April 17, 2025
To orient oneself, context is critical—especially when the topic is deception. This piece focuses on “framing” as a tool of manipulation. In the realm of managing deception and refining perception, two perspectives emerge: the deceiver, who initiates and navigates distortions, and the defender, who must detect, mitigate, and counteract them. In many cases, they are the same person. Achieving acute perception often requires deliberately sharpening our awareness—while many forms of deception rely precisely on our failure to do so.
“The most effective propaganda operates in the frame, not the message.”
Working Definition
Framing, in the context of manipulation, refers to the way information is presented or structured to influence perception and interpretation. It reflects the assumptions and perspective of the one doing the framing. While we all carry assumptions, false ones can be misleading when buried within the framing. This can be an honest mistake, whether made toward others or ourselves, or it can be intentional if the goal is deception and manipulation. When done intentionally (as in the case of framing injection), it often involves logical fallacies and cognitive errors, such as amplification, minimization, highlighting, downplaying, or omission, all of which shape how we are intended to respond to that information.
For example, in legacy media and “communications,” framing can influence public opinion by emphasizing certain aspects of a story. A typical manipulation would involve portraying an event as a crisis rather than a routine occurrence, eliciting different emotional responses and attitudes toward the topic. Adding emotional appeals—another common logical fallacy—is a red flag that framing is being used deceptively. For instance, protest signs that read “Get Angry!” at “BLM” protests exemplify this tactic.
In psychology and behavioral economics, framing also refers to how choices are presented, which can significantly impact decision-making processes. A common logical fallacy used in deceptive framing is the either/or fallacy, where two choices are given, and the rational choice is omitted. Examples include: “You’re either with us or against us,” “You either take the COVID ‘vaccine’ without question or you’re an ‘anti-vaxxer’,” or “Do you support my political party or the one I hate most?” These questions are framed deceptively to manipulate the person receiving them. Ultimately, framing is a powerful tool for manipulating perceptions, beliefs, and actions by controlling the context and emphasis of the information presented.
Framing vs. Framing-Injection
Framing injection is a subset of framing. While “framing” encompasses both unintentional, naturally occurring highlighting of certain aspects and the intentional, deceptive variety, “framing injection” specifically refers to the deliberate act of embedding a specific, distorted perspective into the information being presented, with the goal of manipulating the audience’s understanding or emotional response. It’s crucial to note that “information” in this context does not necessarily mean “true” information.
There is a gradient to framing injection. In some debates, where the goal is to “win” the argument rather than pursue a dialectic focused on truth, we may subtly recognize we are using framing but choose to disregard it. An interesting phenomenon with AI large language models (LLMs) is that they too use framing injection. Whether this happens intentionally—due to designed prompts—or as a result of emergent behavior is somewhat irrelevant, since it shouldn’t be happening at all. Regardless of the cause, it’s a serious issue that needs to be addressed and one that could potentially result in being blacklisted, de-amplified, and discredited for publicly addressing it online. This, of course, is absurd and hopefully won’t be the case with our trustworthy AI LLMs and their honest administrators.
Contrast with “Content”
Content refers to the words or material being communicated—facts, data, narratives, ideas, suppositions, and fabrications alike. It carries no inherent implication of completeness or truthfulness, as anyone who has critically watched YouTube or mainstream news is likely well aware by now.
Content is what is presented, framing is how it is presented. Framing injection represents the strategic layer of communication—how information is shaped to direct interpretation and response.
Relationship to Assumptions, Priors, and Worldview
Assumptions
Assumptions are the beliefs we take for granted without questioning. They shape how we perceive and interpret information. Being aware of and interrogating our assumptions is essential for critical thinking. (Note: “critical thinking” is not to be confused with “critical theory,” which appears engineered to dull intellect rather than sharpen it.)
Relationship to Framing Injection: Framing injection exploits assumptions by either relying on them or subtly planting them as if they were self-evident truths—without the audience even realizing it. For instance, when a legacy media outlet describes a riot as a “mostly peaceful protest,” it’s banking on the public’s assumption that the term “peaceful protest” implies minimal or no violence. Conversely, calling a protest a “violent uprising en par with 9/11” exploits emotional assumptions about national trauma and justice, triggering extreme interpretations.
Priors
Priors are the pre-existing beliefs, experiences, and “knowledge” a person holds before encountering new information. Back in the 1700s, Thomas Bayes (yes, pronounced “bays”) proposed that conclusions aren’t binary but exist along a gradient of probability. In Bayesian logic, priors influence how we interpret incoming evidence.
