Philosophy/Manifestos-for-the-Internet-Age
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/greyscalepress/manifestos.git synced 2024-10-01 05:25:35 -04:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

adding some more manifestos

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Manuel Schmalstieg 2015-03-27 23:47:32 +01:00
parent 0df0ed2d79
commit 2a99d72c6d
12 changed files with 581 additions and 51 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

208
content/manifestos/1985-GNU-manifesto.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,208 @@
# The GNU Manifesto
> The GNU Manifesto (which appears below) was written by Richard Stallman at the beginning of the GNU Project, to ask for participation and support. For the first few years, it was updated in minor ways to account for developments, but now it seems best to leave it unchanged as most people have seen it.
> Since that time, we have learned about certain common misunderstandings that different wording could help avoid. Footnotes added since 1993 help clarify these points.
> For up-to-date information about the available GNU software, please see the information available on our web server, in particular our list of software. For how to contribute, see http://www.gnu.org/help/help.html.
## What's GNU? Gnu's Not Unix!
GNU, which stands for Gnu's Not Unix, is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free to everyone who can use it.(1) Several other volunteers are helping me. Contributions of time, money, programs and equipment are greatly needed.
So far we have an Emacs text editor with Lisp for writing editor commands, a source level debugger, a yacc-compatible parser generator, a linker, and around 35 utilities. A shell (command interpreter) is nearly completed. A new portable optimizing C compiler has compiled itself and may be released this year. An initial kernel exists but many more features are needed to emulate Unix. When the kernel and compiler are finished, it will be possible to distribute a GNU system suitable for program development. We will use TeX as our text formatter, but an nroff is being worked on. We will use the free, portable X Window System as well. After this we will add a portable Common Lisp, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of other things, plus online documentation. We hope to supply, eventually, everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system, and more.
GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to Unix. We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our experience with other operating systems. In particular, we plan to have longer file names, file version numbers, a crashproof file system, file name completion perhaps, terminal-independent display support, and perhaps eventually a Lisp-based window system through which several Lisp programs and ordinary Unix programs can share a screen. Both C and Lisp will be available as system programming languages. We will try to support UUCP, MIT Chaosnet, and Internet protocols for communication.
GNU is aimed initially at machines in the 68000/16000 class with virtual memory, because they are the easiest machines to make it run on. The extra effort to make it run on smaller machines will be left to someone who wants to use it on them.
To avoid horrible confusion, please pronounce the g in the word “GNU” when it is the name of this project.
## Why I Must Write GNU
I consider that the Golden Rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share with others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way. I cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software license agreement. For years I worked within the Artificial Intelligence Lab to resist such tendencies and other inhospitalities, but eventually they had gone too far: I could not remain in an institution where such things are done for me against my will.
So that I can continue to use computers without dishonor, I have decided to put together a sufficient body of free software so that I will be able to get along without any software that is not free. I have resigned from the AI Lab to deny MIT any legal excuse to prevent me from giving GNU away.(2)
## Why GNU Will Be Compatible with Unix
Unix is not my ideal system, but it is not too bad. The essential features of Unix seem to be good ones, and I think I can fill in what Unix lacks without spoiling them. And a system compatible with Unix would be convenient for many other people to adopt.
## How GNU Will Be Available
GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict its further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that all versions of GNU remain free.
## Why Many Other Programmers Want to Help
I have found many other programmers who are excited about GNU and want to help.
Many programmers are unhappy about the commercialization of system software. It may enable them to make more money, but it requires them to feel in conflict with other programmers in general rather than feel as comrades. The fundamental act of friendship among programmers is the sharing of programs; marketing arrangements now typically used essentially forbid programmers to treat others as friends. The purchaser of software must choose between friendship and obeying the law. Naturally, many decide that friendship is more important. But those who believe in law often do not feel at ease with either choice. They become cynical and think that programming is just a way of making money.
By working on and using GNU rather than proprietary programs, we can be hospitable to everyone and obey the law. In addition, GNU serves as an example to inspire and a banner to rally others to join us in sharing. This can give us a feeling of harmony which is impossible if we use software that is not free. For about half the programmers I talk to, this is an important happiness that money cannot replace.
## How You Can Contribute
> (Nowadays, for software tasks to work on, see the High Priority Projects list and the GNU Help Wanted list, the general task list for GNU software packages. For other ways to help, see the guide to helping the GNU operating system.)
I am asking computer manufacturers for donations of machines and money. I'm asking individuals for donations of programs and work.
One consequence you can expect if you donate machines is that GNU will run on them at an early date. The machines should be complete, ready to use systems, approved for use in a residential area, and not in need of sophisticated cooling or power.
I have found very many programmers eager to contribute part-time work for GNU. For most projects, such part-time distributed work would be very hard to coordinate; the independently written parts would not work together. But for the particular task of replacing Unix, this problem is absent. A complete Unix system contains hundreds of utility programs, each of which is documented separately. Most interface specifications are fixed by Unix compatibility. If each contributor can write a compatible replacement for a single Unix utility, and make it work properly in place of the original on a Unix system, then these utilities will work right when put together. Even allowing for Murphy to create a few unexpected problems, assembling these components will be a feasible task. (The kernel will require closer communication and will be worked on by a small, tight group.)
If I get donations of money, I may be able to hire a few people full or part time. The salary won't be high by programmers' standards, but I'm looking for people for whom building community spirit is as important as making money. I view this as a way of enabling dedicated people to devote their full energies to working on GNU by sparing them the need to make a living in another way.
## Why All Computer Users Will Benefit
Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like air.(3)
This means much more than just saving everyone the price of a Unix license. It means that much wasteful duplication of system programming effort will be avoided. This effort can go instead into advancing the state of the art.
Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result, a user who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them himself, or hire any available programmer or company to make them for him. Users will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company which owns the sources and is in sole position to make changes.
Schools will be able to provide a much more educational environment by encouraging all students to study and improve the system code. Harvard's computer lab used to have the policy that no program could be installed on the system if its sources were not on public display, and upheld it by actually refusing to install certain programs. I was very much inspired by this.
Finally, the overhead of considering who owns the system software and what one is or is not entitled to do with it will be lifted.
Arrangements to make people pay for using a program, including licensing of copies, always incur a tremendous cost to society through the cumbersome mechanisms necessary to figure out how much (that is, which programs) a person must pay for. And only a police state can force everyone to obey them. Consider a space station where air must be manufactured at great cost: charging each breather per liter of air may be fair, but wearing the metered gas mask all day and all night is intolerable even if everyone can afford to pay the air bill. And the TV cameras everywhere to see if you ever take the mask off are outrageous. It's better to support the air plant with a head tax and chuck the masks.
Copying all or parts of a program is as natural to a programmer as breathing, and as productive. It ought to be as free.
## Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU's Goals
**“Nobody will use it if it is free, because that means they can't rely on any support.”**
**“You have to charge for the program to pay for providing the support.”**
If people would rather pay for GNU plus service than get GNU free without service, a company to provide just service to people who have obtained GNU free ought to be profitable.(4)
We must distinguish between support in the form of real programming work and mere handholding. The former is something one cannot rely on from a software vendor. If your problem is not shared by enough people, the vendor will tell you to get lost.
If your business needs to be able to rely on support, the only way is to have all the necessary sources and tools. Then you can hire any available person to fix your problem; you are not at the mercy of any individual. With Unix, the price of sources puts this out of consideration for most businesses. With GNU this will be easy. It is still possible for there to be no available competent person, but this problem cannot be blamed on distribution arrangements. GNU does not eliminate all the world's problems, only some of them.
Meanwhile, the users who know nothing about computers need handholding: doing things for them which they could easily do themselves but don't know how.
Such services could be provided by companies that sell just handholding and repair service. If it is true that users would rather spend money and get a product with service, they will also be willing to buy the service having got the product free. The service companies will compete in quality and price; users will not be tied to any particular one. Meanwhile, those of us who don't need the service should be able to use the program without paying for the service.
**“You cannot reach many people without advertising, and you must charge for the program to support that.”**
**“It's no use advertising a program people can get free.”**
There are various forms of free or very cheap publicity that can be used to inform numbers of computer users about something like GNU. But it may be true that one can reach more microcomputer users with advertising. If this is really so, a business which advertises the service of copying and mailing GNU for a fee ought to be successful enough to pay for its advertising and more. This way, only the users who benefit from the advertising pay for it.
On the other hand, if many people get GNU from their friends, and such companies don't succeed, this will show that advertising was not really necessary to spread GNU. Why is it that free market advocates don't want to let the free market decide this?(5)
**“My company needs a proprietary operating system to get a competitive edge.”**
GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of competition. You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but neither will your competitors be able to get an edge over you. You and they will compete in other areas, while benefiting mutually in this one. If your business is selling an operating system, you will not like GNU, but that's tough on you. If your business is something else, GNU can save you from being pushed into the expensive business of selling operating systems.
I would like to see GNU development supported by gifts from many manufacturers and users, reducing the cost to each.(6)
