This is a game, however the Seasteading movement itself is earnest in their desires/efforts to accomplish one or more of these scenarios or some variation of them.
That's an interesting thought. However, inconsistency in propaganda is real if you consider embellishments can differ greatly. The key is to control the conversation. You can easily censor an RPG chat, for example, to the same effect
Games are also bad propaganda because it costs little to try different things. So censorship, while possible, cannot be hidden behind plausible deniability.
Similarly, a game implies a set of rules that can be criticized and cannot be made vague on purpose -- as required by motte-and-bailey and similar rhetorical tricks.
Yes, the grandparent was implying games didn't make good propaganda because the flaws in their model are exposed by playing with it, as if propaganda needs to be dishonest or false, but it doesn't. Following their reasoning, and your example, games could be effective propaganda tools for a specific category of ideas; those that have the self consistency needed to be made into a compelling game.
Just in case Georgism is unfamiliar to folks here's a pretty good historical run down of the game[1]. I wanted to highlight that monopoly was very much intended to highlight the capricious and arbitrary nature of capitalism - rather than being an endorsement of using cut throat tactics to race to the top. I feel like the meaning the game has has undergone a significant shift societally.