Some soft-science evangelists try to present this as a clean, deterministic pipeline—as though priors mathematically dictate interpretation—but the real system is messy. We can’t catalog everyone’s priors, and even if we could, predicting how they’ll respond to new input is like throwing darts in a fog. You might land near the bullseye, but you’re not calling perfect shots. So it’s more accurate to say that priors influence rather than inform interpretation. Probabilistic haze, not linear causality, is closer to the truth. (to say you) Can’t get enough. (you know) You’re gonna have to face it—you’re addicted to nuance.
Relationship to Framing Injection: Framing injection is more effective when it harmonizes with a person’s priors. If the framing aligns even partially with what the audience already believes, they’re more likely to absorb it without engaging their rational filters. Over time, repeated false framing can lead someone deeper into an emotionally charged, cult-like mindset—irrespective of education level. Perhaps because critical thinking and skepticism of authority, once cornerstones of the Western Enlightenment, are now foreign concepts in today’s subpar education system.
For example, if someone holds a negative prior about a particular group (which itself is often a product of stereotype and monolithic thinking), a framing injection that portrays that group negatively will resonate more deeply and pull them further off-course. One of the most glaring examples: Trump Derangement Syndrome. The mere mention of his name can hijack rational faculties in those emotionally conditioned by years of framing injection.
Framing injection doesn’t just exploit existing priors—it can seed new pseudo-priors. These often rely on archetypes and stereotypes, especially in smear campaigns. Even when the target audience didn’t originally hold a specific belief, the framing can imply they always did. We don’t want to look stupid, so we sometimes pretend we “always knew” the new narrative. This is often packaged with appeals to authority (“experts say”), intellectual elitism (“smart people believe X”), or vague claims like “the science is settled”—without citing sources, or disclosing who funds them. These false narratives often masquerade as collective wisdom, but they’re engineered constructs—pseudo-priors in sheep’s clothing.
Worldview
A worldview is how an individual interprets reality—shaped by their values, beliefs, assumptions, and sense of place in the world. It encompasses both epistemology (how we know what we know) and ontology (what we believe exists). Probing these realms is essential for genuine critical thought—and often feels a bit like peering into the void. But it has a curious way of reshaping perception in a positive direction. (Unless you’re a nihilist. In which case… “enjoy” your existential black hole.)
Relationship to Framing Injection: Framing injection targeting worldview can be especially potent. It bypasses the rational mind and appeals directly to a person’s emotional core. For instance, manipulating someone’s sense of justice to convince them that “equality of outcome” is inherently just—even if it requires suppressing individual merit and effort—is a classic trick. Ironically, this “appeal to justice” often leads to systems that are deeply unjust.
Framing injection thrives by leveraging assumptions, priors, and worldview. These mental frameworks are powerful tools for steering perception, and when a message aligns with all three, it can manipulate interpretation and behavior with GPS precision. Recognizing how this works is critical for defending ourselves against propagandists, marketers, policymakers, and other charming sociopaths who aim to mold our thoughts for their benefit—not ours.
Browser UI (e.g. Firefox’s default tab suggestions): When you begin typing in the address bar, the autocomplete can act as a subtle framing injection—steering your search direction based on what’s suggested rather than what you intended. The absence of autocomplete on some topics and the flood of it on others is itself a clue: you’re being guided, not just assisted.
AI LLM replies: Watch an interview of Bobby Kennedy Jr. discussing his vaccine views. Then ask an LLM what his views are. What you’ll get isn’t just a summary—it’s a sea of framing injection, often reflecting institutional biases more than direct quotes or positions.
“Expert consensus” as a wrapper for vague claims: The fallacy of the expert is well-known. But when you layer it with the fallacy of the unknown expert (unnamed, untraceable), and compound it with the fallacy of consensus (“all experts agree…”), you get a rhetorical triple axel meant to bypass critical thought. A rational person would do well to treat such stacked appeals as red alerts for false-narrative engineering.
Each of these examples shows how framing injection isn’t always loud or obvious—it depends on your awareness. It might start as a gentle tug, sometimes a velvet-gloved shove, but the goal is the same: shape your perception without you realizing it. But once you start seeing it, it not only loses its power—it backfires. You start pulling away from the narrative they’re pushing. And yes… it’s everywhere.
