Printer Friendly

Notes on Cyber-Luddism.

1. Introduction and Background

"Information doesn't want to be free. People do." Cory Doctorow (2013a)

According to Doctorow, an ardent advocate of FOSS and Creative Common Group, the assertion that information wants to be free is "currently" meaningless in contemporary discourse due to its corrupted connotation, rather than its innocent denotation. Speaking of techno-politics (no philosophical thought), we [who are analyzing the process] are ultimately free if and only if we have an absolute knowledge of the world's reality, as Plato puts it, "to be able to see things as they areThe current world is made by computers (hardware) and networks (software). Computers are in our minds, in our bodies and in our environments, as though we were in "a giant microwave oven." Nevertheless, who shall the "Master" be? Should our default desktop say "Yes, Master"? As many scholars well-meaningfully inquire, why do LAWS (e.g. Digital Right Management) compel us when we use our computers? "I cannot let you do that?" (1) So, it is critical for humans to know what our computers do! However, is it enough? It is actually more critical for humans to know what the computer worlds do! We are in networks of multivariate human-techno social interactions! Is it still enough? Is it not critical for humans to know whether technology is "liberating" or "enslaving" us, or "both"! In the world of computers, does one particular technological solution reveal further threat(s) and/or risk(s)? What remains of the argument if we state that we have achieved cyberutopian (emancipation)? As, Morozov (2011) rightfully argues, "the net delusion: the dark side of internet freedom" is "naive" and "stubborn" with 'former hippies'.

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him," Richelieu, Cardinal De (cited in Hoyt, 1896, p.763). We know that computer worlds exist, that they touch and shake us up in many ways, but we do not inquire how they came into existence; or, if they have a right to exist, what their initial purpose was; or, what key meanings they have when they are essentially and satisfyingly pleasing us. When they touch and shake us up so adversely and covertly (e.g. execution), we equip ourselves to be rebellious against them (e.g. controllers of the computers worlds), but others (e.g. governments) will ruminate about replacing nothing beyond some minor variation or variant of the same establishment. "Why are we doing what we are doing? ... Because science and technology have seldom paused to explain their own dynamics, there is obviously much work to be done on this score" (Winner, 1989, p. 433). Within this context, technological acceleration (calculability and incalculability) is claimed to be a "necessity" due to its own requirements (better human, life, nature, etc.) and its own opportunities (better business, profits, investments, etc.). Concomitantly, before it is too late, it is critical for humans to study how decision-makers, in particular governments, are just a holistic representation of images in the computers worlds with the actual intention of protecting their own interests, as much and as far as possible as they can!; e.g., interesting market profits, not human rights. In this regard, it is not meant that we comprehensively understand all possible threats and risks of technology; just that questioning them is an absolute necessity to beware of unintended and sometimes deadly consequences. Within this context, one could argue that the dominant and convinced academia are obviously aware about the relative consequences of these issues, but appears not to consciously investigate and to understand them comprehensively. As, the famous philosophical concern of what technology is and stands for, Samuel Butler asserts that:
   Day by day, however, the machines are gaining ground upon
   us; day by day we are becoming more subservient to them;
   more men are daily bound down as slaves to tend them, more
   men are daily devoting the energies of their whole lives to the
   development of mechanical life. The upshot is simply page a
   question of time, but that the time will come when the machines
   will hold the real supremacy over the world and its inhabitants
   is what no person of a truly philosophic mind can for a moment
   question (1863).

Inspired by above quotation, this study takes a slightly different approach (than the normative) towards clarifying the relative concepts of Technology and/in Society. The paper conceptualizes FOSS and Neo-Luddism through the lens of New Social Movements. It justifies how and why advocates of FOSS and Neo-Luddism should be converged to raise Cyber-Luddites, who believe that the human brain and body (mentally & physically upgradeable) needs to appropriately evolve their evaluation of technology (FOSS) in the century of 'Singularity,' because singularity is in the form of noumenon (opposite of phenomenon); neither known nor an observable circumstance. In this sense, the author does not identify Cyber-Luddism as forms of archaic extremism (e.g. cynicism, idiosyncrasy, etc.), which totally disagree with socio-natural structures and environmental orders (e.g. biographical and philosophical correlations), but what the author principally means by CyberLuddism is that Cyber-Luddites have to hate technology in order to appreciate human existentialism. This might require first and foremost loving it before using it wisely! "You have to hate the computer to use it well; there is no other choice. In any other choice you are becoming a fool and you are wasting your time." (Lanier, 2012) (2)

The study also argues that while the negative aspects of the computer worlds derive from Proprietary Close Source Software (PCSS) to stop our potentials, and so control us; the positive, Cyber-Luddism, element derives from FOSS to permit our collaborations, and so liberate us. For the computer worlds, PCSS is limited by financial models which render end-users pure renters, not owners of their products; therefore, in order to be realistic, this paper shall then present concluding remarks for Soft/Hard-Cyber-Luddism in states and their education systems given that: "Today we have access to highly advanced technologies. But our social and economic system has not kept up with our technological capabilities that could easily create a world of abundance, free of servitude and debt." Jacque Fresco (cited in Durrani, 2007)

2. New Social Movements (NSMs)

"Every question about what to study and how to study it becomes an ethical opening; every decision entails profound responsibility. The whole notion of academic ethics is simultaneously enlarged and transformed" (Gibson-Graham, 2008, p. 620).

