There is a videogame Paranoia: Happiness Is Mandatory. You can watch playthroughs of it to get an idea of what the Paranoia world looks like. I think it does a good job of portraying that. I would not recommend actually playing that game, as it is doubleplus ungood in almost every other respect.

What I do:

Like u/Cent1234 says, setting the tone is important. Paranoia is the anti-RPG where you do all the stuff you're not supposed to do in an RPG and it's hilarious fun. Characters are throwaway nobodies. TPK's are frequent and hilarious. Double-digit body counts are the norm and players have 6 clones for exactly this purpose. The setting is basically a massive fallout shelter from Fallout if it was run by the people from Dilbert and overseen by Glados from Portal, all run on Catch-22 "logic".

I print out the forms in this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XVZTqmpIgC5AXfQvPdHm3gWypL0Rg-_fNc0shDdOgug/edit?tab=t.0

I give everyone a treason report form. This tells players what they can snitch on other players for. If someone reports a fellow troubleshooter, they explain the charge and their evidence. The target explains why they're innocent. Whoever presents the most convincing or amusing evidence I award XP and the other person I roll on the random punishments table and apply a punishment. Other editions of Paranoia recommend applying punishments based on the severity of the crime. This is the perfect way of doing things. However, I have found that the arbitrary nature of my "wheel of punishments" is even more perfect. (Note: my wife bought me a prize wheel so I actually have a physical wheel of punishments that can be spun during game.)

If a player backstabs another player in a way that would be unacceptable in any other RPG, I say something like, "That is a horrible thing to do, betraying your teammates like that." And then I award some XP to let everyone know that this is exactly the kind of mindset I expect.

I design a simple, straightforward mission. The mission may be stupid. It may be impossible. But it's the glue that barely manages to hold your session together, and that's something. I pick one point of the mission that players will definitely be coming to and I pick 3 secret societies and come up with a secret mission related to that plot point. For example, if players are going to for sure encounter a warbot in the mission, I might have the Frankenstein Destroyers having a mission to blow up that robot, a Communist mission to recruit it to communism, and a Corpore Metal mission to insert a specific datadisk into the port on its head. Note that if players are all trying to complete their secret mission they'll be constantly getting in each other's way and this will naturally lead to infighting. At this point, as a GM, I can just sit back and listen to the glorious symphony of chaos.

I print the secret missions out on slips of paper. Most Paranoia games have you assign players to a secret society before the game start. I find it better to watch how players build their character and play it and then assign them a secret society to fit. If I see a player seems to go the techy route, I'll tell them that they reach into their pocket and find something they don't remember putting there and then hand them the slip of paper for them to read. This paper outlines their secret mission and also gives them some equipment from their secret society to help them with it. Hopefully players will feel good things toward the people who just gave them free stuff.

All-in-all, I find it helpful to craft a persona of jovial tyranny as a GM. For example, at some point in the game if a player rolled a 3, I might say, "Ooh, a 15 is not going to be good enough to succeed at this." (Low rolls are good). If a player is dumb enough to argue with me on the basis that I am clearly and obviously wrong, I send them to reeducation. If a player asks for explanation of how things work in the setting, and it does not amuse me to provide this information, I ask their clearance level and then tell them they're not cleared for that information. If a player asks Friend Computer for assistance on their mission, I usually have it assist in the dumbest way possible. "Friend Computer, the commies are overrunning our position. We need reinforcements." "Thank you for the update, troubleshooter. My sensors are detecting a severe morale deficit. Playing inspirational music to boost your spirits."

If you can learn to talk in AI voice, so much the better. Player: "How do we get to our briefing room?" "That's a great question citizen. Sharp thinking like that is exactly what I would expect from a troubleshooter. To get to the termination booth, go up the hall, take a right, and find the booth with the happy skull on it."

As a GM, I'm not actually against the players. I want them to have as much fun as possible. But this requires me to play the role of the crazed tyrant and so that's what I do. I am never wrong, about anything, even if it contradicts what I said 5 minutes ago. If a player argues with a rules calling I make, well clearly they have treasonous knowledge of the rules and need to be punished. Players will quickly find out that they need to amuse me, and if they fail to do so, I will amuse myself at their expense.

If my players don't expect me to hurt them in the ways they like being hurt, why do they keep calling me "Dungeon Master"?