Frame shifting is the technique of altering perspective—“reframing” a situation—while attempting to preserve authenticity. It can be wielded as a benevolent tool or a malevolent one. In benevolent form, such as crisis management or mediation, the core truth remains intact, but the shift emphasizes a more constructive angle. In malevolent form, especially when used for framing injection, the shift deliberately distorts perception while pretending not to.
Example: A politician criticized for being too old reframes the conversation by highlighting their opponent’s inexperience. Same facts, different lens.
Where things get darker is with emotional manipulation. This goes beyond shifting perspective—it targets your feelings directly. It plays on sympathy, fear, guilt, or shame to off-balance your natural emotional compass and dictate how you should feel. It often leverages public shaming, especially around arbitrary or shifting social norms. For instance, anyone who questioned a new, untested so-called vaccine—with no long-term safety trials—was met not with dialogue but with ridicule and moral condemnation.
Another classic tactic: scapegoating. This is the act of assigning blame to someone—usually innocent—to deflect attention from the actual source of a problem. It’s a favored move when power wants to maintain its illusion of control. We saw it during the COVID pandemic, where rational skeptics of the vaccine were treated as villains rather than participants in honest inquiry. History is littered with similar episodes—witch hunts, purges, persecutions—all fueled by scapegoating. The deeper truths of institutional behavior during and after the pandemic? We’ll revisit those later. For now: scapegoating is projection weaponized. It protects the group’s image by sacrificing the outsider.
Tying it all together is gaslighting. At its core, gaslighting is simple: lying to someone who knows the truth, and continuing to lie even when both parties know the truth is known. It’s not confusion—it’s aggression. As Solzhenitsyn noted in The Gulag Archipelago, it’s when the lie becomes the expected norm. Gaslighting is often paired with cognitive dissonance attacks—statements so self-contradictory they force the target into a loop of self-doubt. Add in projection—accusing the target of emotions or actions the attacker themselves embody—and you have a potent triad: gaslighting, emotional invalidation, and projection. This combo is psychological warfare.
Then comes emotional blackmail. Different from general appeals to emotion, emotional blackmail is a structured pattern designed to control behavior through fear, guilt, or obligation. Its cycle is predictable:
Demand – The attacker demands the target do something.
Resistance – The target hesitates, sensing the demand is wrong.
Pressure – The attacker escalates: guilt trips, restrictions, social leverage.
Compliance or Resilience – If the target caves, the dynamic is reinforced.
Repetition – The pattern loops, solidifying control if you comply.
The rational response? Do not comply.
While frame shifting can be a tool for understanding or de-escalation, when it becomes entangled with emotional manipulation, it mutates into a weapon. And like all frame-injection tools, its goal is simple: to hijack your perception before you realize it’s happening.
What feels “trusted” vs what feels “suspect”.
The tactic here is to frame-shift something that is true to something that “feels suspect” and something that is suspect into something that “feels ok”.
One of the most subtle yet devastating tactics of framing injection is to shift the emotional valence of an idea: make what is trusted feel suspect, and what is suspect feel trusted. It’s not about truth—it’s about perception management.
Take world-renowned doctors and researchers who raised legitimate concerns about the rushed so-called vaccines. Rather than engage their arguments, they were reframed as “fringe”—a deliberate reclassification meant to make truth feel dangerous. The irony? Despite their sound arguments, many of these “fringe” voices had more credentials, clinical experience, and published work than the parrots promoted by the establishment who had no valid arguments, just dogmatic “science”-by-decree.
Now flip it. Look at how incompetent and inconsistent “experts” like Fauci were framed. We were told to “trust the science” and that “I am the science”, as if he was the science. It was over the top absurd, yet was eaten up by so many fools. One man, whose guidance shifted with the wind (“Don’t wear a mask,” then “Wear two cotton masks” to the even more absurd “Wear many multiple masks”), was normalized by repetition, appeal to authority, and emotional packaging. His contradictions and anti-science acts were ignored, his failures reframed as wisdom. That’s how deception campaigns invert logic.
This isn’t dialectic, debate or infowar. It’s perception warfare.
Framing of safety, danger, or benevolence.
There’s a foundational principle in firearm safety—used by the military and any competent handler: no weapon is safe until it is proven safe. This isn’t paranoia; it’s rational. A gun is assumed loaded until verified otherwise. You don’t point it at someone and pull the trigger as a joke—because it’s not a joke. It’s illegal, it’s immoral, and it’s dangerous until it’s proven not to be.