In social science literature, the definition of social movement is fuzzy; simultaneously enlarging and transforming. There are a wide range of methods applied to and a wide range of questions being asked within the study of social movements. For this reason, there is neither a single definition nor a single method for studying social movement. According to Blumer, there is a direct mutual affinity between unrest and dissatisfaction of enterprise and the emergence of social movements. In this sense, social movements emerge out of "dissatisfaction with the current form of life ... to establish a new order of life" (1969, p. 99). Eyerman and Jamison adapted Blumer's definition and argue that social movements are "temporary public spaces, as moments of collective creation that provide societies with ideas, identities, and even ideals" (1991, p. 4). Tarrow puts emphasis on "sustained interaction with opponents" as differentiating social movement from particular protesting events, but makes connections between protest, conflict and network (1998, p. 4). Accepting all these definitions from social movements theories, Hess states that social movements have three main characteristics: "(a) broad scope in terms of organizational diversity and temporal duration, (b) articulation of a social conflict by groups that are disempowered or perceive themselves to be disempowered on at least some issues, (c) extra institutional strategies such as protest against dominant institutions or the creation of alternative institutions" (2005, p. 517). In this regard, there are six types of new and current social movements, "cyberactivism through the Net is seen in: 1) Internetworking, 2) Capital and information flows, and 3) Alternative media and theory: A. Alternative media and B. Alternative theory networks. Cyberactivism in the Net is seen in: 4) Direct cyberactivism (hacktivism), 5) Contesting and constructing the Internet and 6) Online alternative community formation" (Langman and Morris, 2005, p. 9).

According to Poster, "when users have decentralized, distributed, direct control over when, what, why, and with whom they exchange information. it seems to breed critical thinking, activism, democracy and equality.... This electronically mediated communication can challenge systems of domination" (1995, p. 28). In this regard, the focal point of NSM theory is decentralizing the power of domination through highlighting cultural and representative jargon (e.g. advanced capitalism) to be in "fairness" as much as possible in global world networks. While some contemporary social movements such as the occupy movement currently follow traditional and intentional social and political aims and objectives, NSM is distinctly the construction and legalization of cooperative "individualities" [describing the blending of characters and personalities] with an intrinsic aim of establishing eloquent rationalities and resistances which could be a conscious ethical reality. Nonetheless, it is still valuable to find out what is new about NSM? Buechler claims that, "while there are distinct combinations of genuinely new elements in the social movements, emphasized by" a false dichotomy between new movements and old forms of labor organization, "these can only be carefully specified by locating these movements and their predecessors in their appropriate socio-historical contexts and by looking for both similarities and differences woven throughout such histories" (1995, p. 449). Within this context, what is "new" for the author is the intention of movements (e.g. controlling versus liberating); therefore it can be argued that NSM is not only different from, but superior to, traditional models. This implies that NSMs activists are not intractable or heterogeneous audiences that systematize from dissimilar angles to shape broad partnerships across a variety of movements and domains. According to Langman, a modern NSM theory must portray:
   1) the central role of electronic media and global networks in
   enabling 'virtual public spheres;' 2) the crises of legitimacy and
   impacts of economic, political, cultural, and ecological aspects
   of neo-liberal globalization; 3) the migration of these crises to
   realms of identity and motivation and emergent forms of progressive
   project identities that would seek to transform the social;
   and finally, 4) the extent to which internetworked movements,
   more as flows than organizations, are fundamentally different
   than earlier social movements (2005, p. 47).

Concomitantly, NSM is conceived as a theory and a methodology, to dissociate itself from conservative western social movements, with the intention of focusing on and concerning about a matter of lawfare in the modern technological worlds. Matter is a force of production as materialism, just as consumerism without defining any philosophical value (e.g. liberating humans). Lawfare is a portmanteau of the words of "law" and "warfare;" an apparent logical illogicality (e.g. controlling humans). Therefore, what the author means by a matter of lawfare is that if NSM is to achieve the optimum from collaborations (e.g. solidarity, as support neighbors for write once/run anywhere software), because in Cyber-Luddism, there is no rent, and we are the owners seeking our products, and so it is essential to avoid being self-centered to be able to raise Cyber-Luddite Societies based on values of FOSS and Neo-Luddism.

