The Information State: Politics in the Age of Total Control

by Jacob Siegel

We’re constantly told that disinformation is everywhere and that it’s ruining our democracy. But what if the war on disinformation itself is really just a weapon to squash any and all legitimate dissent?

The Information State is an incisive examination of how we reached the point where anything that contradicts the dominant narrative can be labeled dangerous disinformation. Tablet writer Jacob Siegel charts how a technological infrastructure built to make society more rational and progressive has steadily replaced democratic freedoms with systems of digital control. Instead of competing for voters’ support, the Information State uses censorship, mass surveillance, and algorithmic manipulation to shape public perceptions as it tries to engineer reality.

An alliance between government and tech companies formed to wage the war on terror has evolved into an unholy new kind of technocratic state and turned against America’s own citizens. In short, the information war came home and completely overtook American politics during the hyperpolarization of the Trump era and the isolation of the Covid pandemic. The Information State is an urgent, necessary book that sounds the alarm on where society is headed in the age of AI if we don’t relearn how to think for ourselves and ask searching questions about whether information can ever be a substitute for truth.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Technology, Government

336 pages, Hardcover

First published March 24, 2026

Reviews

[Kuu · Rating 2 out of 5]

Thank you to NetGalley and the publisher for this ALC.

This was a very very interesting book on the history of intelligence and the ways in which Silicon Valley and its developers ended up enabling various human rights abuses committed by the American state.

One aspect that was a little disapppointing was that this book ONLY focused on the United States. The description already does imply a focus on the US, but it still didn't sit right with me to focus on the US only when various other countries have played a huge role in technological development during the periods that this book does examine. I really do feel like it would have strengthened the analysis if the author had also considered developments in OTHER countries, and how they mirror those of the US or went a completely different route, allowing for stronger claims about the nature of such developments in the US. If you only look at the US, you can't really make a lot of claims about the US, as you don't know if this is a universal phenomenon or not, yknow?

I'm also not the biggest fan of the way certain claims are framed, such as implying that Obama's closeness to Big Tech was the main or only reason why social justice issues gained popularity during his presidency, despite, apparently, majority of the population opposing measures such as "limiting free speech" (which, in this context, very much seems like "maybe we shouldn't use slurs anymore", I'm gonna be real honest with you). It's kind of the thing with a lot of social progress that the people in power don't generally care much about the ways in which they reproduce marginalising and discriminating systems, so the majority saying "us being racist/sexist/transphobic/etc. isn't an issue" doesn't mean that the outrage about various forms of discriminiation was somehow staged by Obama and Big Tech - it might just as well have been a genuine desire by the marginalised people to finally be treated better, which happened to coincide with a time in which it was now possible to make one's voices heard (and who says that this outrage didn't already exist previously, but people simply did not have the means to make their voices heard to the same degree?). This just doesn't sit right with me.

(Generally I do agree with his analysis on how politicians meddle with internet platforms to create certain narratives, and how this is oftentimes very performative - such as in the Iran example - and is framed in ways to increase dependency on US companies and information. It's just this specific framing that makes me go "hmmm".)

Additionally, the author casts doubt on certain things that have been confirmed to have been the case (as far as I am informed, and as repeated in various sources, such as Russian meddling in the 2016s election - which apparently cast a shadow over Trump's presidency, while the author ignores the "birther" myths about Obama... okay). This author does appear to hold certain political views, while pretending that he does not. Discussions on limiting freedom of speech, censorship, misinformation as a weaponised concept, etc., all focus on Democrats, ignoring the employment of the same tactics by the Republican side (Trump derangement syndrome, anyone??? Trump tried to PATHOLOGISE disapproval of him, which I feel like is relevant to mention when you criticise terms such as malinformation. "Truth news"??? Musk and Trump's being best buddies??? Why are you mentioning the ways in which Democrats interact with Big Tech but like. straight up ignore Musk?????).

There's also a lot of talk about "information class", which, in the wider context, is starting to have anti-intellectualist vibes. There's also some sentences that sound a bit anti-vaxx, so... ehhh. The author also compares the storm on the Capitol to BLM protests, and talks quite critically of Biden's presumed mental state while ignoring the various "blunders" Trump has made.