**“Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?”**
If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution. Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs.
**“Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his creativity?”**
There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to maximize one's income, as long as one does not use means that are destructive. But the means customary in the field of software today are based on destruction.
Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it is destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the ways that the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth that humanity derives from the program. When there is a deliberate choice to restrict, the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction.
The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to become wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become poorer from the mutual destructiveness. This is Kantian ethics; or, the Golden Rule. Since I do not like the consequences that result if everyone hoards information, I am required to consider it wrong for one to do so. Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for one's creativity does not justify depriving the world in general of all or part of that creativity.
**“Won't programmers starve?”**
I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something else.
But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner's implicit assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers cannot possibly be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or nothing.
The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as now.
Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software. It is the most common basis(7) because it brings in the most money. If it were prohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business would move to other bases of organization which are now used less often. There are always numerous ways to organize any kind of business.
Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it is now. But that is not an argument against the change. It is not considered an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they now do. If programmers made the same, that would not be an injustice either. (In practice they would still make considerably more than that.)
**“Don't people have a right to control how their creativity is used?”**
“Control over the use of one's ideas” really constitutes control over other people's lives; and it is usually used to make their lives more difficult.
People who have studied the issue of intellectual property rights(8) carefully (such as lawyers) say that there is no intrinsic right to intellectual property. The kinds of supposed intellectual property rights that the government recognizes were created by specific acts of legislation for specific purposes.
For example, the patent system was established to encourage inventors to disclose the details of their inventions. Its purpose was to help society rather than to help inventors. At the time, the life span of 17 years for a patent was short compared with the rate of advance of the state of the art. Since patents are an issue only among manufacturers, for whom the cost and effort of a license agreement are small compared with setting up production, the patents often do not do much harm. They do not obstruct most individuals who use patented products.
The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, when authors frequently copied other authors at length in works of nonfiction. This practice was useful, and is the only way many authors' works have survived even in part. The copyright system was created expressly for the purpose of encouraging authorship. In the domain for which it was invented—books, which could be copied economically only on a printing press—it did little harm, and did not obstruct most of the individuals who read the books.
All intellectual property rights are just licenses granted by society because it was thought, rightly or wrongly, that society as a whole would benefit by granting them. But in any particular situation, we have to ask: are we really better off granting such license? What kind of act are we licensing a person to do?
The case of programs today is very different from that of books a hundred years ago. The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is from one neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source code and object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is used rather than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in which a person who enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole both materially and spiritually; in which a person should not do so regardless of whether the law enables him to.
**“Competition makes things get done better.”**
The paradigm of competition is a race: by rewarding the winner, we encourage everyone to run faster. When capitalism really works this way, it does a good job; but its defenders are wrong in assuming it always works this way. If the runners forget why the reward is offered and become intent on winning, no matter how, they may find other strategies—such as, attacking other runners. If the runners get into a fist fight, they will all finish late.
Proprietary and secret software is the moral equivalent of runners in a fist fight. Sad to say, the only referee we've got does not seem to object to fights; he just regulates them (“For every ten yards you run, you can fire one shot”). He really ought to break them up, and penalize runners for even trying to fight.
**“Won't everyone stop programming without a monetary incentive?”**
Actually, many people will program with absolutely no monetary incentive. Programming has an irresistible fascination for some people, usually the people who are best at it. There is no shortage of professional musicians who keep at it even though they have no hope of making a living that way.
But really this question, though commonly asked, is not appropriate to the situation. Pay for programmers will not disappear, only become less. So the right question is, will anyone program with a reduced monetary incentive? My experience shows that they will.
For more than ten years, many of the world's best programmers worked at the Artificial Intelligence Lab for far less money than they could have had anywhere else. They got many kinds of nonmonetary rewards: fame and appreciation, for example. And creativity is also fun, a reward in itself.
Then most of them left when offered a chance to do the same interesting work for a lot of money.
What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned.
**“We need the programmers desperately. If they demand that we stop helping our neighbors, we have to obey.”**
You're never so desperate that you have to obey this sort of demand. Remember: millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute!
**“Programmers need to make a living somehow.”**
In the short run, this is true. However, there are plenty of ways that programmers could make a living without selling the right to use a program. This way is customary now because it brings programmers and businessmen the most money, not because it is the only way to make a living. It is easy to find other ways if you want to find them. Here are a number of examples.
A manufacturer introducing a new computer will pay for the porting of operating systems onto the new hardware.
The sale of teaching, handholding and maintenance services could also employ programmers.
People with new ideas could distribute programs as freeware(9), asking for donations from satisfied users, or selling handholding services. I have met people who are already working this way successfully.
Users with related needs can form users' groups, and pay dues. A group would contract with programming companies to write programs that the group's members would like to use.
All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax:
Suppose everyone who buys a computer has to pay x percent of the price as a software tax. The government gives this to an agency like the NSF to spend on software development.
But if the computer buyer makes a donation to software development himself, he can take a credit against the tax. He can donate to the project of his own choosing—often, chosen because he hopes to use the results when it is done. He can take a credit for any amount of donation up to the total tax he had to pay.
The total tax rate could be decided by a vote of the payers of the tax, weighted according to the amount they will be taxed on.
The consequences:
- The computer-using community supports software development.
- This community decides what level of support is needed.
- Users who care which projects their share is spent on can choose this for themselves.
In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the postscarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to make a living. People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary ten hours a week on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to be able to make a living from programming.
We have already greatly reduced the amount of work that the whole society must do for its actual productivity, but only a little of this has translated itself into leisure for workers because much nonproductive activity is required to accompany productive activity. The main causes of this are bureaucracy and isometric struggles against competition. Free software will greatly reduce these drains in the area of software production. We must do this, in order for technical gains in productivity to translate into less work for us.
## Footnotes
1. The wording here was careless. The intention was that nobody would have to pay for permission to use the GNU system. But the words don't make this clear, and people often interpret them as saying that copies of GNU should always be distributed at little or no charge. That was never the intent; later on, the manifesto mentions the possibility of companies providing the service of distribution for a profit. Subsequently I have learned to distinguish carefully between “free” in the sense of freedom and “free” in the sense of price. Free software is software that users have the freedom to distribute and change. Some users may obtain copies at no charge, while others pay to obtain copies—and if the funds help support improving the software, so much the better. The important thing is that everyone who has a copy has the freedom to cooperate with others in using it.
2. The expression “give away” is another indication that I had not yet clearly separated the issue of price from that of freedom. We now recommend avoiding this expression when talking about free software. See “Confusing Words and Phrases” for more explanation.
3. This is another place I failed to distinguish carefully between the two different meanings of “free”. The statement as it stands is not false—you can get copies of GNU software at no charge, from your friends or over the net. But it does suggest the wrong idea.
4. Several such companies now exist.
5. Although it is a charity rather than a company, the Free Software Foundation for 10 years raised most of its funds from its distribution service. You can order things from the FSF to support its work.
6. A group of computer companies pooled funds around 1991 to support maintenance of the GNU C Compiler.
7. I think I was mistaken in saying that proprietary software was the most common basis for making money in software. It seems that actually the most common business model was and is development of custom software. That does not offer the possibility of collecting rents, so the business has to keep doing real work in order to keep getting income. The custom software business would continue to exist, more or less unchanged, in a free software world. Therefore, I no longer expect that most paid programmers would earn less in a free software world.
8. In the 1980s I had not yet realized how confusing it was to speak of “the issue” of “intellectual property”. That term is obviously biased; more subtle is the fact that it lumps together various disparate laws which raise very different issues. Nowadays I urge people to reject the term “intellectual property” entirely, lest it lead others to suppose that those laws form one coherent issue. The way to be clear is to discuss patents, copyrights, and trademarks separately. See further explanation of how this term spreads confusion and bias.
9. Subsequently we learned to distinguish between “free software” and “freeware”. The term “freeware” means software you are free to redistribute, but usually you are not free to study and change the source code, so most of it is not free software. See “Confusing Words and Phrases” for more explanation.
Copyright © 1985, 1993, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim copies of this document, in any medium, provided that the copyright notice and permission notice are preserved, and that the distributor grants the recipient permission for further redistribution as permitted by this notice.
Modified versions may not be made.
Source: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html

26
content/manifestos/1987-unstable-media.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
# Manifesto for the Unstable Media
We strive for constant change; for mobility.
We make use of the unstable media, that is, all media which make use of electronic waves and frequencies, such as engines, sound, light, video, computers, and so on. Instability is inherent to these media.
Quantum mechanics has proved, among other things, that the smallest elementary particles, such as electrons, exist in ever-changing forms. They have no stable form, but are characterized by dynamic mobility. This unstable, mobile form of the electron is the basis of the unstable media.
The unstable media are the media of our time. They are the showpieces in our modern homes. We promote their comprehensive use, instead of the often practiced misuse of these media.
We love instability and chaos, because they stand for progress. We do not see chaos as survival of the fittest, but as an order which is composed of countless fragmentary orders, which differ among themselves and within which the prevailing status quo is only a short orientation point.
The unstable media move within the concepts of 'movement-time-space', which implies the possibility of combining more forms and contents within one piece of work. The unstable media reflect our pluriform world.
Unstable media are characterized by dynamic motion and changeability, this in contrast with the world of art which reaches us through the publicity media. This has come to a standstill and has become a budget for collectors, officials, historians and critics.
ART MUST BE DESTRUCTIVE
AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
----
The Manifesto for the Unstable Media was issued by V2_Organisation in 's-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) in 1987. At the time, V2_ began transforming itself from an multi-media organisation into a centre for media technology. The Manifesto laid down the theoretical principles of V2_, also known since that time, as the Institute for the Unstable Media. Though an historical document, most of what is in the Manifesto is still crucial for the work of the organisation. One way or the other, it would need continuous updating, being, as it should be, unstable.
Source:
\url{https://web.archive.org/web/20000619222100/http://www.v2.nl/browse/v2/manifesto.html}