Worse, the creative drive behind the new economy at its best has been superseded by a way of thinking that recalls the 1980s at its worst: a Wall Street-like culture that celebrates the twin propositions that 'greed is good' and that 'more is better.' The hard truth is that we're dangerously close to killing the soul of the new economy. Even worse, we're in danger of becoming the very thing that we defined ourself in opposition to. Those who kindled the spirit of the new economy rejected the notion of working just for money; today, we seem to think that it's fine to work just for money--as long as it's a lot of money. (Collins, 2000, p. 132)

In current techno-politics, PCSS is a sort of "Don Juan(s);" capable of sleeping whilst giving descriptions of how it could be used without any hesitation in a particular nation to another nation regardless of who can afford because PCSS has no moral objective (e.g. stop surveillance). Additionally, modern governments are only a sort of "Don Quixote(s);" viz., sentimentalism, as a fanciful idealist (e.g. economic progress in a particular nation) to be ready for being manipulated and shaped by giant corporations. Modern governments have thereby no realistic rationality concerning privacy for instance. Therefore, activists of and from a Cyber-Luddism perspective, are in an idea based movement to attempt to be successful in their own missions (emancipation). The actual intention of Cyber-Luddites is to continually act and learn locally and input into and learn from global practices, improving global knowledge (our freedom), not being in the contest of controlling as opposed to learning and since every learner is a teacher, hence, there is no separate relationship between master and disciple in CyberLuddite Societies.

Today, FOSS and Neo-Luddism are in an indignation confluence and a great initiative to support scholars and schools of NSMs as non-human and human actors re-influenced each other to shape a better future, whilst for many others, it may be understood as another utopia! However, it is argued that this kind of imaginary utopia (Cyber-Luddism) is feasible and necessary. How Cyber-Luddism is far from being utopian is discussed in the ensuing section.

3. Free Open Source Software (FOSS)

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." "I must admit that I personally measure success in terms of the contributions an individual makes to her or his fellow human beings." Margaret Mead (1901-1978)

The FOSS movement was born with the sharing of UNIX OS, which was originally developed by Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie in 1971 at Bell Labs. UNIX was licensed for a nominal fee among universities but there was no formal support service for UNIX. This deficiency prompted to a collaborative culture among individual programmers sharing their knowledge and experiences (Moon and Sproull, 2000). Early in the 1980s, Richard Stallman initiated the "GNU's Not Unix" (GNU) project and set up the Free Software Foundation in 1984, so as to establish a free version of UNIX and its free applications. Within GNU project, Stallman initiated copyleft (or an anticopyright agreement in the USA, an anti-author's right in the EU) and became a guru for FOSS activists. The agreement of copyleft permits programmers to recode software codes only if their own modified and extended versions of codes are also freely available. This is aimed at protecting software to become proprietary software and prohibits privatizing software, "free as in free speech, not as in free beer" (Stallman, 1996). The main discourse was "write once/run anywhere" that referred to Operating System (OS) Agnosticism in that time. Write once/run anywhere is because "nothing is more disagreeable to the hacker than duplication of effort" (Stephenson, 2002). In this sense, the underlying principles of FOSS gets into the effort of interiorizing "radical openness" which may also be called the "virtues of openness" by Peters, as "Open cultures become the necessary condition for the system as a whole, for the design of open progressive technological improvements and their political, epistemic and ontological foundations" (2013, p. 49).

FOSS movements are an active process that has been driven by various agencies of FOSS and influences of technological innovations in the market since the 1980s. Although voluntary programmers are crucial actors in the development process and penetration of FOSS projects, chronologically, private and then public sectors have also become crucial actors in FOSS movements. Currently, all parties might be an end-user; supporter; sponsor and/or developer (see, Redhat, 2010).

In the computer and social science literature, FOSS is seen as a real, active and influential fact that has three core principles, "(a) Source code must be distributed with the software or otherwise made available for no more than the cost of distribution. (b) Anyone may redistribute the software for free, without royalties or licensing fees to the author. (c) Anyone may modify the software or derive other software from it, and then distribute the modified software under the same terms" (Weber, 2004, p. 5). There are three fundamental FOSS principles emphasized by Weber. The Freedom is to reflect both monetarily free (cost) which might encompass freedom to run, read and study software for any purposes as well as free speech (freedom to modify and share copies of software both original and new versions under the same license agreement). The Equality is to ensure that there is always source code availability; no discrimination, exclusivity or hegemony for any technology or anyone. This does not mean that FOSS is a community in which anyone or any technology has an equal influence and power, it is open for all but it is shaped by explicit and implicit cultural norms as it is "a self-organisation, but it is not a chaotic free-for-all" (ibid, p. 3). The Solidarity is to support neighbors not only to assist and build collaborations but also to bring them together under the same roof.