The more I listen to this, the lower my rating goes. This is a VERY one-sided account, drawing comparisons where they shouldn't be drawn, while neglecting comparisons where they are very obviously there, so I definitely would NOT recommend anyone to read only this book. If you decide to pick up this book, PLEASEEEEEEEE make sure to get both neutral and left-wing sources, to counteract the very clear right-leaning, somewhat propagandist nature of this book.

[Adam K · Rating 1 out of 5]

Thank you to NetGalley for providing me with an advanced reading copy in exchange for an honest review.

This book sets out to argue that modern society has drifted into what the author calls an “information state,” a system in which governments, media organizations, technology companies, and academic elites collectively shape and control public discourse through digital platforms. On the surface that sounds like an ambitious and serious argument. In practice, the book reads less like a careful analysis and more like a long political polemic built on sweeping claims, selective examples, and a very heavy ideological through line.

Right from the start the book struggles to establish a convincing intellectual foundation. The introduction spends far too much time trying to define “information,” and the whole exercise comes off as oddly sophomoric. Instead of clarifying the argument, it feels like the author circling around a thesis he has not fully figured out yet. The book asks the reader to accept a broad philosophical framework about information before it has really shown why that framework is necessary or persuasive.

Early on, it felt like the author was building his argument along the wrong lines. His stance often seems to be that technology itself is the problem. There is a lot of talk about how modern society abandoned higher forms of contemplation in favor of technological convenience, with references to ideas like Aristotle’s theoria as some kind of lost ideal. That framing strikes me as deeply misguided. Technology always moves forward. Information, in the modern sense, is simply part of how complex societies function. The real issue is not technology itself but how people with power use it. Greed, political incentives, and corporate interests play a far larger role in shaping outcomes than the book seems to acknowledge.

The author also leans heavily on a kind of nostalgia for the past. At several points he suggests that earlier societies “wisely” limited technological power. That is a very romantic way of looking at history. Many of those societies were brutally hierarchical, patriarchal, and exploitative in ways that make modern problems look mild by comparison. If they limited certain technologies it was rarely because of philosophical wisdom. More often they simply lacked the ability or the freedom to develop them. Presenting the past as morally superior because it was technologically simpler is not a serious historical argument.

Another recurring problem is the level of determinism running through the book. The author frequently suggests that once societies embrace information technologies, they are almost inevitably pushed toward surveillance and manipulation. That idea glosses over the enormous role of human agency and political choice. The same technologies that enable surveillance also enable mass access to knowledge, decentralized communication, and the ability for ordinary people to challenge powerful institutions. The book spends a great deal of time talking about control and very little time acknowledging how these tools can also liberate people from it.

Some of the early chapters also suffer from a lack of concise editing. Long biographies of mathematicians and computer scientists appear throughout the text in order to trace how the concept of information evolved in scientific fields. These sections quickly become tedious and feel like heavy padding. We do not need extended life stories of early computing pioneers just to understand how the word “information” changed over time. Instead of strengthening the argument, these digressions slow the narrative and give the impression of intellectual depth without actually adding much substance.

As the book moves into more recent political events the argument becomes even more one sided. A wide range of complicated developments are interpreted through a single lens, the idea that a sprawling “information state” now exists to manage public opinion. Instances of government officials communicating with social media companies, debates about content moderation, or shifting public health guidance during the pandemic are presented as evidence of a coordinated system of control. In reality many of these episodes reflect messy decision making, institutional confusion, and political polarization rather than some grand unified system running the show.

Now, I will say that the book does raise a few legitimate questions. The influence of large technology companies, the relationship between governments and digital platforms, and the difficulty of balancing misinformation policies with free speech are all real issues that deserve serious discussion—particularly in the age of commercialized artificial intelligence and machine learning platforms, smartphone ubiquity, along with a slew of other technological marvels that have become commonplace. Unfortunately those questions are buried under an argument that constantly overreaches and tries to force every development into a single sweeping narrative.

In the end I would not recommend approaching this book as a balanced or scholarly analysis of technology and politics. It is rhetorically confident but analytically thin, full of broad claims supported by selective anecdotes and philosophical framing that never quite holds together. Anyone who is genuinely interested in reading about the intersection of technology, power, and democracy need not apply.



*A few note scraps—
Introduction:
- The author spends way too much time in the introduction defining "information." It comes off as sophomoric—as if he doesn't really know where to start his central thesis.

