I was quoting the famous book from Bastiat (That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen: An Economic Essay). To cut it REALLY short, though he intended it as a ferocius criticism of state intervention (behind any intervention, even in good faith, there are always bad unintended consequences), I think that the principle could be extended and lightened up by considering that many of the "bad unintended consequences" are in fact bad for the state itself or for those who believe in it, at least in the long run. Almost all the facts you mentioned (though the second is proven fake) can have bad consequences but also good ones, for example making it clearer and clearer that states are criminal associations. Throughout history, we have seen that totalitarian regimes can push propaganda and fake news so far, but they need to keep pushing to survive (propaganda is like a drug, you need to provide it in ever increasing amount and potency), so they turn ridiculous and/or show their true face. That's when they fall. I think (and hope...) we are very close to that point, expecially in Europe.

Got your point. Second order consequences can be also positively unpredictable. History unfortunately shows that oftentimes majorities realize the nasty effects of state/corporate propaganda on their wellbeing only when it's too late. Especially war propaganda. 'Circenses' stop working when 'Panem' is already too scarce and the bombs are falling.