It appears to be a large part of what he's saying, yes, but it looks like it certainly helps to have the hacking chops to be able to move millions of dollars between hacked bank accounts, compromise state-wide telcos at the root, and have the backing and advice of an international mercenary and special forces veteran.

It's why China is cracking down "Internet rumors", and also why in the U.S., Twitter, Facebook, and Google, are forming an alliance to crack down on "fake news" [1], starting with stuff like censoring Hillary Clinton's passing out video and related trending hashtags [2][3], or videos of North Dakota's pipeline protests [4].

We're going to need a decentralized and censorship-resistant Internet/social media sooner than people think. By the next U.S. election, I fear the these three main sites will have already been co-opted to work as government propaganda arms [5], as a smooth transition from old TV media propaganda to Internet propaganda, as more people cut their cords.

The worst part is people won't even be able to easily see it. It's one thing to see a moderator on TV constantly hitting (or praising) a candidate and eventually realizing that maybe he or she isn't very fair or is biased, and may have ulterior motives for doing that.

But it's quite another to be so vigilant as to notice when Google shows you mostly pro-Clinton search results for neutral election-related queries, or when Facebook and Twitter "don't" allow some topics to trend (although I think more people are starting to catch on to these tactics, but it's probably not happening fast enough to make a difference this election).

[1] https://www.engadget.com/2016/09/14/facebook-twitter-first-d...

[2] http://observer.com/2016/09/facebook-and-youtube-show-franti...

[3] http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/09/11/hillary-health-stor...

[4] http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/15/12926058/facebook-dakota-p...

[5] https://theintercept.com/2016/09/07/google-program-to-deradi...

Further reading:

Propaganda by Jacques Ellul