28
content/manifestos/1999-Hackerethik.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
# Hackerethik
Chaos Computer Club e.V.
- Der Zugang zu Computern und allem, was einem zeigen kann, wie diese Welt funktioniert, sollte unbegrenzt und vollständig sein.
- Alle Informationen müssen frei sein.
- Mißtraue Autoritäten - fördere Dezentralisierung
- Beurteile einen Hacker nach dem, was er tut und nicht nach üblichen Kriterien wie Aussehen, Alter, Rasse, Geschlecht oder gesellschaftlicher Stellung.
- Man kann mit einem Computer Kunst und Schönheit schaffen.
- Computer können dein Leben zum Besseren verändern
- Mülle nicht in den Daten anderer Leute
- Öffentliche Daten nützen, private Daten schützen
Die Hackerethik ist nur bedingt einheitlich definiert. Es gibt eine ursprüngliche Version aus dem Buch "Hackers" von Steven Levy (ISBN 0-440-13405-6). Unstrittig ist insofern, daß die ursprüngliche Version aus dem MIT-Eisenbahnerclub (Tech Model Railroad Club) kommt und insofern aus einer Zeit stammt, in der sich verhältnissmäßig viele Leute wenige Computer teilen mußten und entsprechende Überlegungen zum Umgang miteinander und der Materie sinnvoll waren.
Die letzten beiden Punkte sind Ergänzungen des CCC aus den 80er Jahren. Nachdem einige mehr oder weniger durchgeknallte aus der Hackerszene bzw. aus dem Umfeld auf die Idee kamen, ihr "Hack-Knowhow" dem KGB anzubieten, gab es heftige Diskussionen, weil Geheimdienste eher konträr zur Förderung freier Information stehen. Aber auch Eingriffe in die Systeme fremder Betreiber wurden zunehmend als kontraproduktiv erkannt.
Um den Schutz der Privatsphäre des einzelnen mit der Förderung von Informationsfreiheit für Informationen, die die Öffentlichkeit betreffen, zu verbinden, wurde schließlich der bislang letzte Punkt angefügt.
Die Hackerethik befindet sich - genauso wie die übrige Welt - insofern in ständiger Weiterentwicklung und Diskussion.
Im Rahmen des 15. Chaos Communication Congress (27.-29.12.1998) fand ein Workshop statt, der noch andere Aspekte hervorgebracht hat, die bisher noch nicht eingearbeitet wurden. Das dort diskutierte Modell teilt sich in die Kategorien "Glaube" und "Moral", das ja bereits in der Kirche einige Jahrhunderte erfolgreich praktiziert wurde. Glaube (z.B. an eine Verbesserung der Lage durch Förderung von Informationsfreiheit und Transparenz) steht - wie auch in der Kirche - vor Moral (z.B. an den Regeln, mit fremden Systemen sorgsam umzugehen). Bevor wir jetzt allerdings anstreben, eine Kirche zu werden und dann auch gleich konsequenter Ablasshandel u.ä. zu betreiben, überlegen wir uns das nochmal gründlich. Dabei dürfen natürlich alle mitdenken.
Bis dahin stehen die o.g. Regeln als Diskussionsgrundlage und Orientierung.
Verbesserungsvorschläge und Eingaben dazu gerne jederzeit an den Chaos Computer Club
Quelle: \url{https://web.archive.org/web/20011227211029/http://www.ccc.de/hackerethics}

2
content/manifestos/2000-0.txt
View File

@ -1 +1 @@
\part{2000 - 2012}
\part{2000 - 2009}

17
content/manifestos/2001-07-hacktivismo-declaration.txt
View File

@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
# THE HACKTIVISMO DECLARATION
# The Hacktivismo Declaration
assertions of liberty
in support of an uncensored internet
assertions of liberty
in support of an uncensored internet
DEEPLY ALARMED that state-sponsored censorship of the Internet is rapidly spreading with the assistance of transnational corporations,
TAKING AS A BASIS the principles and purposes enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) that states, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers", and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that says,
@ -36,14 +37,14 @@ THEREFORE WE ARE CONVINCED that the international hacking community has a moral
DECLARE:
THAT FULL RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS INCLUDES THE LIBERTY OF FAIR AND REASONABLE ACCESS TO INFORMATION, WHETHER BY SHORTWAVE RADIO, AIR MAIL, SIMPLE TELEPHONY, THE GLOBAL INTERNET, OR OTHER MEDIA.
That full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms includes the liberty of fair and reasonable access to information, whether by shortwave radio, air mail, simple telephony, the global internet, or other media.
THAT WE RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT OF GOVERNMENTS TO FORBID THE PUBLICATION OF PROPERLY CATEGORIZED STATE SECRETS, CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, AND MATTERS RELATED TO PERSONAL PRIVACY AND PRIVILEGE, AMONG OTHER ACCEPTED RESTRICTIONS. BUT WE OPPOSE THE USE OF STATE POWER TO CONTROL ACCESS TO THE WORKS OF CRITICS, INTELLECTUALS, ARTISTS, OR RELIGIOUS FIGURES.
That we recognize the right of governments to forbid the publication of properly categorized state secrets, child pornography, and matters related to personal privacy and privilege, among other accepted restrictions. but we oppose the use of state power to control access to the works of critics, intellectuals, artists, or religious figures.
THAT STATE SPONSORED CENSORSHIP OF THE INTERNET ERODES PEACEFUL AND CIVILIZED COEXISTENCE, AFFECTS THE EXERCISE OF DEMOCRACY, AND ENDANGERS THE SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONS.
That state sponsored censorship of the internet erodes peaceful and civilized coexistence, affects the exercise of democracy, and endangers the socioeconomic development of nations.
THAT STATE-SPONSORED CENSORSHIP OF THE INTERNET IS A SERIOUS FORM OF ORGANIZED AND SYSTEMATIC VIOLENCE AGAINST CITIZENS, IS INTENDED TO GENERATE CONFUSION AND XENOPHOBIA, AND IS A REPREHENSIBLE VIOLATION OF TRUST.
That state-sponsored censorship of the internet is a serious form of organized and systematic violence against citizens, is intended to generate confusion and xenophobia, and is a reprehensible violation of trust.
THAT WE WILL STUDY WAYS AND MEANS OF CIRCUMVENTING STATE SPONSORED CENSORSHIP OF THE INTERNET AND WILL IMPLEMENT TECHNOLOGIES TO CHALLENGE INFORMATION RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.
That we will study ways and means of circumventing state sponsored censorship of the internet and will implement technologies to challenge information rights violations.
Issued July 4, 2001 by Hacktivismo and the CULT OF THE DEAD COW.