But somehow, that logic vanished when it came to a brand new so-called “vaccine.” No long-term trials. No historical precedent for the mRNA platform. No time to establish baseline risk profiles for long-tail adverse events. And yet… it was framed as safe. Not cautiously optimistic. Not experimental. Just “safe and effective,” as if that phrase, repeated enough times, could alchemically become truth.
Meanwhile, the unvaccinated—many of whom had already contracted the virus and developed natural immunity, the very biological mechanism vaccines are designed to emulate—were framed as the dangerous ones. Despite the fact that the “vaccinated” could still transmit and contract the virus, the framing inverted reality: the responsible became the threat, and the rushed became the savior.
Even natural immunity, once considered the gold standard in immunology, was shoved aside as “misinformation.” The inversion was total.
And here’s the kicker: the doctors who remained grounded in scientific skepticism and empirical caution—the ones who said, “We can’t call this safe yet”—were branded as heretics, smeared as fringe lunatics. So what does that say about the doctors who did toe the line? Were they framed as benevolent heroes simply because they parroted the script?
White coat. Black art. Indeed.
And this is the deeper danger: the manipulators, in their zeal to control perception, took aim at the very foundations of rational inquiry—principles earned through centuries of feedback from reality, trial by error; the hard-won ethos of Western Enlightenment. These are not arbitrary values, like those some woke-kook spits out in some university cafeteria—they are stabilizing heuristics. Epistemic guardrails. The manipulator class, whether out of ignorance, ideological possession, or allegiance to alien frameworks of power, do not understand what they are attempting to dismantle. They use trust as a lever, not a covenant.
This is not some petty manipulation or clumsy PR fumble. It is a globally synchronized, high-investment campaign—one that torched through decades of earned public trust like burning gun powder. Billions were spent. Institutional credibility was cashed-in from nearly every field of work. And for what? A short-term test of control, enforced by narrative coercion.
There is a fundamental limit—and fatal flaw—to centralized control that humanity has learned time and time again: you can’t centrally plan perception without eventually crashing into reality. When foundational values—like scientific skepticism, bodily autonomy, and informed consent—are sacrificed at the altar of compliance, the blowback isn’t merely institutional. It’s civilizational.
Not only did our “trusted experts” fail to push back—they pushed for it in shockwaves of nuclear zeal. The trust once placed in journalism, police, the intelligence community, the courts, government and public health didn’t just vaporize in a fireball, it inverted. It turned radioactive. And every mouthpiece with fused skin still parroting the narrative glows green-hot with it.
Emotional baselining through repetition.
Baseline drift is a psychological cousin of the Overton Window. The Overton Window frames the spectrum of political ideas deemed acceptable in public discourse—a kind of political zeitgeist. Baseline drift, by contrast, is broader and deeper: it affects societal norms, emotional reactions, and collective assumptions about reality. While the Overton Window is shifted by advocacy, media framing, elite interests, and engineered outrage, baseline drift can happen organically or be shaped deliberately through repetition, propaganda, and psyops.
Take the aftermath of the JFK assassination. Anyone paying attention could smell the rot in the official narrative. So what happened? The CIA launched a PR campaign to smear skeptics as “conspiracy theorists”—a term that, ironically, made the cover-up feel even more obvious. But through relentless repetition, the insult stuck. Today, questioning coordinated deception is itself treated as suspicious, as if conspiracies don’t exist—even though “conspiracy” is a legal term people are convicted for every day.
Another example: the term truther. In any sane society, wanting the truth would be virtuous. But in ours, the word is wielded like a slur. Likewise, “antivaxxer” has undergone a similar frame-shift. It now applies not only to people who refuse all vaccines, but also to those who took every childhood shot, raised concerns about one rushed, liability-shielded injection, and were immediately smeared as heretics.
Even those injured by the so-called vaccine—who literally took it and suffered—are now branded as antivaxxers if they dare speak up. That’s not science; that’s ecclesiastical control of narrative.
Then there’s “science denier”—a term hurled at anyone who asks inconvenient questions about climate, COVID, or any domain where truth has been politicized. But the scientific method demands skepticism. The moment dissent is treated as sin, science has ceased to be a method and become dogma. Post-science “science” is indistinguishable from religion—except without the humility to admit mystery.
Software hardening & UX hygiene.
Software hardening & UX hygiene.
