You don't need the internet to know the setlist isn't varied when you see 10 + shows each night. If that aspect bothers you, why go to more than 1 show ?
Having the luxury of seeing the setlist now, leaving aside the DVDs (this is about songs), how do you feel about the 92 or 97 setlists ?
It's not just the encore, but anyway.
Pass. They already did the "big bright orange" (we don't need the bigger is better shtick a la Stones live show). A bit of the excuse, yes is the multimedia, mostly it's probably the show aspect - certain songs in the main set, certain in the encore, certain in the acoustic set. And as far as I can tell, the setlist did change as the spectacle went down, ie last two tours.
I think the "I wouldn't mind the setlist if they had a big show" excuse is weak. The setlist will be still static, multimedia or not. If the multimedia makes it, somehow, magically better, then maybe the songs themselves aren't the issue and you probably just want the BIG show. The other alternative may be, of course, resenting the band didn't play your fave album/s on this past tour, which still doesn't negate all the changes in the setlist that did happen. (aside of the musical skills/lyrics memory issue above, there is also the issue of the voice. War, UF, JT, Rattle and Hum - let's assume October and Zooropa are buried live - were recorded with a younger vocal. How much of that stuff can Bono still do now that he's approaching 50?)
I doubt interference has a lack of questioning U2. I just think it should be used where it applies. Picking on Vertigo, of all of U2's tours, regarding the setlists, is bizzare.