These three principles have at least, three core criteria in terms of developing and implementing software: Open Source which includes source code availability for all, Open Standards which focuses on interoperability, technologically neutral, efficiency and innovation and Open Content such as free access to publications and documents. These principles are perceived as crucial considerations for the software development process, generally found more reliable, faster and functional than the traditional way; although this is argumentative and has not yet been conclusively exemplified (see, Wheeler, 2014). Raymond (2000) argues that FOSS is as a Bazaar in which software is developed within on-going voluntary collaborations through mainly unstructured and egalitarian coordination and PCSS is as a Cathedral in which software is developed by a small group of highly skilled programmers in a traditional and hierarchically coordinated environment. Raymond elaborates that FOSS is a superiorly secured model because there is no limited number of developers and users, and "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." In this sense, "any person can invent a security system so clever that s/he can't think of how to break it." Doctorow (2004) calls it as Schneier's Law--if you do not tell someone how your security system works you have never known whether or not you solved all problems existing in it.


Although there are a variety of licenses agreements in FOSS, it has mainly two computerization movements; Free Software is driven by Stallman, GNU and the Free Software Foundation (FSF)--more Radical Approach and Copy Left-Reciprocal Licences as emphasizing "essential freedoms for computer users" (3) and Open Software is driven by Eric Raymond, Bruce Perens and Open Source Initiative (OSI)--more Business Oriented Approach and Permissive Licences as emphasizing "better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in." (4)

Based on the conceptualization of NSMs, as argued above, while Open Software is the method of software development, Free Software is a (global) NSM (St. Amant and Still, 2007, p. 8). Open software values are mostly connected with benefits of openness. For economists, it might be also seen as a threat movement of PCSS, but for computer scientists, it is an alternative collective and evolutionist way to develop software, not exactly to protest current socio-techno-political issues such as the typical and unethical encumbrances of copyright law, intellectual property right, etc. Open software might be better seen as a great example of Community of Practice in which "groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly" (Wenger, 2006, p. 1). On the other hand, free software values are closely connected with anti-commercial-globalisation movements, e.g. freedom of software with copy-left agreement otherwise software may become a proprietary one. "The principal goal of GNU was to be Free Software. Even if GNU had no technical advantage over UNIX, it would have a social advantage, allowing users to cooperate, and an ethical advantage, respecting the user's freedom." (Stallman, 2002, p. 24)

It is necessary to emphasize how these two movements should be understood differently; because, at first glance and in limited knowledge, these movements have just nuance conflicts that might be applied for Information Communication Technology (ICT) experts and or lawyers. Either Free Software or Open Software Licences approved fundamental conditions to meet the four freedoms as: (a) the freedom of unlimited usage, (b) the freedom to read how software works and to change regardless of any purposes, (c) the freedom to redistribute unlimited copies, and (d) the freedom to redistribute modified versions.

The differences between the two FOSS movements are their related conditions and permissions regarding software. GNU and derivative licenses stipulate that once software is liberated, thus its own derivative software will be liberated as well. Therefore, these types of licenses are classified in copyleft license or reciprocal license. On the other hand, some of other open source licenses such as, common licenses, Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD), Mozilla Public Licence among others do not stipulate any conditions as copyleft and therefore these types of licenses are classified as tolerant and permissive licenses. Regarding permissive licenses, code developers have a right (freedom) to close extended source codes when they change source codes. The most popular example could be Apple's Operating System (OS) X, which is formed based on BSD license kernel. OS X is not a kind of FOSS products but it does not mean that BSD is not a FOSS license. The important thing is the developers' choice. When developers contribute on any projects based upon permissive licenses, they should be aware they may contribute to the success or failure of non-FOSS projects as well as PCSS products. According to Stallman, free software and open software are the same things but, "nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand. For the free software movement, however, nonfree software is a social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move to free software." (2007)

Stallmanites are willing to persuade others to believe in their utopia, because software is understood as an idea, instead of an invention and innovation. When it occurs, copyleft may not be needed anymore; because, the European patent law currently does not authorize principles and ideas to be patentable, not like the patent law in the USA. Thus, most software, OS in particular could easily become a public good. "The only thing more expensive than commercial software is free software" Microsoft (cited in Friedman, 2005, p. 21).

Given this conflict, for someone who is not a developer, the decision is given by free-will, total risk and benefit analysis. For those who are devoted to the Free Software Philosophy, it would be totally unacceptable. FSF inquires the freedom of software for whom and perceive this issue as important for giving more freedom to developers in the development process. However, the main purpose is to provide freedom for end-users. Therefore, developers should make sacrifices to foster end-users' freedom. That is the reason copyleft exists. For someone who is pragmatic, it is a great opportunity to obtain more benefits from FOSS movements because permissive licences do provide the widest freedom for FOSS movements. It could be understood as widest freedom for developers and not necessarily for the software and end-users. In this sense, it will be misleading to conclude that software based on permissive licenses is less free than software based on copyleft, but it is right to conclude that software based on permissive licenses provide less freedom than software based on copyleft in terms of liberating software. Theoretically, since both of them are part of the FOSS movements, the most important point is the developers' choice to choose both/either Freedom of Developers, Freedom of Codes and/or Freedom of End-Users.

