The Information State: Unpacking Digital Governance and Perception Engineering

Jacob Siegel describes the 'information state' as a system of governance operating through digital platforms. Its primary goal is to manipulate public perceptions by controlling the information individuals can access online. Through this manipulation, the information state aims to engineer specific behavioral and political outcomes.

This model represents a significant departure from traditional forms of governance, focusing on the subtle yet powerful influence exerted via digital channels rather than overt policy-making or legislative action.

The information state marks a fundamental shift from the traditional American constitutional system, where governance focuses on protecting rights and enacting policies through representative processes. Instead, this new paradigm aims to monopolize public attention and engineer consent.

Online, fundamental rights remain poorly defined, creating a fertile ground for this new form of governance to flourish without the established safeguards of physical, constitutional rights.

The Global Engagement Center (GEC), established in 2016, exemplifies the 'whole of society' framework. It functions not as a standalone federal agency, but as a coalition-based task force.

The GEC brings together public sector entities, private corporations—especially tech companies—and academic institutions.

Its stated purpose is to combat foreign disinformation, but its scope has expanded to include what it terms 'malinformation.'

This model illustrates a coordinated effort between various societal sectors under a centralized directive, blurring the lines between governmental and private functions in information control.

The digital space inherently erodes the traditional separation between public and private domains. As individuals transition from the physical world to online environments, geographical and conceptual borders become increasingly porous.

The 'counter-disinformation establishment' actively exploits this porosity, effectively attempting to eliminate the distinction between public and private life altogether.

Consequently, nearly all online activity is being reclassified as subject to state surveillance and regulation, fundamentally altering expectations of privacy and autonomy in the digital age.

This erosion of boundaries allows the state to extend its influence into areas previously considered personal and beyond governmental reach.

Modern technocracy traces its origins to an Enlightenment-era philosophical shift, notably influenced by figures like Francis Bacon. This perspective redefines the value of knowledge, moving away from understanding the universe or divine design.

Instead, knowledge is prized for its utility in mastering the universe, advancing technological power, and asserting human dominion.

This paradigm fosters a belief that total access to information, processed through formulas, can provide answers to all questions, thus enabling comprehensive control over both nature and human populations.

The Progressive movement emerged from the conviction that industrial societies had become too intricate and complex to be governed effectively through traditional democratic mechanisms of self-government. This viewpoint led to the argument that republicanism and public participation were outdated.

Consequently, power began to shift from the general populace to a technocratic elite, consolidating knowledge and decision-making within an expert class.

Woodrow Wilson bypassed democratic debate during World War I by establishing the Committee on Public Information (CPI), often called the Creel Committee after its head, George Creel. This marked the creation of the first American propaganda office.

The CPI was empowered to both censor the American press and persuade public opinion.

This move represented a significant departure from the American tradition of robust public discourse, reflecting Wilson's view that experts should not be burdened with engaging in public debate.

During the new Trump administration, some positive steps have been taken to prevent direct collusion between federal agencies and social media companies regarding censorship. However, significant challenges remain.

One of the main hurdles is redefining speech rights for the digital age, as current constitutional protections are ill-suited to online environments.

The COVID-19 era starkly revealed the precariousness of digital private property rights, demonstrating that online assets, including political speech and even money in bank accounts, could be seized or effectively 'cancelled.'

There is currently no coherent legal framework to protect individuals' rights in the online sphere, leading to situations where people can be cut off from their digital livelihoods.

This underscores an urgent need to codify property rights specifically for digital spaces, establishing clear protections for online possessions and expressions.

Many free speech advocates, while recognizing the need for physical borders between nations, often reject the concept of online borders, viewing them as a form of encroaching totalitarianism. However, Jacob Siegel argues that such digital boundaries are essential.

Borders, he contends, are necessary to preserve national and political communities in the digital realm.

The debate pits concerns about totalitarian control against the practical need for enforceable online boundaries to maintain sovereignty and distinct cultural spaces.

Jacob Siegel asserts that the solution to media control issues lies not with tech giants like Mark Zuckerberg, but with individuals and independent media platforms. He advocates for self-reliance and the proactive establishment of alternative media outlets.

These platforms must be willing to stand up and push back against prevailing narratives and control mechanisms, fostering a more diverse and resilient information ecosystem.

The educational system has been instrumental in manufacturing consensus since the Progressive Era, profoundly influencing attitudes towards free speech. The shift in attitudes, particularly among younger generations, is attributed to a concerted educational effort rather than an organic societal change.

Academics have systematically devalued free speech in classrooms, portraying it as a tool of oppression rather than an essential medium of liberty.

Generational data indicates a significant decline in support for free speech, from Baby Boomers to Generation Z, reflecting decades of this conditioned re-evaluation.

The mass censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020 was not an organic decision made by tech platforms but the culmination of immense pressure from a vast network of agencies, NGOs, and academic institutions. This constellation included groups such as the Global Disinformation Index, the Global Engagement Center, the Shorenstein Center at Harvard, Stanford University, the Stanford Internet Observatory, and even the FBI.

This institutional coordination demonstrates a concerted effort to control narratives, revealing how powerful entities can exert influence over information dissemination on a grand scale.

A key criticism is leveled against undifferentiated online spaces, arguing for the necessity of rebuilding voluntary associations and robust civil frameworks within the digital realm. The digital space is increasingly viewed as the new society, necessitating new approaches to governance and community structure.

The objective is to establish new, decentralized centers of power that can not only perform critical functions like reporting but also begin to reconstruct the foundational voluntary associations that underpin a healthy civil society.

David DesRosiers announced that RealClearPolitics launched the 'Samizdat' prize and network as a form of resistance against information control. He explained that 'Samizdat' is a Soviet-era term meaning to go underground with one's thoughts, signifying independent publishing and circulation of censored materials.

This initiative supports independent voices who challenge prevailing narratives, with examples including figures like Jay Bhattacharya, Matt Taibbi, and Miranda Devine.

It represents a concerted effort to foster alternative channels for information dissemination and critical thought, countering the monopolization of media narratives.

David DesRosiers characterizes 'malinformation' as the most significant Orwellian advancement he has witnessed, defining it as true information that is deemed inconvenient by those in power. He criticizes state-level information management for weaponizing this concept.

DesRosiers warns that the manipulation inherent in the information state ultimately serves the self-preserving interests of those who wield such control, rather than genuinely protecting the public.