49
content/manifestos/2007-ubuntu-manifesto.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
# Mark Shuttleworth's Ubuntu manifesto
Posted by Bill Kerr, June 14 2007
Shuttleworth's Ubuntu philosophy is scattered throughout his blog. I've collected them in one place here.
## Big challenges for the Free Software Community
"The real challenge lies ahead - taking free software to the mass market, to your grandparents, to your nieces and nephews, to your friends. This is the next wave, and if we are to be successful we need to articulate the audacious goals clearly and loudly - because that’s how the community process works best"
## # 13: "Pretty" as a feature
"If we want the world to embrace free software, we have to make it beautiful..."
## #12: Consistent packaging
"... I’d like to see us define distribution-neutral packaging that suits both the source-heads and the distro-heads"
## #11: Simplified, rationalised licensing
"I’m absolutely convinced it is free source, not “open” source, which is at the heart of the innovation that will carry free software to ubiquity ... But my voice is only one of many, and I recognise in this world that there are lots of reasonable, rational positions which are different but still, for some people, appropriate ... So what can be done? Well, I turn for inspiration to the work of the Creative Commons. They’ve seen this problem coming a long way off, and realised that it is better to create a clear “licence space” which covers the various permutations and combinations that will come to exist anyway ..."
## #10: Pervasive presence
"... turning that haphazard process into a systematic framework - making sure that you (well, more accurately your laptop and your cell phone) know how you should reach out and touch the person you want to communicate with. It’s about an integrated addressbook - no more distinctions between IM and email ..."
## #9: Pervasive support
"... why do people say “Linux is not supported”? Because the guy behind the counter at their corner PC-cafe doesn’t support it ... This is why I encourage governments to announce that some portion of their infrastructure will run on Linux - it catalyses the whole ecosystem to make their existing capacity public ..."
## #8: Govoritye po Russki
"There are 347 languages with more than a million speakers. But even Ubuntu, which has amazing infrastructure for translation and a great community that actually does the work, is nowhere close to being fully translated in more than 10 or 15 languages"
## #007: Great gadgets!
"This world is increasingly defined not so much by the PC, as by the things we use when we are nowhere near a PC. The music player. The smart phone. The digital camera. GPS devices. And many, perhaps most, of these new devices can and do run Linux ..."
## #6: Sensory immersion
"What interests me are the ways in which there is cross-over between the virtual world and the real world ... there’s going to be a need for innovation around the ways we blur the lines between real and virtual worlds"
## #5: Real real-time collaboration
"... people who work with word processors and spreadsheets have rights too! And they could benefit dramatically from much better collaboration ..."
## #4: Plan, execute, DELIVER
"Bugs, feature planning, release management, translation, testing and QA… these are all areas where we need to improve the level of collaboration BETWEEN projects. I think Launchpad is a good start but there’s a long way to go before we’re in the same position that the competition is in - seamless conversations between all developers"
## #3: The Extra Dimension
"...an opportunity to rethink and improve on many areas of user interface at the system and app level which have been stagnant for a decade or more"
## #2: Granny's new camera
"... the ends of the spectrum - the power users and the don’t-mess-with-my-system users, are already well serviced by Linux ... It’s the middle crowd - the guys who have a computer which they personally modify, attach new hardware to, and expect to interact with a variety of gadgets - that struggle. The problem, in a nutshell, is Granny’s new camera"
## #1: Keeping it FREE
"... create something that we’ve never had before, which is a completely level software playing field for every young aspiring IT practitioner, and every aspiring entrepreneur. I believe that’s how we will really change the world, and how we will deliver the full benefit of the movement started more than two decades ago by Richard Stallman"
Source: \url{http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/06/mark-shuttleworths-ubuntu-manifesto.html}

8
content/manifestos/2009-cult-of-done.txt
View File

@ -1,8 +1,5 @@
# The Cult of Done Manifesto
Bre Pettis
Mar 3, 2009
Dear Members of the Cult of Done,
I present to you a manifesto of done. This was written in collaboration with Kio Stark in 20 minutes because we only had 20 minutes to get it done.
@ -22,3 +19,8 @@ I present to you a manifesto of done. This was written in collaboration with Kio
11. Destruction is a variant of done.
12. If you have an idea and publish it on the internet, that counts as a ghost of done.
13. Done is the engine of more.
----
Bre Pettis
March 3, 2009

2
content/manifestos/2009-piracy-manifesto.txt
View File

@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
# Piracy Manifesto
News from a future newspaper: *“A man was stopped yesterday at the boarder of Italy and France, his computer was scanned and pirated material was found, mostly Adobe software and songs by Beatles. The man was arrested at the spot”*
News from a future newspaper: *“A man was stopped yesterday at the border of Italy and France, his computer was scanned and pirated material was found, mostly Adobe software and songs by Beatles. The man was arrested at the spot”*
From a poem to a drug, from an piece of software to a music record and from a film to a book, everything that’s famous and profitable, owns much of its economic value to the manipulation of the Multitudes. People haven’t asked to know what the Coca-Cola logo looks like, neither have they asked for the melody of “Like a Virgin”. Education, Media and Propaganda teach all that the hard way; by either hammering it on our brains or by speculating over our thirst, our hunger, our need for communication and fun and most of all, over our loneliness and despair. In the days of Internet, what can be copied can be also shared. When it comes to content, we can give everything to everyone at once.

1
content/manifestos/2010-0.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1 @@
\part{2010 - 2015}

53
content/manifestos/2012-cryptoparty-manifesto.txt
View File

@ -3,26 +3,15 @@
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a
mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
In 1996, John Perry Barlow, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
(EFF, https://www.eff.org/), wrote 'A Declaration of the Independence of
Cyberspace'. It includes the following passage:
In 1996, John Perry Barlow, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF, https://www.eff.org/), wrote 'A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace'. It includes the following passage:
Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed
like a standing wave in the web of our communications. Ours is a world that is
both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live.
> Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications. Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live.
We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice ac-
corded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.
> We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.
We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs,
no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.
> We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.
Sixteen years later, and the Internet has changed the way we live our lives. It
has given us the combined knowledge of humankind at our fingertips. We
can form new relationships and share our thoughts and lives with friends
worldwide. We can organise, communicate and collaborate in ways never
thought possible. This is the world we want to hand down to our children, a
world with a free internet.
Sixteen years later, and the Internet has changed the way we live our lives. It has given us the combined knowledge of humankind at our fingertips. We can form new relationships and share our thoughts and lives with friends worldwide. We can organise, communicate and collaborate in ways never thought possible. This is the world we want to hand down to our children, a world with a free internet.
Unfortunately, not all of John Perry Barlow's vision has come to pass. Without access to online anonymity, we can not be free from privilege or prejudice. Without privacy, free expression is not possible.
@ -37,36 +26,24 @@ crowd-sourced solutions. CryptoParties provide the opportunity to meet up
and learn how to use these solutions to give us all the means with which to
assert our right to privacy and anonymity online.
• We are all users, we fight for the user and we strive to empower the user.
We assert user requests are the reason why computers exist. We trust in the
collective wisdom of human beings, over the interest of software vendors,
corporations or governments. We refuse the shackles of digital Gulags, lorded over by vassal interests of governments and corporations. We are the
- We are all users, we fight for the user and we strive to empower the user.
We assert user requests are the reason why computers exist. We trust in the collective wisdom of human beings, over the interest of software vendors, corporations or governments. We refuse the shackles of digital Gulags, lorded over by vassal interests of governments and corporations. We are the
CypherPunk Revolutionaries.
• The right to personal anonymity, pseudonymity and privacy is a basic human
- The right to personal anonymity, pseudonymity and privacy is a basic human
right. These rights include life, liberty, dignity, security, right to a family,
and the right to live without fear or intimidation. No government, organisation or individual should prevent people from accessing the technology
which underscores these basic human rights.
• Privacy is the absolute right of the individual. Transparency is a require-
ment of governments and corporations who act in the name of the people.
• The individual alone owns the right to their identity. Only the individual
may choose what they share. Coercive attempts to gain access to personal
- Privacy is the absolute right of the individual. Transparency is a requirement of governments and corporations who act in the name of the people.
- The individual alone owns the right to their identity. Only the individual may choose what they share. Coercive attempts to gain access to personal
information without explicit consent is a breach of human rights.
• All people are entitled to cryptography and the human rights crypto tools
- All people are entitled to cryptography and the human rights crypto tools
afford, regardless of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other op-
inion, national or social origin, property, birth, political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory in which a person resides.
• Just as governments should exist only to serve their citizens - so too, cryptography should belong to the people.Technology should not be locked away
- Just as governments should exist only to serve their citizens - so too, cryptography should belong to the people.Technology should not be locked away
from the people.
• Surveillance cannot be separated from censorship, and the slavery it entails.
No machine shall be held in servitude to surveillance and censorship. Crypto
is a key to our collective freedom.
• Code is speech: code is human created language. To ban, censor or lock cryptography away from the people is to deprive human beings from a human
- Surveillance cannot be separated from censorship, and the slavery it entails.
No machine shall be held in servitude to surveillance and censorship. Crypto is a key to our collective freedom.
- Code is speech: code is human created language. To ban, censor or lock cryptography away from the people is to deprive human beings from a human
right, the freedom of speech.
Those who would seek to stop the spread of cryptography are akin to the

