There has been much evidence, scientific, anecdotal, etc. that most of our decision making process is essentially subconscous. That much of what we do is habit, reaction and instinct.

Which raises an interesting question; What do we have consciousness for?

Reasonably it is to analyze, to imagine, to project, to learn so that subsequent actions and habits are better informed.

Which means it is the very function of the mind to suppose. Yes, we are frequently wrong, but that's why it's called, "trial and error."

When there is incredible amounts of activities and inter-acting people, all networked and communicating, it is likely that some will act in ways against public interest, or established narrative, as well as that people will suspect these sorts of activities are going on.

So I would grade this essay an A for effort and breadth, but an F, for depth and insight. What exactly is the author proposing? If there was some pure unadulterated source of information out there, we wouldn't need any conscious function to ask questions. We could be like antelope, running with the herd and automatically, instinctively turning as the herd turns and staying the same speed as the rest, or be trampled and mess up those close to us.

Some of us though, are like those little creatures in the bushes, listening for every rustle of the leaves and analysing its potentials.