What If Everything You’ve Been Told About Cybersecurity Threats Is Wrong?

Let’s cut through the noise for a second. You’ve probably heard the term “national security threat” thrown around like confetti—TikTok, Huawei, DeepSeek, you name it.

But here’s the kicker: What if I told you most of these so-called “threats” aren’t about protecting you at all? What if they’re just a smokescreen for corporate power grabs and good old-fashioned propaganda?

I’ve been working in cybersecurity for years now (the majority of it working on ACTUAL national security threats), and let me tell you, the amount of weird, disingenuous stuff I’ve seen from other creators is staggering.

I’ve had people come at me for giving a fair assessment of tools like DeepSeek, accusing me of being “propagandized.”

Meanwhile, those same creators are out here shilling for exploitative Fortune 50 companies, pushing unethical sponsored posts, and spreading fear without any real evidence.

Here’s the truth: A lot of cybersecurity advice you’re getting is coming from an enterprise perspective. It’s not about protecting you—it’s about protecting corporate profits and intellectual property.

Many cyber pros will tell you to avoid anything from China at all costs—DeepSeek, TikTok, you name it.

But is that really about security? Or is it just propaganda dressed up as expertise?

I’m here to call it out. And more importantly, I’m here to arm you with the skills to see through the bullshit and assess technologies for yourself.

The Cybersecurity Propaganda Machine

Here’s the hard truth: Cybersecurity isn’t just about protecting your data anymore. It’s become a battleground for corporate interests, political agendas, and straight-up propaganda. And if you’re not paying attention, you’re the one who’s going to lose.

Take TikTok, for example. On the surface, it was sold as a way to protect your data from foreign surveillance. But dig a little deeper, and you’ll see it was also a convenient way for U.S. tech giants to crush a competitor. Same story with Huawei. The government claimed it was a national security threat, but the real threat was to Apple and Samsung’s market share.

And don’t even get me started on the influencers. You know the ones—cybersecurity “experts” who just happen to be sponsored by Fortune 50 companies. They’ll tell you to avoid certain apps or technologies, but if you scroll down, you’ll see #ad or #sponsored in tiny letters. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

I don’t think all sponsorships are bad. Most are harmless, but when they’re telling you not to use a specific tech, that’s when you should get critical.

The problem is, this propaganda isn’t just annoying—it’s dangerous. When we buy into these narratives, we end up with policies that don’t actually solve the problem. Blanket bans on companies are like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. If a specific technology is dangerous, it should be banned for everyone, not just one company. But that’s not what’s happening. Instead, we’re getting half-baked solutions that protect corporate profits, not national security.

The High Stakes of Misinformation

Let’s talk about the real cost of cybersecurity propaganda. Because it’s not just about annoying ads or biased influencers. It’s about the erosion of trust, innovation, and even your rights.

First, there’s the stifling of innovation. Companies like BYD, a Chinese car manufacturer, are banned in the U.S. not because they’re a threat, but because they’re better. Their cars are cheaper, more advanced, and packed with features that American automakers can’t match. Instead of stepping up their game, U.S. companies just lobbied to ban the competition. Sound familiar?

But the most dangerous consequence of cybersecurity propaganda is how it normalizes surveillance and digital control, just like the Patriot Act did in 2001.

The Patriot Act: How It Made You a Target

The Patriot Act was sold as a counterterrorism measure after 9/11, but in reality, it created one of the most aggressive surveillance systems in history—one that is still being used against U.S. citizens today. The government no longer needed a warrant to collect vast amounts of personal data. Instead, it expanded the definition of "terrorism" to include vague terms like "domestic extremism," giving authorities broad power to investigate and monitor individuals for reasons that have nothing to do with national security. The law forced tech companies to comply with sweeping data collection programs, using National Security Letters (NSLs) that required them to hand over user information in secret, often under gag orders so they couldn’t even notify their customers.

This isn’t some distant, theoretical concern. It affects everyone who uses U.S.-based tech platforms today. Predictive policing, mass surveillance, and intelligence-sharing agreements between corporations and the government have turned the digital world into one of the most powerful tools for tracking individuals. If dissent ever becomes criminalized, all of that data—your emails, messages, search history, and social media interactions—is already archived, categorized, and ready to be used against you.

Most people assume this only applies to criminals or national security threats, but mass surveillance doesn’t work that way. These systems aren’t built for extreme cases. They are built so that governments can expand the definition of "threats" whenever it becomes convenient.

The Platforms You Use Are a Risk No One Talks About

While cybersecurity influencers flood the internet with warnings about China collecting your data, almost no one is talking about how nearly every major American tech platform is centralized under NSA jurisdiction. The cybersecurity industry loves to focus on the hypothetical risks of foreign technology, but ignores the very real dangers posed by the surveillance state that already exists.

Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and Meta are not just companies. They are intelligence-gathering networks tied directly to U.S. government agencies. Under FISA 702, the government can secretly force these companies to hand over your emails, messages, search history, and files—without a warrant. And they don’t need probable cause. They don’t even need to tell you. If they decide you are a “threat,” they already have enough data to build a case against you, whether you’ve committed a crime or not.

The problem isn’t just that this data is being collected. It’s that no one is asking the obvious question: What happens when the definition of a "threat" expands? What happens when laws shift and certain forms of speech, research, or activism become criminalized? Because if history tells us anything, it’s that surveillance infrastructure isn’t built and then dismantled. It’s built and then used.

The Weimar Republic Parallels: How This Becomes Dangerous

We’ve seen this playbook before. In the Weimar Republic (Germany, 1920s-30s), mass surveillance, propaganda, and government overreach were all justified under national security concerns. The government used economic instability and external threats as excuses to expand its power. By the time authoritarianism took hold, they didn’t have to create a new system of control—they simply used the surveillance infrastructure that was already in place.

Sound familiar?

Today, the U.S. is escalating crackdowns on digital dissent under the guise of "security." Anti-China hysteria is being used to push bans on encryption and privacy tools, even as corporate data collection reaches new levels of precision. The definition of "extremism" is expanding to include journalists, activists, and even cybersecurity researchers. Big Tech and the intelligence community are more intertwined than ever, normalizing censorship, data collection, and algorithmic control over narratives.

Cybersecurity professionals are completely ignoring this. The ones who claim to be concerned about privacy are conveniently silent when it comes to the consolidation of power in the hands of U.S. intelligence agencies. The NSA and FBI don’t need to hack your accounts when they already have backdoor access to the platforms you use every day. When security advisors warn you about foreign threats but stay silent on the surveillance network you’re actually trapped in, what does that tell you?

Propaganda in cybersecurity isn’t just annoying—it’s dangerous. It’s designed to redirect your attention away from the actual threats to your rights. Every time someone fear-mongers about foreign tech while ignoring the NSA’s control over the platforms you use daily, ask yourself why.

Because the biggest cybersecurity risk isn’t that someone in China might know what videos you like. It’s that if dissent ever becomes criminalized, the U.S. government already has everything they need to build a case against you.

And nobody in cybersecurity is talking about it.

How to Cut Through the Noise and Spot Real Threats

You’re probably thinking, “Okay, but what can I actually do about it?” I get it. It’s overwhelming. But you don’t need to be a cybersecurity expert to see through propaganda—you just need a solid framework to separate fact from fiction.

Let me take you back to where this all started for me.

I spent eight years in the U.S. Air Force, working on critical missions—including monitoring China’s technological growth while stationed in Japan. After that, I moved to the Department of Justice, where I helped shape cybersecurity policies that had to balance national security with individual rights.

I’ve seen how decisions are made at the highest levels, and here’s the ugly truth: it’s rarely actually about protecting you.

Scrolling through social media today, I see the same pattern over and over—the TikTok ban, the Huawei ban, now the DeepSeek panic. And it’s infuriating. Not because there aren’t real cybersecurity risks, but because the way these “threats” are framed has little to do with actual security.

Why does this keep happening? Simple: power and profit.

The U.S. spends over $1 billion per year on anti-China propaganda, pushing fear narratives that conveniently benefit big corporations and political agendas. If we really cared about security, we’d be addressing all tech vulnerabilities, not just the ones tied to foreign competitors.

So, how do you separate real threats from manufactured ones?

Here’s a brief overview the framework I created:

Step 1: Who Benefits from This?

Every time you hear about a cybersecurity risk, follow the money. Who gains from this policy? If it disproportionately benefits U.S. corporations or crushes foreign competition, there’s a deeper agenda at play.

