Well that's interesting:
After all, it was the confluence of a number of technologies — the telegraph, the train, the printing press, and more — that enabled the nation state to form in the first place, unifying far flung people through physical and ideological links. Now that we are immersed in technological platforms that we turn to for media, for socializing, for finance, and community, it may be time to not just think about regulation, but rather, what role the nation state plays when groupings may become even more virtual than they are in the form of a "country." Indeed, as these platforms continue to grow, it may turn out that their most profound effect is not what happens inside countries — but what happens to the idea of a country itself.
I find it interesting because I wondered if a virtual state could solve the problems of groups of people fighting over one piece of land:
I've mentioned this e-state notion both for Israel as a Plan B in the nuclear age and for Palestinians who would have a hybrid-land/digital state to encompass "refugees" (actually the descendants of refugees) in Arab states.
Could this be an option for the Kurds and others who lack a state in the modern state-centric system?
Could "states" that have nothing but embassies in traditional territory-based countries as their sovereign territory provide a true national experience and benefit as an alternative to long fights to wrest control of land from somebody else as the basis for declaring a state?
I think it would be worthwhile to explore what functions a state provides that aren't actually based on owning territory or not owning all the territory your people live in.
Of course, tying a people together online can only go so far when people live in the real world.
But if online links can define a people and if we can figure out how to replicate the aspects of a state that rely on a physical world to achieve, war over control of a homeland could fade away.
UPDATE: This is scary as Hell:
On June 14, 2014, the State Council of China published an ominous-sounding document called "Planning Outline for the Construction of a Social Credit System". In the way of Chinese policy documents, it was a lengthy and rather dry affair, but it contained a radical idea. What if there was a national trust score that rated the kind of citizen you were?
Imagine a world where many of your daily activities were constantly monitored and evaluated: what you buy at the shops and online; where you are at any given time; who your friends are and how you interact with them; how many hours you spend watching content or playing video games; and what bills and taxes you pay (or not). It's not hard to picture, because most of that already happens, thanks to all those data-collecting behemoths like Google, Facebook and Instagram or health-tracking apps such as Fitbit. But now imagine a system where all these behaviours are rated as either positive or negative and distilled into a single number, according to rules set by the government. That would create your Citizen Score and it would tell everyone whether or not you were trustworthy. Plus, your rating would be publicly ranked against that of the entire population and used to determine your eligibility for a mortgage or a job, where your children can go to school - or even just your chances of getting a date.
A futuristic vision of Big Brother out of control? No, it's already getting underway in China, where the government is developing the Social Credit System (SCS) to rate the trustworthiness of its 1.3 billion citizens.
Good God. The emperor is far and the mountains are high, but the Chinese Internet will follow you everywhere.
Thank goodness this tool is being used by a reasonably enlightened ruling elite, eh?
UPDATE: In America, Twitter mobs ruthlessly enforce the changing standard of the Left by attacking dissenters. How will that work with the power of a dictatorial state apparatus behind it?
NOTE: These two updates above are copied from this post and seem relevant to this post.
Right now people compete for likes from friends and strangers. How much stronger will the herd mentality be when the state with the power to reward and punish judges what you should and should not like?
Who would abuse that kind of power? Certainly not Facebook!
Speaking at an Axios event in Philadelphia this week, [ex-president of Facebook, Sean] Parker said that Facebook built a ‘social validation feedback loop,’ which exploits a ‘vulnerability in human psychology.’Parker also said, ‘God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains.’
I'm having deep second thoughts about the wisdom of creating a virtual state given the threat of such control. I hereby change my impression from "interesting" to "scary."
UPDATE: If thinking is a group function rather than individual reason, essentially, the possibility of control via social media is truly frightening.
