A reining in of the political media should be expected under a nation-state model

Forbes reported today about a statement of work issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on 3 April 2018.¬† The statement of work seeks prospective vendors capable of providing the Department’s National Protection and Programs Acquisition Division with the capabilities to monitor traditional and social media. The specific objective of the services is:

“Services shall enable NPPD/OUS to monitor traditional news sources as well as social media, identify any and all media coverage related to the Department of Homeland Security or a particular event. Services shall provide media comparison tools, design and rebranding tools, communication tools, and the ability to identify top media influencers.”

The statement of work does not get into any specifics as to why the Department would need such a program. It could be one of three reasons. One reason could be a push back by the Trump Administration on what it calls “fake news.” Mr Trump has shown a disdain for what he terms as unfair reporting typically from media perceived to be left leaning. He has no love for CNN, a lack of love expressed with so much disdain that he came out against the Time Warner-AT&T merger, one that is now being challenged by the Trump Justice Department.

The second reason for the proposed statement of work may be to create another tool for dealing with the media attacks a Russian troll service has been accused of. By monitoring media influencers, the United States could make a preemptive strike against journalists, bloggers, broadcasters, etc., that spread fake news and set the stage for divisiveness in American politics.

The third reason I see is that the political media has to be reined in by the nation-state. Part of the nation-state’s political ordering of and for society should include keeping the collective in order by controlling the messaging. While some spin is allowed in order for news organizations to establish some type of brand differentiation, i.e., MSNBC leans liberally forward while FOX is conservatively fair and questionably balanced, the general messages issued by the nation-state via the political media must be uniform enough to keep the masses in line or distracted. Too much spin to the left or to the right creates chaos in the collective, a disturbance in the force that the nation-state cannot afford.

I believe reason three is the purpose for the Department’s statement of work. Some Americans may see the proposal as an attack on a free press, but has the press ever really been free? Except for the occasional “breaking news” (which amounts to a press secretary given their favorite reporter or a reporter they can use the first shot at a story), most political news is initiated by a state actor with the media being tasked for commercial and political reasons for distributing it.

Probably over the weekend we may see some discussion on the meaning of a “free press.” Given that this story is not even trending on Twitter anymore has me wondering how seriously the media is taking the Department’s action.

The new cyber society will see the poor pay more for government

I sense a major “cost shift” for tax payers over the next twenty to fifty years as the more affluent of United States citizens move more of their survivability activities into cyber society versus current brick and mortar society.

I believe one key will be the use of cyber currency by an increasing number of service providers and producers. Less dependence on fiat money and more reliance on a block chain that cuts out the middleman providing for faster payment systems. In addition, the affluent are re-imagining the use of public infrastructure by using it less frequently or more efficiently. Think drones, driver-less & fuel efficient vehicles, or the delivery of groceries via Instacart.

The affluent will also find more innovative ways to provide security, from improved security technology to private police forces. In short, as the affluent pursue an increasingly self-sovereign approach to life, they will make the case for dishing the traditional services of the State while arguing that their tax burdens should be less. Why support police and road services that hey hardly need. If anything, they will argue, let us reduce our tax bills by the amount that we spend on providing these services for ourselves.

For low income individuals and a large proportion of communities of color, they will experience the burden of the “cost shift” as tax jurisdictions pass on the costs of providing traditional State services to these communities. These communities will not be able to bear the burden given their low incomes. Services will be reduced as traditional government finds itself facing competition from non-State actors financed by the more affluent.

The State will react violently at first. It will create laws designed to slow down the affluent’s abandonment of the traditional State system. It may, ironically, use net neutrality laws to slow down deployment of the advanced networks necessary for delivering services to taxpayers leaving the system. It will further reduce renewable energy subsidies to residents that generate electricity at their residences.

I don’t expect the State’s attempts at holding sovereign individuals hostage will be successful. The attempts will invalidate the State’s arguments that it represents democracy when the actions to squelch freedom are the furthest from the truth.