I assume you're talking about phenomena such as "fake news", and suggesting that the inability to access social media will limit exposure to it. But wouldn't it

I assume you're talking about phenomena such as "fake news", and suggesting that the inability to access social media will limit exposure to it. But wouldn't it also limit exposure to a plethora of good things, too? Talking with your friends and family (which is often cheaper than texting), knowing about events and happenings (not necessarily news) and of course learning about and talking about "real" news. It's hard for me to see the benefit or how it would be justified, and for some reason using taxes to target the poor, no matter what it's being done for, seems horrible to me. The tax doesn't seem to be for the benefit of raising funds for society, it actually seems to be just there to keep people out of engaging in whatever online social processes there are. I'm a member of several Facebook groups (and formerly Twitter circles) discussing political philosophy and radical action. While access to these may be at the advantage of the government (or capital), perhaps they might be of "disproportionate benefit" to the poor. Of course, I can say the same thing about car repair groups, technical groups, etc. Would you be saying the same thing if Hacker News, for instance, was included as part of the tax? Blocking access to mass media actually seems to have the same effect as mass media itself in twisting the democratic process in favour of certain powers. Perhaps a quote from my favourite social critic Herbert Marcuse would be relevant to your sentiment: >Under the rule of monopolistic media--themselves the mere instruments of economic and political power--a mentality is created for which right and wrong, true and false are predefined wherever they affect the vital interests of the society. This is, prior to all expression and communication, a matter of semantics: the blocking of effective dissent, of the recognition of that which is not of the Establishment which begins in the language that is publicized and administered. The meaning of words is rigidly stabilized. Rational persuasion, persuasion to the opposite is all but precluded. The avenues of entrance are closed to the meaning of words and ideas other than the established one--established by the publicity of the powers that be, and verified in their practices. Other words can be spoken and heard, other ideas can be expressed, but, at the massive scale of the conservative majority (outside such enclaves as the intelligentsia), they are immediately 'evaluated' (i.e. automatically understood) in terms of the public language -- a language which determines 'a priori' the direction in which the thought process moves.