Chapter 1:
- I begin to feel as if the author is formulating his argument along false lines. His stance seems to be that technology is the problem. He venerates ideas like Aristotle's theoria (philosophical contemplation) as being the highest human activity in contrast with the abandonment of such values for the ease of technology. Yet technology always marches forward. "Information," as we understand the definition today, is fundamental to our society. How it was defined in the past does not bear on its necessity. Perhaps the true struggle is not with technology itself, but with greed.
- There is a lot of romanticizing the past going on here. Past societies "wisely" limited the technological power? Many past societies were brutally hierarchical, patriarchal, and exploitative in other ways. They may have limited some technologies, but not necessarily out of wisdom or virtue.
- There is a strange level of determinism being injected into the author's argument when it comes to information and technology—as if any society embracing them would be inevitably locked into a destiny of control and manipulation. This sort of glosses over the variables in human agency and the various moral complexities that mark societal development.
- The author constantly frames the scientific and technological advancement as inevitable tools of oppression and control. This is a deeply cynical take and completely glosses over the role that these tools play in liberating people from oppressive control.

Chapter 2:
- The long backgrounds and history lessons are tedious and do very little to drive home the author's point. We do not need such a long winded biography of mathematicians and computer scientists in order to be presented with the changing definitions of the concept of "information." It all feels like heavy padding which adds very little substance.

[Gail Lørdi · Rating 2 out of 5]

Jacob Siegel’s The Information State arrives at a genuinely important moment, and at its best, it raises urgent and necessary questions. His examination of how government-tech partnerships born out of the post-9/11 national security apparatus have metastasized into tools of domestic surveillance, censorship, and algorithmic manipulation is timely and, in places, genuinely illuminating. Readers interested in media literacy, the erosion of civil liberties, or the mechanics of the modern information ecosystem will find value here. But the questions Siegel raises deserve more rigorous answers than he’s ultimately willing to provide.

The book’s central blind spot is its inability to think in systems.

He does engage with the economic and political conditions that gave rise to the information state and candidly so. But that engagement stops short of the harder question: if these are the roots, how do we uproot them? The information state Siegel describes is inseparable from the logic of late stage capitalism; the same machinery of privatization, corporate consolidation, and profit-driven political capture that underlies so many of the crises of our moment. Naming that machinery without reckoning with it leaves the reader in the lurch.

More frustrating is Siegel’s treatment of allied movements. He’s skeptical of those who connect the fight for information freedom to environmentalism, racial justice, or other social causes, dismissing what he seems to view as mission creep. But this reflects a fundamental failure of imagination. These are not distractions from the central argument; they are expressions of the same struggle against the same interconnected systems of power. Imperfect allies, fighting on adjacent fronts, are still allies and the refusal to embrace them in the interest of ideological purity is not strategic clarity, it’s isolation. Interconnected systems of power require interconnected resistance, and a movement that refuses to see those connections will struggle to build anything lasting.

The book’s overall affect defeatist and isolationist in a way that ultimately undercuts its own urgency. Siegel catalogs recent populist movements largely as cautionary tales, and the cumulative effect is deeply defeatist. By the end, the reader is left wondering: so what do we do? The alarm is sounded but there is no morning after.

If you read this and it is worth reading (critically) I’d strongly recommend pairing it with Rebecca Solnit’s forthcoming The Beginning Comes After the End: Notes on a World of Change . Where Siegel sounds the alarm and stops, Solnit reframes the moment entirely. Drawing on the natural phenomenon of a dying star burning brightest just before it implodes, she applies that lens to our current cultural and political climate, arguing that what looks like collapse may actually signal transformation. Her work is intersectional, systems-aware, and grounded in the understanding that social, environmental, and political struggles are not competing priorities they are the same struggle, seen from different angles. Together, these two books make for a far more complete and ultimately more actionable picture of where we are, and where we might still go.

Thanks to Libro.fm for the Librarians ALC copies of these books.

[Bejinha · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mostly history. I was hoping for something new.

[Dan · Rating 3 out of 5]

My thanks to NetGalley and Henry Holt & Company for an advance copy of this new book that looks at disinformation and how efforts to stifle it could lead to more problems, and increased political division.

We live in a time where people have access to the world's libraries, and yet most of us surf the web watching influencers tell us what to buy, what to eat, and in many places what to think. Cat videos and AI slop have replaced most forms of entertainment. Though many make entertainment on producing disinformation, for a variety of reasons. Some just to goof, some just to troll, some to change elections, and some just to watch things burn. As our phones have become both mother and lover to many of us, we tend to believe what we want to believe, and that belief is what we follow on the Internet. Efforts to control information run into those who make money, and those that want to have control. So the gatekeepers are also opening the gate to make a perfect circle of control. This is the central issue of this book The Information State: Politics in the Age of Total Control by Jacob Siegel which talks about what is disinformation, how it is used, and how efforts to stymie it might not be the best idea.

This is an important issue something that should be of importance to people. However the book is set up in a strange way. The opening is a little wonky with lots of, well information, but all in search of a central idea. There is a lot of blaming usually Democrats, Republicans seem to be the silent majority in this book. This is odd as the book discusses being in echo chambers bening a bad thing and a problem. For every good argument there is something that seems to be there just to prove a point, a point that is only semi-explained. The slant does get in the way of the message. Again the author raises good points, but doesn't follow up on things. Also any mention of the Twitter Files as anything other than a joke disowned by even its creator shows the book's age, or a lack of understanding of the central point.

There are good arguments, but I didn't see where the author was going in many places. A issue that needs more discussion, for disinformation is something that is really making life difficult in many ways.

[Jerry Edward Stephens · Rating 5 out of 5]

We live in the information age. Most people do at least some of their banking, general retail shopping, news gathering, and general gossip with forms of computer or other electronic connection. And we generally appreciate all the advantages brought by such ease and convenience. There is, however, a distinct downside to our connectivity. We are awash in what can best be described as “disinformation.” Some simply call it “bad information.” The author of this new and compelling book sees that it is much more than that. The result he sees is the rise of the “information state” which is a distinct form of government substituting societal control for the democratic principle of consent. The author is an editor with Tablet Magazine who specializes in American politics. He has previously published books on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. In this book, Siegel explores the controls and intrusions on our lives through this ever-expanding information regulation and control system. The system develops along governmental and private sector lines so as to seem to be a natural creation. These public and private partnerships then work to hamper those rights we have otherwise believe to have been constitutionally protected. The author examines the origins of this information state; the methods adopted to control and regulate our lives; and methods undertaken by many to resist further encroachment. One chapter examines an over-arching idea of “whole-of-society” which is the recognition by people of what it means to live in this new world of digital dominance and control. A whole-of-society approach asserts that as these actors interact with public officials and play a critical role in setting the public agenda and influencing public decisions, they also have a responsibility to promote public integrity.” Highly recommended for readers concerned about current affairs and public policy issues.

[Gabriela · Rating 2 out of 5]

A narrative can say as much with what's included as with what's omitted.

I had high hopes for this book, but the author's own biases limited his ability to present this important topic in a fair and balanced way. I found the beginning to be interesting, as it explored the concept, theory, and practice of information throughout history. It perhaps spent too much time on certain topics or people that ultimately didn't contribute much to the book (some more editing could've helped).

I was ready for a full exposition and assessment on how both parties have used media and technology for propaganda and controlling public opinion. However, releasing a book in 2026 about this topic and your argument basically being that Obama created a monstrous machine with the government's alignment with Silicon Valley, Russiagate was fake, COVID vaccines don't work, equating January 6th with BLM protests, that people shouldn't care about global issues because they haven't experienced them and are just going with "the masses" and essentially leaving out any criticism towards the way the current administration has engaged in a multitude of practices to leverage media and technology for their own agenda? I can't trust someone whose bias is so strong they can't even be thorough in exploring this topic from all angles. There is so much material to drag people from both parties, but hey if you want to push your agenda I guess that's your right to spread whatever ideas you believe in.

As they say where I'm from, "se le vio la costura." I'm deeply disappointed by this book's execution, but the narration and writing style are both good. Just don't go into this expecting a thorough/balanced/unbiased examination of the current political state and use of technology. It's not.