11
content/manifestos/2014-balconism.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
# Balconism
Text / Constant Dullaart
> A new "-ism" calls for sovereign expression in the 21st century, acronyms, typos, leetspeak, and kaomoji included.
We are all outside on teh balcony now. Standing on a platform made out of a tweet into corporate versions of public space. We are not stored in a cloud, opaque or translucent to whomever. We publish, we get read. ok. Private publishing does not exist, we now know we always get read (hi). To select what we want to have read, and by whom, is our greatest challenge rly. For now and teh future. If you tolerate this, your children will be normalized. Outside, on the street, status updates in the air, checking into another spatial analogy of information exchange. Sometimes hard to reach, through tutorials, encryptions and principles. It is generous to be outdoors, watched by a thousand eyes recording us for the future, our actions to be interpreted as an office job. We need a private veranda above ground, a place for a breath of fresh air, out of sight for the casual onlooker, but great for public announcements. The balcony is both public and private, online and offline. It is a space and a movement at the same time. You can be seen or remain unnoticed, inside and outside. Slippers are ok on the balcony. Freedom through encryption, rather than openness. The most important thing is: you must choose to be seen. We are already seen and recorded on the streets and in trains, in emailz, chatz, supermarketz and restaurantz, without a choice. Remaining unseen, by making a clearer choice where to be seen. We are in the brave new now, get ready to choose your balcony, to escape the warm enclosure of the social web, to address, to talk to the people outside your algorithm bubble. U will not get arrested on the balcony, you and yours should have the right to anonymity on the balcony, although this might seem technically complicated. The balcony is a gallery, balustrade, porch and stoop. The balcony is part of the Ecuadorian embassy. Itz masturbating on the balcony when your local dictator passes by. AFK, IRL, BRB and TTYS. The balcony is the Piratebay memo announcing they will keep up their services by way of drones, or just Piratbyran completely. Publishing in a 403, publishing inside the referring link, and as error on a server. Balconism is IRC, TOR and OTR. Bal-Kony 2012. Balcony is Speedshows, online performances, Telecomix, Anonymous, Occupy and maybe even Google automated cars (def. not glass tho btw). Balconization, not Balkanization. The balcony-scene creates community rather than commodity. Nothing is to be taken seriously. Every win fails eventually. Proud of web culture, and what was built with pun, fun, wires, solder, thoughts and visions of equality. Nothing is sacred on the b4lconi. It is lit by screens, fueled by open networks, and strengthened by retweetz. On the balcony the ambitions are high, identities can be copied, and reality manipulated. Hope is given and inspiration created, initiative promoted and development developed. Know your meme, and meme what you know. I can haz balcony. Balconism is a soapbox in the park. The balcony is connected: stand on a balcony and you will see others. The balcony is connecting: you do not have to be afraid on the balcony, we are behind you, we are the masses, you can feel the warmth from the inside, breathing down your neck. Where privacy ceases to feel private, try to make it private. Ch00se your audience, demand to know to whom you speak if not in public, or know when you are talking to an algorithm. When you can, stay anonymous out of principle, and fun. And when you are in public, understand in which context and at what time you will and could be seen. Speak out on the balcony, free from the storefront, free from the single white space, but leaning into people's offices, bedrooms and coffee tables, leaning into virtually everywhere. On the balcony, contemporary art reclaims its communicative sovereignty through constant reminders of a freedom once had on the internet. Orz to the open internet builders and warriors. Learn how to do, then challenge how it is done. Encrypt. Encrypt well and beautifully. Art with too much theory is called Auditorium, and kitsch is called Living Room. Inspired by home-brew technologies and open network communications, create art in the spirit of the internet, resisting territories, be it institutional and commercial art hierarchies or commercial information hierarchies. The internet is every medium. Head from the information super highway to the balcony that is everywhere through the right VPN. The pool is always closed.
*****
Constant Dullaart is a former resident of the Rijksakademie in Amsterdam, living and working mostly in Berlin. His work often deals with the effects and affects of contemporary communication and mass media, both online and offline. http://constantdullaart.com