Example: The U.S. banned BYD cars not because they were unsafe, but because they were cheaper, more advanced, and outpacing American automakers. Instead of innovating, U.S. companies lobbied for a ban.

✔ Checklist:

• Does the policy directly benefit a specific company or industry?

• Are financial ties influencing the decision-makers?

• Does the justification focus on security, or is it more about market control?

Step 2: Is the Risk Universal or Selective?

If a technology is truly dangerous, it should be banned across the board—not just when a foreign competitor is involved.

Example: The TikTok ban was justified as a data privacy move, yet U.S. tech giants collect and sell just as much user data and it has questionable ties to Israel. If surveillance was the real issue, the U.S. government would be regulating all social media, not just the competition.

✔ Checklist:

• Does the policy address underlying vulnerabilities, or just target specific companies?

• Are similar risks from U.S. companies being ignored?

• Would a broader regulation solve the issue more effectively?

• Does this restriction serve genuine security interests, or is it about controlling the flow of information and maintaining a dominant narrative?

Step 3: Verify the Source

Who’s making the claim? Are they an independent expert, or do they have ties to companies or governments with a vested interest?

Example: Critics of DeepSeek claim it "sends data to China." But they tested the China-hosted web app, not the self-hosted version, which behaves differently. These misleading tests fuel anti-competition narratives.

✔ Checklist:

• What are their credentials? Are they cybersecurity experts or corporate-funded influencers?

• Are they transparent about their affiliations?

• Do independent, peer-reviewed sources support their claims?

Step 4: What’s the Real Motivation?

Governments and corporations often frame policies as security measures, but many serve deeper strategic goals—whether economic, political, or regulatory.

Example: The Patriot Act was sold as a counterterrorism measure but led to mass surveillance and erosion of privacy. The same logic applies to cybersecurity laws today—fear is used to justify control.

✔ Checklist:

• Does the stated motivation match the actions being taken?

• Is the policy an actual security measure or an excuse for power consolidation?

• Are there hidden agendas influencing the decision?

Step 5: Does the Solution Actually Solve the Problem?

If a cybersecurity measure is legitimate, it should be effective and proportional—not a blanket ban or PR stunt.

Example: Instead of addressing TikTok’s data handling, the U.S. opted for an outright ban. But if security was the real concern, why aren’t there clear data privacy laws for all platforms?

✔ Checklist:

• Is the solution targeted and evidence-based, or is it just a broad restriction?

• Does it address the root cause of the problem?

• Are there better alternatives that would be less disruptive?

Download the Full checklist here ⬇️

Propaganda isn’t just noise—it shapes policies, markets, and personal freedoms. Every time you hear about a "national security risk," use this framework to cut through the agenda and make informed decisions. Because cybersecurity isn’t just about protecting your data—it’s about protecting your ability to think critically and see through manipulation.

Here’s the good news: You don’t have to be a cybersecurity expert to protect yourself from propaganda. By using this framework, you can take control of your cybersecurity decisions and avoid falling for half-baked solutions that serve hidden agendas.

Imagine a world where you can confidently navigate the complexities of cybersecurity, free from the influence of corporate and political propaganda. A world where you know how to spot real threats, advocate for targeted solutions, and protect your rights.

That world starts with you. It starts with education, critical thinking, and a willingness to question the status quo.

The digital world evolves rapidly, and the stakes have never been higher. Don’t let propaganda and misinformation dictate your cybersecurity decisions.

Take Action and Own Your Cybersecurity

Here’s the deal: The digital world is a battlefield, and you’re the one who gets to decide who wins. Will you let propaganda and misinformation dictate your choices? Or will you take control, arm yourself with knowledge, and make decisions that actually protect you?

The next time someone tells you to avoid TikTok, RedNote, or any other technology “because China,” ask yourself: Who benefits from this narrative? What’s the real threat? And most importantly, what’s the agenda behind the advice?

The truth is, cybersecurity isn’t just about protecting your data—it’s about protecting your freedom. And freedom starts with questioning the stories you’re being told.

So, what are you waiting for? Download the checklist and take back control of your software choices and privacy. Because in a world full of propaganda, the most radical thing you can do is think for yourself.

Stay Curious,

Addie LaMarr