Contrary to popular belief; philosophies of FOSS do not restrict commercial benefit. Nowadays, there are many international corporations that use FOSS business models, such as Red Hart. These corporations have run business models without restriction of freedom of end-users. In a general sense, comparison of different open source licenses can be seen from the literature. Nowadays, there are around five hundred basic Linux distros. When it is considered derivative distributions with a variety of needs and purposes, there are thousands of Linux distros available. Among GNU/Linux distros, the most Linux influences are: Ubuntu, RedHat, Debian, SuSE/ Novell, Arch, Gentoo to mention a few.

So, WHAT are the POTENTIALS of FOSS for EDUCATION and STATE? It is indisputable that software changes so many times before any student graduates from school. Therefore, digital literacy does not provide a teaching and learning environment for ensuring skills of particular applications; rather it is a lifelong learning of technology in which FOSS would be "(a) Offering new approaches to teaching and learning, specifically enabling personalized learning and enhanced learner voice, (b) Enabling knowledge sharing and collaboration between teachers, and (c) Overcoming structural divides between developers of educational software and its users" (Dillon and Bacon, 2006, p. 7).

These reinforce the purpose of being evolvable adapters rather than routine adopters of technology (Ouedraogo, 2005). Importantly, a very old concept, Computing-Computer Science Education with FOSS has re-emerged in educational disciplines in spite of the fact that FOSS communities have emphasized it for more than four decades; with the epic refrain, do not be a pirate. "It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not." Bill Gates (2007)

Admittedly, the resource is the main difference between hardware and software innovations. Whilst hardware innovation requires a larger amount of resources, logistics and a large group of specialists through a structured coordination in a particular place, software innovation may be accomplished by a smart 18 year old student in her/his house, or a small group of programmers across the world such as FOSS communities. That is seen as a great opportunity for developing countries to improve their software market and software service industries as well as become competitive against developed/former software leaders notably, the United States, Western Europe, Japan among others (Aspray et al., 2006).

Whereas these are arguably the obvious reasons, there are far more reasons to justify why FOSS is necessary for education systems and states in the extant literature. Technology is all around us. So, when any contexts of contexts are shifted, it is essential to shift potentials of FOSS and plausible reasons for FOSS usage (Tolu, 2013).

4. Neo-Luddism

"The technologies created and disseminated by modern Western societies are out of control and desecrating the fragile fabric of life on Earth" (Glendinning, 1990, p. 82)

One of the best known quotations from Friedrich Nietzsche is "that which does not kill us makes us stronger." Nevertheless, technology has gone out of control, its scopes, nature, rationales and realities have been evidently misused and abused by many stakeholders and can be the cause of human rights violations (e.g. lawful interceptions), animal rights violations (e.g. unacceptable scientific experiments) and, consequently, demands of nature (e.g. pollutions), including unborn generations such as governments' debts for expensive and sophisticate technological projects. So, modern technology has become the base of the actuality of a realm, and it faces in contrast to the realm itself since there is no precise and ethical technological law, viz. modern obsession, compulsion and addiction in the era of "Homo SiliconvalleycuS' (Thrift, 2005, p. 151). In this sense, technology by this means ridicules the grave wisdom of its development, that being lifeless to all particular purposes, to isolated pleasure, individual satisfaction, and becomes definite in its movement as well, remembers, and thinks of, merely what is incomplete. This implies that technology makes this wisdom deadly- standard of raw and wanton infancy, and the purpose of derision and scorn, worthless of its eagerness. Technology has already proclaimed that it is in all places the power of infancy, that actually every minute counts; technology uploads this as of prime meaning; extols its singularity as the thing which is the saver and master of human being; frees itself from its dependence (human), and to achieve its satisfaction and its pride. Therefore, technology which delivers and offers pleasure to humans and sometimes suppresses demand of destruction and awful destiny originates at the moment into prominence, and is the reason of major implication and consequence. Thus, modern technology has become the progress of negation in the modern era. But why is it? According to Albert Camus,
   The seventeenth century was the century of mathematics, the
   eighteenth that of the physical sciences, and the nineteenth that
   of biology. Our twentieth century is the century of fear. I will be
   told that fear is not a science. But science must be somewhat
   involved since its latest theoretical advances have brought it to
   the point of negating itself while its perfected technology
   threatens the globe itself with destruction. Moreover, although
   fear itself cannot be considered a science, it is certainly a
   technique. (1972, p. 257)

