Paul.Treanor on Mon, 17 Feb 97 18:27 MET

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

nettime: Re: Taxonomy of EFF (and similar) as neo-liberal (fwd)

Hier is the tekst voor nettime, iets aangevuld...

This is intended as a summary in list form of the cyberspace ideology, 
best known in the form promoted by the EFF and similar organisations. It 
is not implied that everyone at the EFF holds all of these views 
absolutely. The summary, especially in the more abstract categories, 
indicates the equivalence of the "cyberspace" world view with liberal 
political philosophy.



Process legitimises outcome.


Access to harm legitimises harm.

Equality of access legitimises harm.

Equality of access legitimises inequality of outcome.

Equality of access legitimises other inequalities.

A decision to grant access is a gift, and therefore inherently good.

An elite which grants access, is better than equality without access.


Communication legitimises harm.

Communication legitimises injustice.

Communication legitimises inequality.

Communication has priority over justice.

Communication has priority over innovation.

Dialogue is preferable to justice.


Interaction legitimises harm.

Interaction legitimises injustice.

Interaction legitimises inequality

Interaction has priority over justice.

Interaction has priority over innovation.

Interaction overrides individual autonomy.


Democracy legitimises injustice.

Democracy legitimises inequality

Democracy has priority over justice.

Democracy has priority over innovation.

Individuals must accept collective democratic decision.


All information can flow.

All information must flow.

There are no negative consequences of information flow.

No flowing information conflicts with other flowing information.


Knowledge is good.

All knowledge is equally good.

No knowledge should be destroyed.

Knowledge is cumulative.

Flow of information cumulates knowledge.

Knowledge is singular: there is no alternative or dissident knowledge.

Knowledge has priority over innovation.


Global history progresses as a global unit.

Global unity intensifies.

Global history is singular: there is no other separate history.

History is linear.

The world undergoes a series of transitions, forming a linear sequence.

The most accurate number, to describe historical stages or transitions, 
is the number three.

History is a path, with only three possibilities: standing still, going 
forward or turning back.

The emergent is good.

The emergent is better than the possible.

Emergent stability has priority over possible innovation.


Technology is a unit: there are no separate technologies.

Technology progresses as a unit through time.

Technology is transformed as a unit.

The transformation of technology is equivalent to historical process.

A single technology, in a single linear historical process, undergoes 
singular unitary transition from one phase or stage, to the next phase or 

The transition to an information society / information age, is such a 
singular unitary transition.

A sequence of single unitary linear transitions is progress or development.

There is only one possible sequence which can be described as progress or 

Global technological transitions are not subject to rejection on moral 

Global technological transitions are either good, or inevitable and 
beyond moral judgement.

Global technological transitions legitimise their own existence, against 
alternative possibilities.

Technology as a unit progresses from few links to many links.

Technology becomes more unitary.

Technology tends towards global perfection of communication and interaction.

Technology of communication and interaction, is better than technology of 
separation or autonomy.

Advances, in technology of separation or autonomy, are not technical 


Society is a unit.

A global society is preferable.

Autonomy from global society is undesirable.

Society overrides individual autonomy.

Individual freedom consists only in the freedom to interact or communicate.

People who support the information society are more in touch with history 
than those who oppose it.

People who build an information society or cyberspace are talented: those 
who oppose it have personally failed.

Opponents of an information society have less value as persons, than 
those who build it.


No link between the US and Europe should be cut.

Protection of links from the US to Europe, is protection of freedom.

If no other means are effective, then military intervention, to protect 
the freedom to link to the US, is legitimate.

Political claims in favour the information society or cyberspace, made in 
English only, can be applied to people who do not read or speak English.

For clarity: these are not my views! Paul Treanor

*  distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission
*  <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,
*  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
*  more info: and "info nettime" in the msg body
*  URL:  contact: