It isn't related (more precisely: a relation has not been established) - that was my point.

I was describing how these types of stories can be discredited, by simply attaching a label to them...and how this can act upon people's interest levels and thinking styles.

> I feel like this is a true example of "begging the question", you just sort of assumed that part was true.

I feel like this sort of rhetoric is a fine example of the very phenomenon that I described ("...but attach either of those, and you'll find...).

> Who in the US is "taking care of" stories?

Not sure who it is exactly. And unless they for some reason decide to voluntarily confess, I suspect we will never know for sure.

Are you under the impression that the United States government never uses propaganda? Maybe you guys have the state on a much shorter leash than the Canadians.

> If you're going to make bold claims like this, include some details.

I wonder: does your mind desire evidence when it encounters the inverse of my ideas?

Regardless, to answer your question, here is an example:

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/q-fades-qanon-s-domin...

This article implicitly(!) asserts that the Dominion story is an invention of QAnon. How it works (from a neuroscientific, "belief formation" perspective) is, these stories are printed in the news, and then people who read them believe what is in the story.

Whether it is actually true or not has very little bearing. Not only do most people (who voice an opinion) not care what is actually true, they will go to great lengths to discredit anyone who mentions the very notion of 'What is Actually True'. This is not just an opinion - the phenomenon can be observed.

To me, this behavior is absolutely fascinating. Why most people have such a strong aversion to the topic is also interesting.

Back to the article...

> "While the theory has already been debunked — including by Chris Krebs, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is tasked with national security related to the internet and technology..."

Notice the language used in such articles, words like debunked.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/debunk - to show that something is less important, less good, or less true than it has been made to appear

If you have an eye for detail, you may notice that this is a very popular word with journalists these days. You may also notice that "debunk" has a fair amount of uncertainty and wiggle room in its explicit definition (if not so much in how it is interpreted by people who read it). This sort of wiggle room can come in handy if one is ever called to testify in court.

I won't bother doing a full analysis of the article, I have not once encountered a single non-conspiracy-theorist who is able to discuss this topic with the same attention to accuracy as they would if we were discussing a technical topic like programming - I am merely drawing people's attention to the phenomenon. I have no illusions whatsoever that I am going to change a single person's mind (and believe me, I've tried), in the slightest.

You are free to believe whatever you would like, as is everyone else. And Mother Nature will reward us accordingly, in the long run.

But I will say this:

What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.

- Mark Twain