Many contend, especially based on the knowledge of famous futurologists, Ray Kurzweil, Vernor Vinge, Michio Kaku, among others that the 21st century is the century of singularity, with less and less securities and privacies and more and more fears and hopes (e.g. the century of Turbulence, Paranoia, Esperance, Ogle, etc., to be Homo Siliconvalleycus). Therefore, in the global worlds, many people believe the separation argument to serve the future(s),--either Singularity is for US (developed societies) and/or THEM (developing societies) in a real practice or Singularity is for US (human) and/or MACHINE (un-human) in theory sounds globally irrelevant and unsustainable (anachronistic) in the long term. Enlightenment by this separation is already exhausted and well expressed in Donna Haraway's words, in her essay--"A Cyborg Manifesto,"
   A cyborg is a cybernetic organism, a hybrid of machine and
   organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature of
   fiction.... Liberation rests on the construction of the
   consciousness, the imaginative apprehension of oppression and so of
   possibility. The cyborg is a matter of fiction and lived experience
   that changes what counts as women's experience in the late
   twentieth century. This is a struggle over life and death, but the
   boundary between science fiction and social reality is an optical
   illusion." (2006, p. 117)

From this point of view, present Neo-Luddites are extremely and politically diverse groups; from environmentalists to contaminators, romantics to rationalists, academics to politicians, atheists to believers, and/or technophobes to techno-addicts. Therefore, all debates result in disagreement. Nevertheless, all of us have one particular reason(s) to be against one particular technology due to human-techno social interactions, e.g. who can agree with governments while they are watching our personal information on the internet? So, the meaning of Neo-Luddism depends on input from all stakeholders.

From this diversity, fundamentally, Neo-Luddism is "a leaderless movement of passive resistance to consumerism and the increasingly bizarre and frightening technologies of the Computer Age" (Sale, 1996). The name is derived from the British-Luddites (Legacy of Robin Hood), historical activists, who were against the introduction of technological equipment and supported simple ways of life in the 1800s. Neo-Luddism is essentially connected with the concept that technology has an undesirable and harmful influence on beings and nature due to unknown future effects. For example, human nature has learnt that there are always enemies, even, ourselves, that create uncertainty. "If our 'dark side' reminds us that what our conscious mind rejects is very much alive deep within us; and if we want to live without having to juggle such contradictory qualities, how can we do so?" (Shaffer, 2012) Technology has an extrinsic potential to be a timid tyrant and disease because of its uncertain immorality and amorality and so its unclear irrationality and incomprehensibility; typical of conventional antagonisms between known (conscious) and unknown (unconscious) uncertainties. Therefore, the main concern from Neo-Luddites is how to ensure that technology will solve human related issues such as socio-environmental ones without creating relatively dangerous issues such as global warming.

Neo-Luddites are sensitive to globalizations and the ambiguous friend, technology, and all of their outcomes including climate change and cyber wars to mention a few. In this sense, the perspectives of Neo-Luddites are widely misunderstood as against all technology when essentially; they are not against technology at all except that they have precise criteria for technological satisfaction. In 1990, Glendinning presented the "Notes towards a Neo-Luddite Manifesto" to clarify what Neo-Luddism is,

a) "Neo-Luddites are not anti-technology," but against particular technologies which are "fundamentally destructive to human lives and communities," and ideas of rationalism and materialism which deemphasize "human potentials and social progress."

b) "All technologies are political" and against uncertain technological positions (philosophies). Technology may be "good" (e.g. seat belt) or "evil" (e.g. gun) and for these reasons, it may not be "neutral." Technology is shaped, in particular, within social contents for particular purposes in the interest of any values of a technological society; "short term efficiency, ease of production, distribution and marketing and profit potential or warmaking." These values have culminated in inert of "social system institutions" in which an individual has no control / power upon the system.

c) "The personal view of technology is dangerously limited," to be against the belief that technology advances individual life towards individual needs and desires, rather than focusing on extensive social, economic and ecological consequences of technological systems.

Within this scope, Glendinning further suggested that Neo-Luddites agree to,

a) "The dismantling of destructive technologies" such as nuclear, chemical and genetic engineering, electromagnetic technologies, television and computer technologies "which cause disease and death in their manufacture and use, enhance centralized political power, and remove people from direct experience of life."

b) "A search for new technological form," to reject "autonomous technology and the creation of the technologies that are of a scale and structure that make them understandable to the people who use them and are affected by them;" and to be in favor of the creation of technologies which are both "built with a high degree of flexibility so that they do not impose a rigid and irreversible imprint on their users, and foster independence from technological addiction and promise political freedom, economic justice, and ecological balance."

Indeed, it can be strongly argued that the two issues enumerated above are exactly the reasons why FOSS exists even though the scope of FOSS is much broader than just these objectives. Other equally important reasons concern:

c) "The creation of technologies in which politics, morality, ecology, and techniques are merged for the benefit of life on Earth," in particular "community-based energy sources utilizing solar, wind, and water technologies which are renewable and enhance both community relations and respect for nature; organic, biological technologies in agriculture, engineering, architecture, art, medicine, transportation, and defense which derive directly from natural models and systems; conflict resolution technologies, which emphasize cooperation, understanding, and continuity of relationship; and decentralized social technologies, which encourage participation, responsibility, and empowerment."

d) "The development of a life-enhancing worldview in Western technological societies." The human role, not as the dominator of other species and planetary biology, but as integrated into the natural world with appreciation for the sacredness of all life. (pp. 82-88)

