The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

Cyberlibertarian Promises vs. Reality

• Many commenters argue the 1990s vision (“radical individualism + deregulated tech = more freedom and equality”) failed; instead, it enabled law‑skirting startups to scale, then embrace regulation to entrench themselves.
• Others counter that much of the utopian prediction did happen: wider democracy, falling extreme poverty, smartphones as “magic screens,” and huge personal empowerment via information access.
• Disagreement over whether tech’s net impact is positive: some see a “capitalist hellscape,” others a flawed but massively better world.

Corporate Power, Regulatory Capture, Technofeudalism

• Strong theme: big tech used libertarian rhetoric early, then pivoted to lobbying, regulatory capture, and closed ecosystems (e.g., app stores, ID/attestation, platform lock‑in).
• Several describe this as “technofeudalism”: corporations acting like quasi‑states, with account bans or device lock‑outs functioning as extra‑legal punishment.
• Some argue this is enabled by the state (limited liability, IP, favorable regulation), so not a true free market; others say capitalism itself inexorably concentrates power.

Regulation, State vs. Market

• Split views:
  • One camp sees government as the only counterweight to corporate monopolies.
  • Another views the state as the ultimate coercive monopoly that historically causes more harm than firms.
• Many think the real problem is capture: regulations written by/for incumbents; “highly regulated” doesn’t mean “good for users.”

Copyright, IP, and Ownership

• Long debate on copyright/patents:
  • Critics see IP as a core mechanism forcing everything into markets, enabling corporate moats and tech billionaires, and blocking adversarial interoperability.
  • Others see copyright as a flawed but sometimes necessary tool that can protect small creators as well as corporations.
• Some propose radically weakening or abolishing IP; others are skeptical this would meaningfully weaken tech giants without also removing state favoritism.

Technology, Convenience, and Friction

• Strong nostalgia vs. presentism:
  • Some insist pre‑digital tools (maps, CDs, tapes) were “fine” and that current rhetoric overstates how bad life was.
  • Others emphasize how much easier navigation, media access, and bureaucracy (e.g., booking appointments) have become.
• Growing appreciation of “friction”: older media and slower processes are seen as sometimes healthier and more humane than frictionless platforms optimized for engagement and surveillance.

Online Culture, Moderation, and Democracy

• Early internet culture is remembered as self‑selected, library/debate‑club‑like, and idealistic about conversation and information.
• Many feel today’s mass platforms are less humane: polarization, harassment, dark‑pattern feeds, bot‑driven manipulation, and data‑driven electoral interference.
• Some blame “cyberspace as separate realm” thinking, which ignored that power, law, and geopolitics inevitably cross the online/offline boundary.