227
content/manifestos/2015-new-clues.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,227 @@
# New Clues
> by David Weinberger and Doc Searls
Hear, O Internet.
It has been sixteen years since our previous communication.
In that time the People of the Internet — you and me and all our friends of friends of friends, unto the last Kevin Bacon — have made the Internet an awesome place, filled with wonders and portents.
From the serious to the lolworthy to the wtf, we have up-ended titans, created heroes, and changed the most basic assumptions about
How Things Work and Who We Are.
But now all the good work we’ve done together faces mortal dangers.
When we first came before you, it was to warn of the threat posed by those who did not understand that they did not understand the Internet.
These are The Fools, the businesses that have merely adopted the trappings of the Internet.
Now two more hordes threaten all that we have built for one another.
The Marauders understand the Internet all too well. They view it as theirs to plunder, extracting our data and money from it, thinking that we are the fools.
But most dangerous of all is the third horde: Us.
A horde is an undifferentiated mass of people. But the glory of the Internet is that it lets us connect as diverse and distinct individuals.
We all like mass entertainment. Heck, TV’s gotten pretty great these days, and the Net lets us watch it when we want. Terrific.
But we need to remember that delivering mass media is the least of the Net’s powers.
The Net’s super-power is connection without permission. Its almighty power is that we can make of it whatever we want.
It is therefore not time to lean back and consume the oh-so-tasty junk food created by Fools and Marauders as if our work were done. It is time to breathe in the fire of the Net and transform every institution that would play us for a patsy.
An organ-by-organ body snatch of the Internet is already well underway. Make no mistake: with a stroke of a pen, a covert handshake, or by allowing memes to drown out the cries of the afflicted we can lose the Internet we love.
We come to you from the years of the Web’s beginning. We have grown old together on the Internet. Time is short.
We, the People of the Internet, need to remember the glory of its revelation so that we reclaim it now in the name of what it truly is.
Doc Searls
David Weinberger
January 8, 2015
## Once were we young in the Garden...
### a. The Internet is us, connected.
1. The Internet is not made of copper wire, glass fiber, radio waves, or even tubes.
2. The devices we use to connect to the Internet are not the Internet.
3. Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, Deutsche Telekom, and 中国电信 do not own the Internet. Facebook, Google, and Amazon are not the Net’s monarchs, nor yet are their minions or algorithms. Not the governments of the Earth nor their Trade Associations have the consent of the networked to bestride the Net as sovereigns.
4. We hold the Internet in common and as unowned.
5. From us and from what we have built on it does the Internet derive all its value.
6. The Net is of us, by us, and for us.
7. The Internet is ours.
### b. The Internet is nothing and has no purpose.
8. The Internet is not a thing any more than gravity is a thing. Both pull us together.
9. The Internet is no-thing at all. At its base the Internet is a set of agreements, which the geeky among us (long may their names be hallowed) call “protocols,” but which we might, in the temper of the day, call “commandments.”
10. The first among these is: Thy network shall move all packets closer to their destinations without favor or delay based on origin, source, content, or intent.
11. Thus does this First Commandment lay open the Internet to every idea, application, business, quest, vice, and whatever.
12. There has not been a tool with such a general purpose since language.
13. This means the Internet is not for anything in particular. Not for social networking, not for documents, not for advertising, not for business, not for education, not for porn, not for anything. It is specifically designed for everything.
14. Optimizing the Internet for one purpose de-optimizes it for all others
15. The Internet like gravity is indiscriminate in its attraction. It pulls us all together, the virtuous and the wicked alike.
### c. The Net is not content.
16. There is great content on the Internet. But holy mother of cheeses, the Internet is not made out of content.
17. A teenager’s first poem, the blissful release of a long-kept secret, a fine sketch drawn by a palsied hand, a blog post in a regime that hates the sound of its people’s voices — none of these people sat down to write content.
18. Did we use the word “content” without quotes? We feel so dirty.
### d. The Net is not a medium.
19. The Net is not a medium any more than a conversation is a medium.
20. On the Net, we are the medium. We are the ones who move messages. We do so every time we post or retweet, send a link in an email, or post it on a social network.
21. Unlike a medium, you and I leave our fingerprints, and sometimes bite marks, on the messages we pass. We tell people why we’re sending it. We argue with it. We add a joke. We chop off the part we don’t like. We make these messages our own.
22. Every time we move a message through the Net, it carries a little bit of ourselves with it.
23. We only move a message through this “medium” if it matters to us in one of the infinite ways that humans care about something.
24. Caring — mattering — is the motive force of the Internet.
### e. The Web is a Wide World.
25. In 1991, Tim Berners-Lee used the Net to create a gift he gave freely to us all: the World Wide Web. Thank you.
26. Tim created the Web by providing protocols (there’s that word again!) that say how to write a page that can link to any other page without needing anyone’s permission.
27. Boom. Within ten years we had billions of pages on the Web — a combined effort on the order of a World War, and yet so benign that the biggest complaint was the tag.
28. The Web is an impossibly large, semi-persistent realm of items discoverable in their dense inter-connections.
29. That sounds familiar. Oh, yeah, that’s what the world is.
30. Unlike the real world, every thing and every connection on the Web was created by some one of us expressing an interest and an assumption about how those small pieces go together.
31. Every link by a person with something to say is an act of generosity and selflessness, bidding our readers leave our page to see how the world looks to someone else.
32. The Web remakes the world in our collective, emergent image.
## But oh how we have strayed, sisters and brothers...
### a. How did we let conversation get weaponized, anyway?
33. It’s important to notice and cherish the talk, the friendship, the thousand acts of sympathy, kindness, and joy we encounter on the Internet.
34. And yet we hear the words “fag” and “nigger” far more on the Net than off.
35. Demonization of ‘them’ — people with looks, languages, opinions, memberships and other groupings we don’t understand, like, or tolerate — is worse than ever on the Internet.
36. Women in Saudi Arabia can’t drive? Meanwhile, half of us can’t speak on the Net without looking over our shoulders.
37. Hatred is present on the Net because it’s present in the world, but the Net makes it easier to express and to hear.
38. The solution: If we had a solution, we wouldn’t be bothering you with all these damn clues.
39. We can say this much: Hatred didn’t call the Net into being, but it’s holding the Net — and us — back.
40. Let’s at least acknowledge that the Net has values implicit in it. Human values.
41. Viewed coldly the Net is just technology. But it’s populated by creatures who are warm with what they care about: their lives, their friends, the world we share.
42. The Net offers us a common place where we can be who we are, with others who delight in our differences.
43. No one owns that place. Everybody can use it. Anyone can improve it.
44. That’s what an open Internet is. Wars have been fought for less.
### b. "We agree about everything. I find you fascinating!"
45. The world is spread out before us like a buffet, and yet we stick with our steak and potatoes, lamb and hummus, fish and rice, or whatever.
46. We do this in part because conversation requires a common ground: shared language, interests, norms, understandings. Without those, it’s hard or even impossible to have a conversation.
47. Shared grounds spawn tribes. The Earth’s solid ground kept tribes at a distance, enabling them to develop rich differences. Rejoice! Tribes give rise to Us vs. Them and war. Rejoice? Not so much.
48. On the Internet, the distance between tribes starts at zero.
49. Apparently knowing how to find one another interesting is not as easy as it looks.
50. That’s a challenge we can meet by being open, sympathetic, and patient. We can do it, team! We’re #1! We’re #1!
51. Being welcoming: There’s a value the Net needs to learn from the best of our real world cultures.
