Well the big thing that's different is the internet.

How it turned out is that instant access to information means a small number of people are highly informed about anything and can't be lied to so there's no point trying, and a large group of people actively seek out only comforting news that makes them feel good and will believe anything they're told (incidentally they're also totally convinced they are the informed and smart ones).

"They're all nazi white supremacists" makes the comfort-seeking people feel good, like standing next to an ugly person to look more attractive in comparison. Actually having a debate of any kind raises doubt because if it's worth responding to maybe it's a legitimate view, and that makes them feel uncertain and that makes them feel bad.

So before the information era they could put on a show trial/hearing, make it seem believable by intentionally putting on a poor case for what actually happened and a strong case for what they want you to believe, and everybody would watch and the propaganda would work on most people. Skeptics would say wow that case was strong, the believers would take some comfort in their beliefs being reassured.

But now the information is out there, the skeptics know the trial/hearing was intentionally thrown and the believers take more comfort if only one side is presented. So you get Jan 6 show trial which is obviously a total farce to anyone who's watched 5 minute of it because they're only playing to one side.