Seriously, it's like the default setting of most normies is set to maximum trust. They just read something and immediately trust it. They are told something and they simply trust it. Just like that! Does not matter what exactly it is or how absurd or unbelievable it is. If said information comes from some percieved authority, they'll simply trust it!
Sure, after a while they might start to question some things, but the very default is immediate trust.
Other huge problem is the inability of masses to comprehend complex concepts. You can put all the information right in front of them and they still won't be able to understand anything. Even if they start to understand something, usually they revert back to fallback questions like: who are they, why would they do it, it's not possible for everyone to be in on it or - at the very least - it's simply not possible, because that can't be true.
Who needs censorship when the masses are so dumbed down and their thought processes are so inert that even given all the information sitting right in front of them they still seem to be completely unable to get it?
I've noticed that same phenomenon, and that it has become quite common across the conspir-o-sphere. It's not quite as obvious and I haven't done much research, but it fits into the same model so there's a finer point to be made here.
I've mentioned that about 80% are normies, and we can think of them as "asleep". Then there are the fully "awake", which is maybe about 5%. In between are the "drowsy", struggling from one to the other. (And one does have to develop from one state to the other, because I was just going along with the flow of the normies myself for almost all my life.)
Anyway, it seems like the drowsy have become prevalent among conspiracy theorists. That's a good thing because it shows they are developing or "waking up". But as the normies are driven by the psychological comfort of conformity, the drowsy seem to be driven by the psychological comfort of "being right". They have got to be the smartest person in the room.
So with that goal established, they easily fall into all the traps of what we think of as normal cognition: confirmation bias, cherry picking, moving the goalposts, the list goes on. It's like, whatever new evidence comes along, the response is, "Called it!" What a psychologically comfortable place to be, eh?
And if you're wondering, what I conclude to be the driving force for the awake is the search for the truth. How wrong you were before and how uncomfortable it makes you is irrelevant.
I look back and realize I was wrong about almost everything I "knew" about the world. Had to pitch it right overboard and replace with it with things that would cause the vast majority to consider me a lunatic if they knew. Not at all comfortable.
And even the subject we have been discussing--that most of the world would technically be described as in a state of hypnosis or psychosis--is that welcome news? No way.
Yes, being right is a hell of a motivator and for some admitting mistakes or being wrong is almost impossible thing to do.
Also, I think it might be connected with my original post. Namely, that this is a question of blind trust vs critical thinking. Seems to me those Q folks operate mostly on trust and belief. It's just that they trust different authorities than mainstream normies, but the very mode of thinking is not that different. Normies trust and believe in mainstream media while Q folks believe in Q drops and their interpretation.
Or in other words, being on this side of the fence does not necessarily mean critical thinking is involved. Sometimes it's just a belief in different authorities than those on the mainstream.
My worldview also has changed dramatically over the last few years. Just as you say, almost my entire way of seeing the world has crumbled to dust and now I'm in a process of stitching together a new one. Is that easy or comfortable? Of course not! But I can't continue to live in illusions and pretend like nothing has happened either.