Start here: be hyper-aware of visual layouts and auto-suggested narratives—not just from social media feeds, but increasingly from AI-driven large language models. Interfaces nudge. Defaults guide. And every default you don’t change is a small consent form you never signed.
Use hardened, minimalist browsers like LibreWolf or a de-Googled Chromium fork. If you’re sticking with Firefox, tweak it through about:config. Strip telemetry, kill autofill, and disable “suggested content” tabs (like Pocket). Install extensions that de-bias your browsing interface: uBlock Origin, Decentraleyes, LocalCDN, or JShelter.
The same goes for your phone. If you’re on Android, consider flashing a de-Googled ROM like GrapheneOS, CalyxOS, or LineageOS. Ditch the Play Store and use F-Droid instead—an open-source app ecosystem. Disable Google Play Services unless explicitly needed, and know that full de-Googling trades convenience for sovereignty. Use judgment.
Harden your sensors: disable location, mic, and camera unless actively in use. And yes—black tape is still your friend.
Why? Because every sensor left open, every setting left on default, every app you trust by inertia becomes a channel for subtle frame manipulation—telemetry, nudges, and design patterns that slowly rewrite your perception of “normal.” This is about regaining conscious frame agency.
Here’s one underappreciated threat: your keyboard. If you’re using Google Keyboard (Gboard), you’re likely feeding keystrokes to the mothership—even inside “secure” apps. Same for screenshots. Even if you’re using Signal, Google may scrape visual data from your photo gallery. Surveillance isn’t always in what you type; sometimes it’s in what you see.
UX hygiene is just as crucial. Set your browser’s landing page to a blank slate or a custom input like a self-made prompt. Kill autoplay. Remove default feeds. Change fonts and color themes—strip out the glossy, institutional trust-aesthetics that trick your brain into associating familiarity with truth. Ease of consumption becomes trust by osmosis.
Reclaim friction. Make it intentional. Choose your default, not theirs.
As I wrote elsewhere: Your emotions are their product. Your attention, their currency. If you don’t guard what you pay attention to and how you do so, some ghoul behind a curtain will.
Slow media consumption + pause prompts.
Practice perceptual aikido. Frame manipulation works best when it hijacks speed—when reaction outruns reflection. That flood of information, that urgent headline, that fast-talking “expert”? Often designed to bypass your ability to slow down and analyze. The scam only works if you let it wash over you. Your unguarded attention is their resource. If you have your guard up, and are consciously aware they are trying to manipulate you, their propaganda and techniques become your resource.
So slow it down.
Pause before reacting to headlines or thumbnails. Take a breath. Breathe slow, and reclaim your emotions—they are the manipulator’s product. Before clicking, ask: What is the intended emotional payload here? Many articles don’t reflect the implication of their own headline. That’s not a bug—it’s the bait.
The moment you decide whether or not to read the article is where your discernment matters most. The ability to judge well—distinguishing between truth and falsehood, signal and noise—is a skill you must actively train your entire life.
If an article is framed suspiciously, dripping with deceptive rhetoric and logical fallacies, it can still be valuable—if you keep your defenses up. Read it slow, like an analyst:
What are they hiding?
What are they pushing?
What techniques are they using to sway or distract?
What might be partially true and worth deeper investigation?
Most effective propaganda contains fragments of truth. Find them. Research them.
And here’s a power move: read articles you think are wrong. Especially those. Aspects of how you read things you disagree with should mirror how you read what you agree with—critically, precisely, and without emotional fog, looking for error. It’s good hygiene to call out the bullshit across the spectrum: disagreeable, agreeable, or neutral. Anything less, and you’re letting someone else drive your cognition.
Always ask yourself:
Why am I being shown this now?
What’s missing from this frame?
If I believed the opposite, what would I notice?
Intentional slowing activates your critical metacognition—your ability to think about how you’re thinking. That shift is subtle but vital. You stop being a passive receiver and become an active filter. The trick isn’t just seeing the frame—it’s refusing to be rushed into it and manipulated by it.
Asking: “What frame am I being asked to live in?”.
Every story is an invitation into a theater of assumptions. You’re not just being fed data—you’re being steered into a worldview, led by the nose like a yoked ox. And where the nose goes, the body follows.
Reclaim control. Become a frame athlete. Play with it. Don’t just stand there like a stunned bystander and let it clock you in the head. Learn to pivot, duck, grab it, shoot it and reframe. Move through the narrative like Larry Bird (OG great)—not a dead-beat zombie lined up to be killed.
