May I just put something out there, make of it what you will.

There is such a thing as good influence and useful psyops. Maybe,
given multiple narratives of the world, there are some that are
objectively better than others, not for special interests but for
everyone - though who is to be the judge of that?

At the foundation level we do this every day in schools and
universities around the world. We call it "education". Indeed it is a
very strong form of psyops because it is often compulsory.

Many of us here are, or have been, involved in a dark and seedy side,
namely "advertising", to sell products that nobody needs or can
afford, putting ever more burden on the planet to make wealth for the
few. Much as I'd like to see the destruction of the advertising
industry, it's quite woven into human affairs.

Indeed, right here on HN, I repeatedly hear the sentiment that "people
are too stupid to make up their own minds" - that we as technologists
must guide them, make UX decisions, be caretakers of their data,
privacy and security, because... well because we are the "elite who
know better". That's not entirely untrue however arrogant its kernel.
Though I personally, firmly believe the contrary, as an ideology.
Making technology is a powerful form of influence because it shapes
how people see the world.

At the end of the day the important questions is of intent and
methods. Do you make influence in the world with integrity and good
faith? Or are you a selfish, greedy, Machiavellian manipulator out to
further your own ends? Or a tool for others to? I hope that in the
work I have done for BBC and British Govt, it's the former, and that
I've exercised good judgement.

However, trying to influence people to be sceptical and have critical
thinking has paradoxical sides that Monty Python and George Carlin put
best.

So I'll share that I am inspired by Darth Vader.... :)

I's no secret that David Prowse (body actor) was interviewed toward the
end of his life and poured scorn on the Vader role, and on George
Lucas. He said, on it was not something he was particularly proud of.
The thing he saw as his life achievement was as "The Green Cross Man"
a cheesy 1970's road safety influence campaign conservatively
estimated to have saved the lives of half a million children.

Sure, influence based on fear and deception is the worst, and weakest
kind. But not all messages "with an agenda" are to be mistrusted with
respect to their intent, even if one sceptically, rightly, rejects
people who think they "know what s good for you".

Thinkers from Aristotle to Quine, Shannon, Ayer and Wittgenstein have
pointed out that there are no such things as "bare messages",
containing neutral, objective truths. Every byte of information, if it
actually "informs", contains with it an implicit agenda and context.
Every poem or song has a feeling to convey. Even my thermometer is
concerned with whether the room is too hot or too cold (who said that
i forget?).

So maybe the quest for something that isn't "influence" is
misguided? Perhaps the problem is that we focus on and allow a
minority of toxic influencers to prevail, for psychological reasons
we've not yet wised up to. Selectivity is the key.