As consumers of information in the 21st century, we are not merely informed, we are saturated.

Ads tell us what to buy. Influencers tell us where to eat. Political parties tell us what is just, what is dangerous, and who deserves our loyalty.

The average American adult now spends roughly eight hours per day interacting with digital media. Estimates vary on how many messages we encounter daily, but when you combine social platforms, news feeds, streaming services, and advertising, the number climbs into the thousands.

The sheer volume alone is enough to overwhelm our cognitive and moral reasoning.

Which raises an uncomfortable question:
Was that the point all along?

Today, we’re examining information overload, specifically, propaganda; and why it remains so effective, even when we know better.

From a Wartime Tool, to an Everyday Weapon

Propaganda was once associated primarily with wartime governments: a way to reassure citizens that what the state was doing was necessary, righteous, and inevitable.

That era is over.

Propaganda is no longer the exclusive domain of governments or political parties. Advertisers, influencers, corporations, and movements all use it. Selling not just products, but identities, moral postures, and simplified narratives which hit home with our identity markers.

Claims are made that may or may not be true. Promises are made with no intention of follow-through. Context is stripped away in favor of emotional resonance.

And no one should be blamed for feeling overwhelmed by this constant flood of messaging. The problem isn’t that people are foolish. It isn’t even that they are inattentive.

So the real question isn’t why haven’t we noticed?

It’s why does this work on us so well?

Laziness, Bias, and Design

Are we sometimes lazy? Yes.

But what makes information overload so effective isn’t just human weakness, it’s how the system is engineered.

Language is flattened. Complex moral frameworks are reduced to slogans. Thoughtfulness is framed as obstruction. And almost immediately after encountering new information, we are pressured to pick a side.

We live inside endless news cycles, algorithmic outrage, and performative certainty. Fact-checking requires time, emotional restraint, and a willingness to be unsettled when the facts don’t support what we hoped was true.

Instead, our culture is optimized for speed. Every system is designed to alleviate discomfort quickly, to spare us the effort of sustained thought.

If laziness opens the door, confirmation bias furnishes the room.

Propaganda works best when it
Flatters our existing beliefs
Frames doubt as betrayal to our tribe
Rewards agreement with a sense of belonging

The Moral Middle recognizes a hard truth: propaganda rarely succeeds by outright lying. It succeeds by telling us what we already want to hear, while quietly removing whatever complicates the story.

We don’t ask, “Is this true?”
We ask, “Does this sound right to people like me?”

In the search for belonging, we allow identity to do our thinking for us.

A Familiar Case Study

The COVID-19 pandemic offers a clear example.

In the early days, the dominant question wasn’t simply how to stop the virus, it was where the virus came from. Almost instantly, the issue fractured along cultural and political lines.

Not because the evidence was settled, but because the implications felt dangerous.

Instead of asking, “What evidence supports each possible origin?” many people consciously, or not, asked, “Which answer fits my side?”

For those aligned with mainstream institutions and left-leaning media, the lab-leak hypothesis felt inseparable from conspiracy culture and anti-science rhetoric.

For those aligned with anti-establishment, right-leaning voices, rejecting the lab-leak theory felt like submission to elite institutions that had already lost credibility.

The result was predictable:
Each group heard what sounded right to its moral tribe.
Evaluation gave way to alignment.
Identity replaced inquiry.

Once again, the boxes were checked:

• Flattered beliefs ✔
• Framed doubt as betrayal ✔
• Rewarded belonging ✔

A Deeper Force at Work

The true engine behind all of this isn’t apathy or ideology.

It’s moral outsourcing.

We increasingly allow institutions to define virtue. Political parties tell us what is moral. Movements tell us who deserves empathy, and who does not.

Propaganda flourishes wherever people stop doing the difficult work of moral reasoning for themselves.

Certainty feels safer than responsibility.

What the Moral Middle Offers Instead

The Moral Middle does not promise immunity from propaganda. That claim alone would be propaganda.

What it offers instead is discipline.

• The discipline to sit with partial truths BEFORE reaching aboslutes
• The discipline to distrust narratives that create villains without context
• The discipline to question information that aligns too perfectly with our worldview
• The discipline to admit when something comforts us more than it enlightens us

It rejects both blind allegiance and false neutrality.

Because almost nothing is as simple as it’s presented.

Notable figures like George Orwell warned about regimes that control truth. The Moral Middle is more concerned with cultures that stop caring how truth is formed.

So the real question becomes this:

What comforts are we willing to surrender in order to think clearly, and what power are we quietly handing over in exchange?

The Moral Middle doesn’t ask us to be louder.

It asks us to be more honest than our side is usually comfortable with.

And that may be the most subversive act left.