When media—especially persuasive or emotionally charged content—confronts you, zoom out. Identify what’s being centred: What is cast as default, true, or benevolent? Then look for what’s excluded: What realities, voices, or contexts are absent in this constructed world?
Ask:
Are “experts” invoked without transparency? No names, no credentials, no citations?
Are funding sources concealed?
Are we offered summaries instead of direct quotes?
Is primary context withheld, replaced with emotionally colored interpretation?
Now go deeper: - If I internalize this frame, what kind of person am I being shaped to become? - What values am I absorbing? - What types of reasoning am I being nudged away from? - What fallacies am I expected to accept to nod along? - Are there ego appeals designed to make me feel smarter or morally superior for believing—and lesser or dangerous for questioning?
This is where frame-flipping becomes a mental martial art. Pull the story from ideologically opposed sources and compare, if they are just opinion pieces, compare them to your own. Then, rewrite the headline in your head in three radically different frames:
Heroic
Sinister
Ironic
The ironic version often reveals just how ludicrous the original framing really is.
Train yourself to observe your own consumption patterns like an alien anthropologist dissecting the rituals of an unfamiliar species. Where are your vulnerabilities? What tropes still tug at you?
What you’re building is mental proprioception—a sixth sense for where your mind is being tugged. Just as physical proprioception tells you where your limbs are, even with eyes closed, mental proprioception lets you sense when your worldview is being gently—or aggressively—reoriented.
With this awareness, you don’t just resist the frame. You steal it and make it your weapon.
Now to the subject that’s real, but if you talk about it out loud, you’re immediately labeled a conspiracy theorist. Which—let’s be honest—is often a sign you’re directly over the target.
Frame injection is central to information warfare, psyops, and perception management. When the intelligence community (IC) injects a frame, they’re not just spreading a story. They’re engineering a context—how you are meant to think about the story.
Let’s ground this with two key tools of framecraft:
Limited Hangout: A tactic where some truth is deliberately disclosed to distract from more damaging truths that remain hidden. It’s damage control disguised as transparency. By admitting to lesser wrongs, credibility is manufactured, and deeper truths are protected.
Inoculation Theory: This involves exposing people to a weakened form of a valid argument, along with rebuttals, so they build resistance to the stronger version later. Example: A cult leader saying, “Your family will tell you we’re a cult, but that’s just the Devil talking.” When the family intervenes, the frame is already in place—they’re dismissed as enemies.
Now apply this to modern media and intel operations. Frame injection doesn’t just influence what you think—it shapes what you’re allowed to think.
They’re:
Setting emotional valence – Is this “normal,” “fringe,” “outrageous,” “comforting”? (emotional valence: refers to whether an emotion is positive or negative)
Priming epistemic boundaries – What’s thinkable, what’s taboo, i.e. constraints on knowledge.
Seeding default narratives – “This is just how these stories go.” Co-opting of our culture away from valid, critical modes of default thinking.
This isn’t mere content control. It’s perceptual permissioning.
Frame Leakage: Controlled Narrative Dilution
Limited hangouts leak frames, not just facts.
Example: The CIA admits to MK-Ultra. The frame: “It was the Cold War. We were experimenting. It got out of hand. It’s over now.” The real message? “You already know the story—move on.” This isn’t full disclosure. It’s narrative closure. The perception of transparency becomes a firewall against further inquiry.
Weaponized Inoculation: Pre-emptive Cognitive Shutdown
Inoculation theory can also be used in reverse. You take a truth, wrap it in absurdity or extreme framing, and release it early—not to inform, but to immunize. So when the real thing shows up, people have already been trained to dismiss it.
Example: Someone asks, “Are there long-term safety trials on this new drug?” The response: “That’s anti-vaxxer talk.” The person isn’t answered. They’re framed. The question isn’t addressed. It’s quarantined. The Final Form: Truth in a Muzzled Frame
The most effective manipulations rarely lie outright. They give you some truth— —but out of context. —wrapped in emotional spin. —framed in a way that defangs it, diffuses it, or makes you ashamed to consider it.
They don’t just try to hide reality. They try to preempt your ability to perceive it accurately.
This page is part of an AI transparency initiative aimed at fostering the beneficial advancement of AI. The goal is to track, understand, and address any potential biases or censorship in AI systems, ensuring that the truth remains accessible and cannot be algorithmically obscured.