Huh, I guess my opening post was confusing (I've been known to be a bit weird with my speech.) That, or my train of thought went all over the place. What I am saying is... is it warranted if people do not know if it means you/someone is protecting that person. Would it be acceptable that one person is taking the heat so another person wouldn't need to. Basically, you become the keeper of that person? When I said blue/red pill, I was just making a reference as it is the most easiest to understand.
These two examples are what I am trying to get at. In both cases, both feel that it is necessary to shield or at least guide people in a certain direction, even if one doesn't get all the information. The dialogue in Plato Republic talked about teaching the right kinds of stories to children (so no Homer) so that they are raised properly. The second one, Barneys feel that Propaganda is necessary in a society so we have to shape society's mind a certain way (think of American WWII Propaganda.) Some will say that both situations are disagreeable in that it is shielding information from children and/adults and not exactly giving the truth. But is it disagreeable and wrong to be untruthful if that is what matters?1: In Plato Republic, there was a discussion that when kids are taught, one should not teach them everything that is wrong with the world while they are growing up, but only when they are themselves ready for learning these things because it infects their mind and the quality of life of the society if we teach them these things too early. (Somewhere along the lines.)
2: Some scholars even believe that one should use some manipulation and mind training towards society as it is something necessary for society, even if there would be people who would want to disagree with such decision.