citizen, media posts or books deemed critical of the party are removed, and even moderate voices like author Fang Fang, who criticized initial co-ups, became targets of nationalist mass criticism campaigns.
Human Rights Watch notes that China's crackdown on the internet and civil society has become more thorough and sophisticated with official messaging growing increasingly patriotic and uniform. Young Chinese nitizens once open to foreign ideas now often self censor or join nationalistic defense of the regime's narrative. Russia offers another stark example of censorship under the guise of law.
Since the 2022 Ukraine invasion, the Kremlin has an independent war reporting a crime. Within March 2022, Russia criminalized any false information punishable by up to 15 years in prison. The law bans words like war or invasion when referring to Ukraine and has driven at least 150 journalists into exile within weeks of enactment.
In practical terms, independent outlets have been shut down or forced to adopt state narratives and journalist reporting. Eg. In 2024, a reporter was sentenced to 8 years for describing civilian killing. Public discourse is tightly controlled by law. Western democracy is milder but growing forms of censorship and content regulation.
Social media companies have implemented content moderation policies to label or remove extremist hate or misinformation posts. This has triggered political backlash. Some politicians accuse platforms of ideological bias for banning controversial accounts while free speech advocates warn of overreach. At the same time, governments are enacting laws that compel platforms to police content.
The European Union's 2023 digital services act, DSA, is a key example. It obliges large tech firms to proactively monitor and curb illegal and harmful content, terrorism, hate speech, disinformation, etc. under threat of huge fines. EU officials emphasize that the DSA does not require preemptive censorship of all user speech, only the removal of unlawful content after it is identified.
But critics worry it grants governments unprecedented leverage over online expression. In contrast, the United States still relies largely on section 230 protections, giving platforms broad immunity to moderate content, and the First Amendment prohibits most government censorship of speech. Nevertheless, even in the US, transparency bills are proposed to expose governmental pressure on tech companies.
Surveys show 64% of Americans, including large majorities across party lines, do not trust the government to regulate social media content fairly, and even a majority distrust the platforms themselves. This disconnect highlights fears that new censorship laws or policies, whether imposed by autocrats or democratically elected bodies, risk being seen as ideological tools.
Case studies China, Russia, the US and Europe. The second giants, CCTV, People's Daily that disseminate official narratives domestically and abroad. It enforces message control through the Great Firewall and aggressive social media moderation. Academic studies note that these measures not only block foreign information, but also shape public attitudes.
Increasingly, Chinese youth consume only nationalistic news and memes, often attacking any internal criticism as foreign smears. This has helped create a generation that having never known an uncensored internet sees China's model as normal. On the effect side, China's censorship infrastructure has created a split world of content.
Chinese internet users rely on domestic apps, WeChat, Waybo, and approved state media, which stifles exchange with global knowledge networks. Russia, the Kremlin uses both overt propaganda and draconian censorship. State controlled broadcasters RT Sputnik State TV push Kremlin narratives worldwide.
Studies of the Ukraine war show Russia harnessed social media disinformation to seow doubt about sanctions and support for Ukraine. Domestically independent media have all but vanished under laws banning extremism, undesirable organizations for journalists to flee, while those who stay face charges under the fake news statutes.
In one case, a journalist was jailed for 8 years for truthful war reporting. Thus, Russians today encounter almost exclusively government sanctioned information. Dissenting voices are silenced. United States. The US has robust free speech protections, but propaganda and ideology still exert influence. American society is deeply polarized.
Few data show a rapid rise in Americans with uniformly liberal or conservative views. The ideological tales increased from 10% to 21% of adults between 1994 and 2014. By 2014, 92% of Republicans were to the right of the median Democrat and 94% of Democrats to the left of the median Republican, indicating minimal ideological overlap.
Media fragmentation reinforces this. Liberals and conservatives tend to consume different news sources and online communities. Corporations and campuses have also taken positions on hot button issues, sometimes sparking accusations of bias or indoctrination. On censorship, the US approach is conflicted. private platforms, moderate content, eg banning extremist accounts after January 6, leading to lawsuits and legislative battles.
The government, though restrained by the first amendment, has applied pressure informally via public statements or hearings to Mr. has left many Americans feeling. As noted, most charges. Many governments have passed laws against hate speech and disinformation with some controversies, eg fines for Holocaust denial. The EU's DSA represents a continentwide attempt to regulate platforms, aiming to shield citizens from propaganda and harmful content.
EU officials argue this is a balanced approach. It does not force removal of lawful speech, but critics and the US see it as a form of censorship. For example, sea notes that unlike China's internet, which blocks whole sites, the DSA only targets illegal. Meanwhile, some European governments, eg Hungary under Orban, have shown how controlling media can skew democracy.
The ruling FedE party today owns or influences the vast majority of its critical environment where propaganda dominates official discourse. In contrast, other EU countries, the US and platforms continue to struggle with rampant online propaganda from foreign interference or polarized domestic media without heavy-handed censorship.
Effects on society, public trust, proper censorship has eroded trust in institutions. Polls document growing pessimism. An NPIO survey found 64% of Americans believe US democracy is in crisis and at risk of failing. Similar majorities view politics corruption amplified mistrust in the outcomes.
For instance, a 2022 poll reported that only 20% of Americans felt very confident in the fairness of US elections. Distrust extends to media and tech. Studies show large majorities of citizens across the spectrum distrust both government regulation of speech and even tech companies moderation decisions. In short, when people perceive media and information as manipulated by hidden agendas, confidence in democratic institutions and public discourse plummets.
Polarization sharpen political divides. Data from Pew illustrate the rising ideological polarization. By 2014, over 90% of Republicans were to the right of the median Democrat and vice versa. See figures below. Such polarization means partisan identity often overrides factual considerations. fueling a zero- sum mindset.
Social media amplifies this trend. Platforms optimize for engagement, so sensational and partisan content spreads fastest. As a result, each side tends to live in an echo chamber. Surveys found that nearly 2/3 of staunch conservatives say most of their friends share their political views compared to only 25% among ideologically mixed citizens.
Figure rise of ideological consistency among Americans 1994 2014. Research analysis shows the percentage of adults with consistently liberal or conservative beliefs grew marketkedly while the centrist mixed group shrank. Figure polarization of party coalitions. By 2014, 92% of Republicans lay to the right of the median Democrat and 94% of Democrats to the left of the med propag.
The interplay of propaganda, ideology, and censorship in modern society. Modern deities and autocracies alike are facing growing concern that combined forces of propaganda, entrenched ideological agendas, and aggressive censorship. A phenomenon we call propagensorship are eroding public trust and undermining democratic norms.
Today's propaganda leverages 21st century technology, social media algorithms, bots, microargeting far beyond the posters and radio broadcasts of the 20th century. At the same time, ideological conflicts have seeped into politics, technical and social. Meanwhile, governments and platforms impose new forms of censorship from legal fake news laws to content moderation policies, further reshaping what information people see.
This report examines the historical roots and evolution of these forces with case studies in China, Russia, the US, and Europe. We document how propaganda and ideology now operate in digital media and institutions, describe the surge of censorship in law and technology, and analyze the effects on public trust, political polarization, information quality, free speech, innovation,