[Tawney · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book begins as a seemingly straightforward and factual narrative of the rise of collection of information and how governments centralize every bit they can. While that's hardly news, the history is interesting. As the book progresses I began to question the validity of various statements. One that especially struck me regarding the past was about "people's free and spontaneous choices about how to organize their lives". People working twelve hours a day six days a week or having to buy from the company store would roll their eyes at that. Then he increasingly combines information centralization with propaganda, censorship and surveillance through the power of 'elites' as a planned program and the individual becomes bot-like. There are valid points along the way but they are practically buried in the rant which goes far afield. I read a digital advanced copy and there are no page numbers assigned to the notes, no indication in the text that a citation exists and there is no bibliography.

I received a digital advanced copy of this book complimentd of Holt and NetGalley.

[Rae Bradshaw · Rating 5 out of 5]

A sharp, unsettling critique of modern power, The Information State: Politics in the Age of Total Control argues that the real threat to democracy isn’t disinformation itself, but the expanding technocratic systems built to police it. Jacob Siegel traces how tools originally designed to make society more rational—surveillance networks, algorithmic filtering, and censorship regimes—have evolved into mechanisms that shape public perception and suppress dissent, replacing open political competition with engineered consensus. The book’s strength lies in its clear, forceful narrative: it shows how a culture obsessed with controlling “dangerous” narratives can drift into soft authoritarianism without ever declaring it. Siegel’s analysis is timely, provocative, and deeply relevant for anyone concerned about the future of democratic freedom in a world where information is both weapon and battlefield.

[Taylor J · Rating 5 out of 5]

March 27, 2026 the left is melting. They’ve given 25 one star reviews on a book that came out 2 days ago. They’re mad that the Biden Regime got caught censoring the internet. They are crying because the author called out Obama for being a clown. They’re screaming because the Twitter Files are real. They’re crying because Russia Collusion doesn’t exist. They’re crying because they now know the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. Orange man is bad! They love Somalia Fraud. Since 2012 America has fallen into chaos caused by Democrats. The curtain has been pulled back and the left is in shambles. Long Live King Trump.

Sorry lefties nobody will even believe your lies again. At least you’ve got Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow to carry you until the end.

[Catherine · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting read that covers a lot of ground in ~250 pages! The author pokes at various aspects of politics and society in this book, circling around definitions and ideas and forms of information without ever confining it to a limited scope—which feels accurate in today’s day and age. To put it simply: this book is dense. I imagine I’ll still be digesting for a good while yet, but was glad for a deep dive into how information (or lack thereof) influences power and control, and is influenced in turn.

*Won a paperback ARC of this book in a Goodreads giveaway.*

[Madison ✨ (mad.lyreading) · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book's blurb and cover hide the fact that this author is extremely politically biased. While I initially enjoyed his critique of popular democrats, he seemed to continue to point out the speck of dust in his neighbor's eye before taking out the stick in his. I was reading this book skeptically until it cited the Twitter files as a legitimate news source, and I just couldn't do it anymore. Unless you're here to read this book critically, stay away from this book.

Thank you to Macmillan Audio and NetGalley for an audio ARC in exchange for an honest review.

[B · Rating 4 out of 5]

Personally, I am heartbroken that we have let America become a laughing stock. How did we become a nation so self-centered, so hateful, and so ignorant? Our leaders dare to think that we citizens are not up to their standards, not able to think for ourselves, not responsible enough, not educated enough. My grandma used to say, “If you think it’s everyone else, it’s not.” Wake up all you politicians and technocrats - the problem is you. Find your heart and your balls and do the right thing! Wake up America!

[Morgan · Rating 2 out of 5]

I completely missed the conservative leaning dog whistles in the synopsis. Siegel becomes more clear with what he believes in the present day sections. Apparently “both sides” are cults (specifically comparing QAnon and resistance groups) and the twitter files are legitimate journalism.

[C.M. Stenquist · Rating 3 out of 5]

Trusted conventional sources vs internet disinformation. Depends on your mindset and belief system. Interesting reading anyway.

[Brie · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book in a nutshell: Everything is Obama’s fault.

[James Varney · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding. Takes the reader from the philosophic ideas about man contending with or seeking control of nature, to computer/internet breakthroughs (largely financed by the Pentagon and CIA, and dramatically altering national defense thinking), to the alliance of Big Tech and the arrogant, managerial class. The book is at once fascinating and frightening.

Should be required reading for everyone interested in politics, technology and current affairs.