The ends justify the means?

I never thought I'd live to see the a full-blown war between two developed nations, but the 2020s really are doing everything they can do make life interesting. There are countless morbidly fascinating ways to look at the Russian invasion of Ukraine, whether it's geopolitics, human suffering, military strategy, nuclear deterrence, racism... you name it. As a random on the internet, I am qualified to speak on literally none of these things, but I can talk about how it makes me feel!

As someone living in Taiwan, I have a natural inclination to pay fairly close attention to what China's up to. It goes without saying that one of the most famous aspects of the country is the Chinese Communist Party's near complete control of the media and internet, essentially only allowing content to remain online if it either meets the Party's "marketing" goals (ex: making China look good), or at the very least doesn't actively counter it. It's gotten to the point where the Party doesn't even need to actively go to the effort of actively taking down content or hunt people down - Chinese people (or foreigners living in China) basically have been trained to self-censor because they know there are certain things or topics that will get taken down immediately, so why even bother. (not to mention that getting something taken down might be the least that could happen to you)

Obviously, there are many legitimate criticisms of "government control over the dominant narrative", whatever name it may go by. At the same time, with the exception of some very principled idealists (or perhaps naive, depending on how you look at it), most people would agree that there are some exceptions in which censorship, if not entirely justified, is at least understandable and not worth fighting over.

Let's take the example of the United States; the "Land of the Free". During World War 2, letters to and from the frontlines always went through government censors that would cut out content that they believed might compromise strategic goals. So for example, let's say a soldier writes a letter home to his wife, saying that "I'll try to write you again soon! We're getting deployed to western France a few weeks from now, and mail might take a bit longer to reach you." This might reveal too much about the military's movements, and as such this part of the letter is cut out before his wife receives the letter.

I would guess that most people, though not necessarily happy with someone in the government reading through your mail and determining what's OK for you to say and what's not, would generally think it's understandable under the circumstances, and that so long as the government stops doing so after the war as over and there is no longer a "strategic need" for censorship, then they're OK with it.

Another form of controlling the narrative isn't deleting content, but actively pushing a specific narrative to the exclusion of others. A good modern-day example we've been seeing in real-time has been the government (and private citizens) of Ukraine's messaging about the war. Ever since the beginning of the war, the Ukrainian side has been doing an amazing job of online messaging, uploading lots of footage of them destroying large amounts of Russian tanks, helicopters, and even fighters. Various stories of heroism in the face of seemingly hopeless odds arose particularly in the early days, such as a mysterious ace pilot called the "Ghost of Kyiv" who was said to have singlehandedly shot down countless Russian aircraft, or the "Defenders of Snake Island" who supposedly told a Russian warship to "go fuck yourself" before being wiped out to the last man.

It should have been pretty obvious that these stories were at best exaggerated, and outright false in some cases. Yet most people were largely accepting of this fact even after it was revealed, justifying it from the perspective of morale - these stories were necessary in the beginning when people may have believed Ukraine had no fighting chance, and legends - even imaginary - helped Ukraine fight in their darkest hour, and that is why the country still remains free to this day (though the war is ongoing so the ultimate result is technically yet to be determined).

I'm generally pretty sympathetic to this idea. I don't really consider it entirely appropriate for me to comment on what a desperate country should or should not do when it comes to a fight for existence, so long as they're not committing war crimes or something in the process. Honestly, if it were Taiwan in the same decision, and making up propaganda about the "Demon of Penghu" helps improve morale in our defending forces and allow us to hold on against the Chinese onslaught... I'd say it's worth the cost.

At the same time though, I recognize that this justification is the same justification that every single authoritarian government that controls the narrative during "normal" time uses. In their minds, they're not doing it for selfish reasons, they're doing it for the good of the country overall - no one sees themselves as the villain of their own story.

That's the difficult thing - when you're the one putting out propaganda, you believe it's justified - and you might be right. The problem is that it's not always justified, and it can be very hard to tell the difference - and it's this gray area that creates confusion and room for misuse by bad faith actors.