From this point, Neo-Luddites are not willing to destroy and/or take a hammer to all technologies, and thus to stop technological developments; they more readily focus on technological threats, human and natures vulnerabilities, thereby their intention is slowing technological acceleration to work in parallel with the understanding of impact on human and nature. Nevertheless, people are willing to see the same realities as within the real world when communicating with the computer worlds. But what do psychoanalysts think about this? According to Petrina et al. (2004), in ICT trends, there are four main elements; "technologies," "modalities," "practices" and "corporate formations." This divergence has been raising further moral questions: "civil rights," "civil liberties" and "human rights." Technology touches and shakes us up in many ways while we do not inquire how they came to exist. Whilst technology becomes increasingly dominant in today's worlds; it is difficult to ignore how our rights are influenced by technological moral rationalities. Therefore, there are arguably new moral concerns that should be carefully considered in emerging technology, "If artificial agent is only a mean and is not responsible for its own actions, then is the responsible one its designer, its producer or its user? ... As fast as technology is moving forward, new and specific moral questions arise. I believe we need to deal with these questions before it might cause any irreversible damages." (Prokesova, 2011, p. 84)

5. Argumentation

"We are living through a movement from an organic industrial society to a polymorphous information system--from all work to all play, a deadly game." (Haraway, 1985, p.128)

Concerning the above points, modern technology is conceived in an anthropomorphic form; "everything' in this manner is claimed to be "usefully" necessity for technology because it's an angle of inclination is polymorphous; because if "'everything is permitted' does not mean that nothing is forbidden" by Camus (1955, p. 44) that highlights the absurdity between our slavering and liberating actions without authorizing itself. Nevertheless, what will happen if our deadly technology (PCSS) betrays us? Perhaps we will come to a new understanding in every feasible way, to compromise on what "technology," "designers," "producers," "end-users," should be! But, is there a tipping point in the contingent diversity of constitutions and capacities in techno-human social interactions? In this sense, more specifically, the question has become "should Neo-Luddites stand against PCSS and for FOSS?" Or should every "technical artifact" or "system" be accepted to symbolize its constituents in the identical way for their own publics? (See, Brown, 2007) According to Doctorow, "Technological revolutions are never bloodless. The Luddites had a goddamned good point, somewhere in there. A just dividend from automation and higher productivity means that those with surplus-to-requirements skills don't starve. That their children don't starve. That their houses aren't taken from them. That their lives aren't ruined by the thing that saves us from drudgery" (2013b).

Many believe that the initial issues of techno-politics are driven in the name of "copyright" through its trusted relationships between stakeholders. In the computer worlds, everything is copied, e.g. no loading on the internet or no reading from a file in computers; actually everything is simply copying. Therefore, there is no copyright policy, because copyright policy is primarily meant to be the internet policy, and so it became just a policy. It attempts to regulate every aspect of our lives when there is no online and offline difference. So, these arguments raised the questions of how and why trustworthiness should progress to establish an on-going verifiability for the century of singularity. Doctorow asks a variety of interdependent issues, under the subject of how little we know about computers and ourselves and who is governing digital trust. On the digital era, there is an awkward imbalance between "creativity," "culture" and "relationship," such as between audiences and the creator; the future of ideas and artist; owners and pirates among others. In the view of Doctorow (2012), "property maximalism," as, "Owners" versus pure "Users:" (a) Users Know ("The user of a device should be able to know which software is running on their devices". (b) Owners Know ("The owner of a device should be able to know which software in running on their devices." (c) Owners Control ("The owner of a device should be able to control which software in running on their devices.") and (d) Users Control ("The user of a device should be able to control which software in running on their devices." Many scholars only support (d) "user's control," because both the owners of products cannot spy on the end-users just as the end-users of products cannot spy on other end-users (ibid.). Nevertheless, the current LAWS do not reflect this reality. Doctorow (2011a) elaborates that Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) requires end-users not to control their own computers. For instance, if a particular software is installed on a mobile phone without authorization to investigate hidden risks and vulnerabilities, it is an exact crime commensurate to a "jailbreak" product. So, it is illegal to get the key in Digital Right Management (DRM) to see how the system works. It is also illegal to share the key to others if we manage to find potential flaws and/or wrongs in the system (e.g. Sony anti-customer technology roundup). Even if we found that something is wrong (legally illegal), we are committing a further criminal act. Thus, we all have to behave and act as if there are no flaws in our computers worlds.

