Comments
From Cybersecession
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
''Cybersecession means that there may be indeed some philosophical issues around CMMW, as it may affect the material world, but no such issues must be taken into consideration when it comes to CMDW. So, we can't accept any compromise for CMDW just because there are some issues around CMMW. So we should separate the two and fight on two different fronts, as it would be much more efficient.'' | ''Cybersecession means that there may be indeed some philosophical issues around CMMW, as it may affect the material world, but no such issues must be taken into consideration when it comes to CMDW. So, we can't accept any compromise for CMDW just because there are some issues around CMMW. So we should separate the two and fight on two different fronts, as it would be much more efficient.'' | ||
| - | As stated on the main page, EFF don't evidentiate any difference between privacy of people's thoughts and privacy of people's phone numbers. Cybersecession very much | + | As stated on the main page, EFF don't evidentiate any difference between privacy of people's thoughts and privacy of people's phone numbers. This confusion is tough enough for fighting govs intruding CMMW, but not sesitive enough to make us feel at home in our CMDW. Instead, Cybersecession very much evidentiates this difference. So, EFF's "electronic fronteers" to be defended are completely different from Cybersecession's. The two have both different approaches and different purposes. |
EFF fight in the frontline, protecting us all and our "home" from "them" (corporations? politicians?). Meanwhile, Cybersecession are trying to define that "home" of us all. They are trying to find a starting point. There must be a world that EFF is defending, after all. Some vaguely call it Cyberspace (the world of the machines). But do they actually care about machines run by banks or by the FBI? No, that's not the Cyberspace they are defending. | EFF fight in the frontline, protecting us all and our "home" from "them" (corporations? politicians?). Meanwhile, Cybersecession are trying to define that "home" of us all. They are trying to find a starting point. There must be a world that EFF is defending, after all. Some vaguely call it Cyberspace (the world of the machines). But do they actually care about machines run by banks or by the FBI? No, that's not the Cyberspace they are defending. | ||
Revision as of 14:48, 10 July 2006
I fail to understand how this is a new idea. EFF have been following similar goals for years.
First a map: There's a material space (Matterspace?) and a material culture (Matterculture?), then there's a Cyberspace and a Cyberculture. This is a distinction EFF seems to promote.
Cybersecession goes even further, by emphasizing "Cyberspace" and "Cyberculture" themselves may refer, in turn, to EITHER the cyberspace-managed material world (CMMW) OR to the cyberspace-managed digital world (CMDW). Cybersecession means it is only the CMMW that needs to be protected by EFF, while CMDW affords being "free just like human imagination".
Cybersecession means that there may be indeed some philosophical issues around CMMW, as it may affect the material world, but no such issues must be taken into consideration when it comes to CMDW. So, we can't accept any compromise for CMDW just because there are some issues around CMMW. So we should separate the two and fight on two different fronts, as it would be much more efficient.
As stated on the main page, EFF don't evidentiate any difference between privacy of people's thoughts and privacy of people's phone numbers. This confusion is tough enough for fighting govs intruding CMMW, but not sesitive enough to make us feel at home in our CMDW. Instead, Cybersecession very much evidentiates this difference. So, EFF's "electronic fronteers" to be defended are completely different from Cybersecession's. The two have both different approaches and different purposes.
EFF fight in the frontline, protecting us all and our "home" from "them" (corporations? politicians?). Meanwhile, Cybersecession are trying to define that "home" of us all. They are trying to find a starting point. There must be a world that EFF is defending, after all. Some vaguely call it Cyberspace (the world of the machines). But do they actually care about machines run by banks or by the FBI? No, that's not the Cyberspace they are defending.
It's good that the frontline is there and not here, at home, in Our Cyberspace. It's wonderful that EFF exist to defend Cyberspace, in general, and not only our home in Cyberspace. But it is also good there's a Cybersecession defining a place where nobody has any ethical right to intrude. It's good that Cybersecession defines a "country" which doesn't even need to be defended (because it is safe). This is what makes it possible for EFF to fight at the "fronteer", not in the country. If the war is in our whole country, then our country is occupied. CMDW will never be occupied. Our home is clean. And it has all rights to be so. It is only the CMMW that *might* be occupied and might need legal war.
Anyway, if this idea is not new, then please let us know. We hate duplicate work.
