in the last days, almost every member of the flying circus has spent some time to comment the post by an anonymous coward on susan crawford's blog. so here is my take at it.

i am a strong supporter of the principle that users should be free to innovate at the edge of the network. however, to put it kindly, that post is bullshit concealed under captivating buzzwords.

even in terms of metaphors, the author's dramatic depiction of the good and virtuous martin luther against the corrupt clergy of the pope does not seem to take into account that the wide majority of christianity stayed catholic, and still happily is. the internet should be good for lutherans and for catholics, rather than embracing any particular religion - and i fear those who embrace any given regulatory fashion, be it hyperliberal or soviet-like, as if it was a religion.

now, i could go through the list of those 34 points and point out many places where the common sense suddenly turns into ridiculous assertions or petty defense of what apparently are personal business interests of the author. however, i'd rather talk about the overall message that comes out of them.

in fact, these points say "users should be free to innovate", but they mean "i was here first. the internet is mine. i accept no other authority than myself. if you disagree, fuck you and go away." they mean "everyone who has sufficient money and power can claim the land and use its guns to defend it" - à la sitefinder and following lawsuits, to be clear.

a social system without any collective authority is not a free system at all. it is a system where the strongest takes all, and the others die. in history, this kind of systems has never brought equity, nor peace - it ultimately brought to the self-destruction of the system itself, unless some collective authority could be created.

but what really gets me mad is the assumption underlying many of these imperative and unquestionable points - that the internet was made for "entrepreneurs" to "innovate" by creating "business models".

the internet is much more than that. the internet is being used even in countries where there's no such thing as an entrepreneur. the internet was useful well before anyone made money with it, and even if it's good that you can make money with the internet, it cannot be its sole or main purpose. the internet is being used to make friends, to learn, to barter, to write to far relatives and to share hobbies and passions.

it is exactly when i read this kind of corporate bullshit disguised by "internet community bottom-up input" that i start to think that, after all, leaving more of this stuff in the hands of our dear governments might not be such a bad idea. at least, they are global, not subject to chilling effects (tanks not included) and certainly more accountable than an anonymous blogger.

and it would always be better than leaving it in the "capable" hands of a greedy cowboy who would be happy to disrupt the functioning of the internet for millions of people for a few dollars more.