### c. Marketing still makes it harder to talk.
52. We were right the first time: Markets are conversations.
53. A conversation isn’t your business tugging at our sleeve to shill a product we don’t want to hear about.
54. If we want to know the truth about your products, we’ll find out from one another.
55. We understand that these conversations are incredibly valuable to you. Too bad. They’re ours.
56. You’re welcome to join our conversation, but only if you tell us who you work for, and if you can speak for yourself and as yourself.
57. Every time you call us “consumers” we feel like cows looking up the word “meat.”
58. Quit fracking our lives to extract data that’s none of your business and that your machines misinterpret.
59. Don’t worry: we’ll tell you when we’re in the market for something. In our own way. Not yours. Trust us: this will be good for you.
60. Ads that sound human but come from your marketing department’s irritable bowels, stain the fabric of the Web.
61. When personalizing something is creepy, it’s a pretty good indication that you don’t understand what it means to be a person.
62. Personal is human. Personalized isn’t.
63. The more machines sound human, the more they slide down into the uncanny valley where everything is a creep show.
64. Also: Please stop dressing up ads as news in the hope we’ll miss the little disclaimer hanging off their underwear.
65. When you place a “native ad,” you’re eroding not just your own trustworthiness, but the trustworthiness of this entire new way of being with one another.
66. And, by the way, how about calling “native ads” by any of their real names: “product placement,” “advertorial,” or “fake fucking news”?
67. Advertisers got along without being creepy for generations. They can get along without being creepy on the Net, too.
### d. The Gitmo of the Net.
68. We all love our shiny apps, even when they’re sealed as tight as a Moon base. But put all the closed apps in the world together and you have a pile of apps.
69. Put all the Web pages together and you have a new world.
70. Web pages are about connecting. Apps are about control.
71. As we move from the Web to an app-based world, we lose the commons we were building together.
72. In the Kingdom of Apps, we are users, not makers.
73. Every new page makes the Web bigger. Every new link makes the Web richer.
74. Every new app gives us something else to do on the bus.
75. Ouch, a cheap shot!
76. Hey, “CheapShot” would make a great new app! It’s got “in-app purchase” written all over it.
### e. Gravity's great until it sucks us all into a black hole.
77. Non-neutral applications built on top of the neutral Net are becoming as inescapable as the pull of a black hole.
78. If Facebook is your experience of the Net, then you’ve strapped on goggles from a company with a fiduciary responsibility to keep you from ever taking the goggles off.
79. Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple are all in the goggles business. The biggest truth their goggles obscure: These companies want to hold us the way black holes hold light.
80. These corporate singularities are dangerous not because they are evil. Many of them in fact engage in quite remarkably civic behavior. They should be applauded for that.
81. But they benefit from the gravity of sociality: The “network effect” is that thing where lots of people use something because lots of people use it.
82. Where there aren’t competitive alternatives, we need to be hypervigilant to remind these Titans of the Valley of the webby values that first inspired them.
83. And then we need to honor the sound we make when any of us bravely pulls away from them. It’s something between the noise of a rocket leaving the launchpad and the rip of Velcro as you undo a too-tight garment.
### f. Privacy in an age of spies.
84. Ok, government, you win. You’ve got our data. Now, what can we do to make sure you use it against Them and not against Us? In fact, can you tell the difference?
85. If we want our government to back off, the deal has to be that if — when — the next attack comes, we can’t complain that they should have surveilled us harder.
86. A trade isn’t fair trade if we don’t know what we’re giving up. Do you hear that, Security for Privacy trade-off?
87. With a probability approaching absolute certainty, we are going to be sorry we didn’t do more to keep data out of the hands of our governments and corporate overlords.
### g. Privacy in an age of weasels.
88. Personal privacy is fine for those who want it. And we all draw the line somewhere.
98. Q: How long do you think it took for pre-Web culture to figure out where to draw the lines? A: How old is culture?
90. The Web is barely out of its teens. We are at the beginning, not the end, of the privacy story.
91. We can only figure out what it means to be private once we figure out what it means to be social. And we’ve barely begun to re-invent that.
92. The economic and political incentives to de-pants and up-skirt us are so strong that we’d be wise to invest in tinfoil underwear.
93. Hackers got us into this and hackers will have to get us out.
## To build and to plant
### a. Kumbiyah sounds surprisingly good in an echo chamber.
94. The Internet is astounding. The Web is awesome. You are beautiful. Connect us all and we are more crazily amazing than Jennifer Lawrence. These are simple facts.
95. So let’s not minimize what the Net has done in the past twenty years:
96. There’s so much more music in the world.
97. We now make most of our culture for ourselves, with occasional forays to a movie theater for something blowy-uppy and a $9 nickel-bag of popcorn.
98. Politicians now have to explain their positions far beyond the one-page “position papers” they used to mimeograph.
99. Anything you don’t understand you can find an explanation for. And a discussion about. And an argument over. Is it not clear how awesome that is?
100. You want to know what to buy? The business that makes an object of desire is now the worst source of information about it. The best source is all of us.
101. You want to listen in on a college-level course about something you’re interested in? Google your topic. Take your pick. For free.
102. Yeah, the Internet hasn’t solved all the world’s problems. That’s why the Almighty hath given us asses: that we might get off of them.
103. Internet naysayers keep us honest. We just like ‘em better when they aren’t ingrates.
### b. A pocket full of homilies.
104. We were going to tell you how to fix the Internet in four easy steps, but the only one we could remember is the last one: profit. So instead, here are some random thoughts…
105. We should be supporting the artists and creators who bring us delight or ease our burdens.
106. We should have the courage to ask for the help we need.
107. We have a culture that defaults to sharing and laws that default to copyright. Copyright has its place, but when in doubt, open it up
108. In the wrong context, everyone’s an a-hole. (Us, too. But you already knew that.) So if you’re inviting people over for a swim, post the rules. All trolls, out of the pool!
109. If the conversations at your site are going badly, it’s your fault.
110. Wherever the conversation is happening, no one owes you a response, no matter how reasonable your argument or how winning your smile.
111. Support the businesses that truly “get” the Web. You’ll recognize them not just because they sound like us, but because they’re on our side.
112. Sure, apps offer a nice experience. But the Web is about links that constantly reach out, connecting us without end. For lives and ideas, completion is death. Choose life.
113. Anger is a license to be stupid. The Internet’s streets are already crowded with licensed drivers.
114. Live the values you want the Internet to promote.
115. If you’ve been talking for a while, shut up. (We will very soon.)
### c. Being together: the cause of and solution to every problem.
116. If we have focused on the role of the People of the Net — you and us — in the Internet’s fall from grace, that’s because we still have the faith we came in with.
117. We, the People of the Net, cannot fathom how much we can do together because we are far from finished inventing how to be together.
118. The Internet has liberated an ancient force — the gravity drawing us together.
119. The gravity of connection is love.
120. Long live the open Internet.
121. Long may we have our Internet to love.
----
**This is an Open Source document.**
> These New Clues are designed to be shared and re-used without our permission. Use them however you want. Make them your own. We only request that you please point back at this original page ( http://cluetrain.com/newclues/ ) because that’s just polite.
> If you are a developer, the text of this page is openly available at GitHub for programmatic re-use: https://github.com/dweinberger/newclues
> To make it as easy as possible to share, use, and re-use the clues, we have put all the text on this page into the public domain via a Creative Commons 0 license. It is essentially copyright free.