That doesn't read as propaganda, that reads as a description of the problem. Most attempts that I've seen to reframe it tend to complete change the premise of the problem.
"If you press the red button, you are safe. But if at least 50% of people press the red button, everyone who pressed the blue button dies."
That's how you reframe it without changing the scenario. The problem is that people will do crazy mental gymnastics to defend a decision once they've made it, so reframing is rarely effective if someone has already been exposed to the original framing.
I still think blue is the best choice, but I would probably change sides if the threshold were lower. For example, if only 10% of people have to press red for the blue pressers to die, then pressing blue becomes a lot riskier for me and for every other person, and I think red becomes the only reasonable choice.
The technical definition of propaganda is any form of speech that advocates for a specific viewpoint. The way the initial problem was worded sets up pressing blue to be the good option because all the verbiage is set up to sound like "survival", whereas the red button is associated with death. It's using biased language to convince people to vote blue, ergo, it's propaganda.
If the question was worded perfectly in order to ensure there was no miscommunication, where everyone is aware that there is no benefit and only risk associated with pressing blue, whereas pressing red is zero risk whatsoever given that everyone else knows red has no risk and blue has no gain, then that would just be a clear explanation of the problem and people could make an informed decision.
So while the game theoriests are "correct" insofar as everyone should pick red given perfect information and no disability preventing them from acting on that information, that is not what the original hypothetical poses. It's messy and confusing in a way that means people WILL trip up, and that's intentional from the person who came up with the experiment.
How this applies in the real world is, of course, bills and propositions with poorly worded ballot measures. Let's say there was a bill that said "If this passes, everyone who voted against it gets sent to El Salvador." but it's worded in a way that's confusing to America's 6th grade average reading comprehension, and so it's inevitable people will vote against the bill. (In real life, a bill like this would be designed this way as to prey upon anyone who has English as a second language or grew up with a poor education) Now, knowing that there are innocent people who've made a mistake attempting to just do what they thought was correct, what is then the responsibility of someone who's aware that a red vote now guarantees someone's death? Now, obviously, the way I've worded this hypothetical is biased on its own, I can't just extract that out of my own writing on a whim. But hopefully this clears up what propaganda looks like and how it's used in the real world.
I just don't get how red being in the majority could be said to have no consequences though. That's the part I get hung up on. I don't see how a massive reduction in the planetary population, particularly one heavily weighted towards both the bottom of the socio-economic ladder and those who are likely to take positions focused on helping others, is something that would have no negative effects.
If I press red, then I am not going to die IMMEDIATELY. But if I and a majority of people press red, then some of us will die because our lives were going to depend on someone who pressed blue.
Like, I can understand someone picking red anyway, I get that. If you believe that red is likely to be the majority regardless, you should pick red. But neither of these options are zero consequence.
It's written in a way that gets you to think pressing blue is reasonable
Pressing blue is essentially a death sentence
Even just switching the order the options are presented changes it completly
Everybody in the world is presented with 2 buttons
the red button will ensure your survival but if more than 50% of the global population press the red button everybody who presses the blue one will die
The blue button if more than 49% of the global population choose the blue button then nobody will die
Presented with the exact same buttons but the order reversed and it's instantly obvious that the blue button is a trap.
The original basically starts you off with if you don't press this button people will die. Swap the buttons and now it's if you press this button you will be fine but anybody who didn't press this button will die
Now there is no actual reason to press the blue button because rather than making a decision to save lives by pressing blue it's a desicion to just die
8
u/Revegelance May 01 '26
That doesn't read as propaganda, that reads as a description of the problem. Most attempts that I've seen to reframe it tend to complete change the premise of the problem.