A few quick comments. As someone very comfortable describing myself as an anarchist, i’m always intrigued by the variety of interpretations the term itself seem to cover. With respect to the thrust that the internet is anarchistic, this is a an observable fact. For example about as of “September 2009[update] Apache served over 54.48% of all websites and over 66% of the million busiest.[5]

This technology was developed through open collabatortive works, sharing knowledge,skills and experience. Not a million miles away from the ethos and priciples of social/political anarchism. In principle its perhaps over streching it to say that this mode of productive activity (or labour) is anti-capitalist, it is certainly counter capitalist. This is an inherent feature of development of new online based technologies.

The proliferation of independent media platform, particularly those that give voice to the world “from below”, or at a grassroots level again suggest that regardless of the factual reality that the intial development of the internet was within the military industrail complex of the US, the opening out of this information and knowledge has change that original intent into something much different.

From an anarchist perspective intellectual propery rights are simple a futher enclose of the commons. The argument that companies need to close off aspects of knowledge, as if its something you can physically grip, only make sense within the circular self confirming believe system that is capitalism. The idea that investment in R and D needs to be recovered and protected if you believe that private corporate entities are philosophically the natural place for generating knowledge used to improve humanity as a whole. That knowledge and progress can be subjegated to privatisation and private gain surely is counter to any notion of humans as social being and intrinsically collective.

The meta-knowledge paradigm underlines much of recent developments with regard tackling climate change ( and apols if this is a bit off topic but the same closed minded and self serving thinking of capitalist thiniking) For example the current paradigm of carbon trading is in essence the privatisation of the common atmosphere, where intellectual loop the loops conjure commodities where previously none existed, sole for the benefit of creating a market for a product that we really need to stop creating.

Not only is capitalism based upon exploitation, with power flowing down and wealth upwards, but it also doesnt have the ability to see its own lack of imaginationn and creativity in tackling problems it has created.

thank you for your time and response. Is ‘lazy’ too strong word? I apologize. I do believe the book succeeds as a work of _journalism_, sorry if that wasn’t clear. Arpanet is the foundation of the internet, and we could likely have not had the latter without the development of packet switching and asynchonous transfer mode. To suggest so implies a libertarian position with regard to the technological legacy that one lives in, and while one is certainly at liberty to do so, I would object to this on moral grounds. Do we still live in a world where ‘reality is what you can get away with?’ It would appear less so than 10 years ago, but I suppose it depends on who you’re asking.

It is many of the foundational premises of the book which I’ve attempted to call into question. While the internet may give us the opportunity to act anarchistically, there is no need for such an appreciation when one has a genuine anarchist outlook. In fact, as mentioned in the article, there is a portion of the population with a type of anarchist outlook that will go ahead and act without any consideration for theory whatsoever, and these are people that should not be looked over, especially by college professors, when discussing anarchy.

I suppose when it comes to computers the distinction between media theory and technological theory is blurred. I meant to respond to your general emphasis on the media issues, and I was glad for your efforts to discuss ethics because that to me is where much of the problem lies.

I guess I have a lot to learn about writing books.

Just to clarify one point: The hobbyists are not anarchists in an informed or enlightened sense. I argue that the nature of the Internet (which was built to be anarchistic — you only cited the justifications for the origin of ARPANET, which is not the Internet) pushes us to act and think in an anarchistic manner. Our great error is living in this environment without such an appreciation. The theory at work is not “media theory” at all. It is technological theory.

Anyway, you did a great job on this review and cited most of the strengths and weaknesses of the book.

Thanks for giving it the time and attention. I will be sure to be less lazy with my next book.

Siva