Compliance From Data Control

"You claim responsibility for one thing. Deny it for another. Nobody believes you anymore."
--Jack Ryan (Patriot Games)

Statists understand that controlling language helps their cause. By manipulating words to influence what people think, the cost of obtaining compliance goes down. If done cleverly, language control might cause people to submit to authoritarian rule willingly.

Similarly, statists understand that they need to control important data series. Commonly, this is done by taking control of measurement and reporting processes. By doing so, statists can slant results in their favor to make themselves look good.

For years, this has been readily apparent with metrics related to GDP, unemployment, inflation, and other measures of economic performance. Without exception, 'fudge factors' have been incorporated that abet the handiwork of bureaucrats.

People are now becoming aware that data control by the state extends into the public health realm. Case counts, hospitalizations, and deaths have all been subject to mischief. In each case, the direction of the schemes benefits those in charge.

By controlling the data, statists believe that they can lower the cost of achieving compliance by even more than what is possible by language control alone.

My question is this. At what point, if any, does manipulation of data become so blatant that it works against statist objectives--causing increasing number of people to revolt rather than comply?