Let me be blunt: Polly goes on way too long without stating the point she's trying to prove. To be even more blunt, disinformation agents very characteristically give you long soap opera narratives instead of trying to transmit information as clearly and concisely as possible.
That being said, a vital question is: exactly why do "the important stories never go viral"? She doesn't answer that in the first 6:14, which is when I turned it off.
Nor do I have the exact answer... yet. The art and science of it seems to be subtle. The overt act of telling you a lie is quite primitive by comparison, as is silencing and censoring those who tell the truth. Shadowbanning and other such techniques are somewhat more sophisticated.
There seems to be something underlying that, which I have noticed due to a phenomenon I have seen over and over: The evidence for numerous startling conclusions is frequently lying in plain sight, yet no one seems to notice. Further, bringing it to people's attention should be like setting a match to a cotton ball, but it is in fact more like setting a match to waterlogged newspaper.
I spent at least my first couple of years of research into the new world of conspiracy theory saying to myself, "Wait--what?! Hang on, is that really true?!" then launching into further research. This very much does not appear to be the way that the vast majority of "conspiracy theorists" operate, let alone normies.
In sum, it seems that all "They" need to do to keep "the important stories from going viral" is to simply keep them out of the mouths of authorities, both mainstream and alternative, because almost everyone needs to be beaten over the heads with the truth. Very few appear to be capable of getting it on their own.
Let me be blunt: Polly goes on way too long without stating the point she's trying to prove. To be even more blunt, disinformation agents very characteristically give you long soap opera narratives instead of trying to transmit information as clearly and concisely as possible.
That being said, a vital question is: exactly why do "the important stories never go viral"? She doesn't answer that in the first 6:14, which is when I turned it off.
Nor do I have the exact answer... yet. The art and science of it seems to be subtle. The overt act of telling you a lie is quite primitive by comparison, as is silencing and censoring those who tell the truth. Shadowbanning and other such techniques are somewhat more sophisticated.
There seems to be something underlying that, which I have noticed due to a phenomenon I have seen over and over: The evidence for numerous startling conclusions is frequently lying in plain sight, yet no one seems to notice. Further, bringing it to people's attention should be like setting a match to a cotton ball, but it is in fact more like setting a match to waterlogged newspaper.
I spent at least my first couple of years of research into the new world of conspiracy theory saying to myself, "Wait--what?! Hang on, is that really true?!" then launching into further research. This very much does not appear to be the way that the vast majority of "conspiracy theorists" operate, let alone normies.
In sum, it seems that all "They" need to do to keep "the important stories from going viral" is to simply keep them out of the mouths of authorities, both mainstream and alternative, because almost everyone needs to be beaten over the heads with the truth. Very few appear to be capable of getting it on their own.
I wonder if this was Polly's answer? I doubt it.