Can you, someone, anyone in this toxic wasteland of a thread please point out what propaganda you're talking about? Point to an actual thing that justifies banning something 140M Americans use daily and don't just expound upon your vague national security paranoia.
"Where are the examples" is a straw man. Imagine the ways a political enemy might exploit limitless access to the attention of 140M Americans. The calculus seems to be that a false negative will be much more catastrophic than a false positive.
I understand what you're saying but that argument I don't think should apply here. Having some kind of evidence to back up a drastic action like this is not something that should be argued for, it should be a given. I've asked at least 5 different times for people to point to anything material, and no one has come up with anything. I'm not saying there is no threat, I could be wrong and there could be a massive threat, but if there is one shouldn't we be able to point to something more than "it could happen" and being paranoid about it? I'm being asked to have faith in institutions/politicians that have a long, long, long proven track record of not having my best interests at heart and I can't accept that when they have clear conflicting interests / motives.
Why does the ban need to be reactive for you to understand it?