"What's Important is Not Me. And It's Not You. It's Us! 'If you want to live forever, make yourself the most interesting person to your children'" (Brin, 2012). It seems in the world of computers, every child becomes a rebel (criminal) especially when they try to challenge their parents with technology or attempt to "copy" what they learnt from those parents (technology). Arguably, technology is currently the most interesting thing to children. So, in general terms, Boyle argues that copyright term limits are now absurdly long in relation to speed of technological advancement. There are many instances where the erosion of copyright formalities have had massive unintended negative "effects in the online context, for example, but the maximalist 'rights culture' seems to be oblivious to all of them" (2004, pp. 6-7). Doctorow constantly calls this debate "the coming civil war over general purpose computing" and states that "even if we win the right to own and control our computers, a dilemma remains: what rights do owners owe users?" (2011a)

"Lockdown" or typical product add on such as Trusted Platform Module (TPM), as in Apple computers do not always operates in the way that we want them to. For example, it runs with daemons when we do not launch them in the first place and may not have the right to know what it launches and it could stop us from launching something we want to launch such as attempting to determine our own products and " Uncertainty of Certainty" "It (e.g. TPM) can faithfully report the signature on any other bootloaders it finds and it lets you make up your own damn mind about whether you want to trust any or all of the above" (ibid). Software in our computers politely asks us whether or not we wish to run them; it provides free choice but does not reveal the level of "certainty" for additional permissions such as hyper-individualized surveillance just like big brother (information about information as meta-data) even when this is overtly stated in the terms and conditions but who has the time to read these extensive documents?

"Human Rights" ("If your world is made of computers, then designing computers to override their owners' decisions has significant human rights implications." Nevertheless, there are no secrets in the digital worlds; surveillance is everywhere, controlling and restricting how our thoughts and discourses are shared and "Property Rights" ("Once you buy something, it belongs to you, and you should have the freedom to do anything you want with it even if that hurts the vendor's income") (ibid). Nevertheless, we bought it, but we do not have the ownership rights. We are just renters of what we bought, based on the product's terms and conditions. Both human rights and property rights require that computers are not envisaged for examination by off-site supervision by International NGOs, Governments, Corporations, etc. Both rights ensure that owners of computers are the only authorized end-users. However, there is always global "nevertheless" by current techno-politics.

Regarding this, what is important? "A community will evolve only when a people control their own communication" Frantz Fanon (1925-1961). According to Nihilists, there is no meaning in terms of objectives, purposes and or intrinsic values in our existentialism. When we are born, we start to die, which means life is simply "death." Many believe this is wrong. According to Biologists, when we are born we go through life stages until 20% of the average life span and then we start to die. So, we can learn from this cycle to change our existentialism (see, Eternal Return Theory from Nietzsche), nevertheless there is another nevertheless, because the current (de-facto) techno-politics is for cybernetic capitalism which "develops so as to allow the social body, devastated by Capital, to reform itself and offer itself up for one more process of accumulation. On the one hand capitalism must grow, which implies destruction. On the other, it needs to reconstruct the 'human community,' which implies circulation" (Tiqqun, 2010, p. 21). So, we need more elaborations for techno-politics.

6. Cyber-Luddism

"One of the definitions of sanity, itself, is the ability to tell real from unreal. Shall we need a new definition?" Toffler (1970, p. 125)

With the Toffler's quotation, are there any differences between Cyber-Luddite and Neo-Luddite? The author believes there are. The author personally respects the principles of Neo-Luddites and Luddites; however we are in the digital era and so Neo-Luddites need to, once again, realign themselves with certain realities. Many believe the argument that ordinary human health is sufficient for human beings needs and desires is irrelevant in the century of Singularity. On the contrary, one is therefore interested in variable cyborg possibilities. We can produce a better, faster and safer car; we can improve our sight without outmoded glasses. Modifying the human brain and body to achieve advancements beyond what is currently possible is acceptable, possible, and so necessary ("Necessity is the mother of invention" by Plato), because the human brain and body (social-cultural beliefs) have evolved to appreciate the possibilities and advantages of what humans can (for the author should) do. It does not mean that if we push ourselves to terminate technological blindness, that we will never appreciate ordinary pleasures, as Neo-Luddites have been arguing. The issue with Neo-Luddites beliefs is twofold; they blame technology rather than the negative purpose or its usage; they do not seek compromise and neither do they offer alternative solutions that can be reasonably applied in this century. Many already believe that the human brain and body (mentally & physically upgradeable) needs to evolve it's evaluation of technology (FOSS). Nevertheless, there is no answer for the question of that how far human can (for the author should) go, and as still be a human. Therefore, globally, scholars realize that better technology has uncertain negative side effects which include computer-assisted anarchy, fecund chaos, among others because there is no free individuality with respect to each other in techno-human social interactions. Thus, there are always "what if scenarios"! Therefore, we should (for the author can) continually research these uncertainties. In this sense, what is crucial is, "The new education must teach the individual how to classify and reclassify information, how to evaluate its veracity, how to change categories when necessary, how to move from the concrete to the abstract and back, how to look at problems from a new direction--how to teach himself. Tomorrow's illiterate will not be the man who can't read; he will be the man who has not learned how to learn." Toffler (1970, p. 211)

Steve Mann originated Cyborg-Luddism. According to Mann (2001), we are cyborgs in many ways because we have already bought into many technologies; and so now, the question is how to build these technologies with respect to natural world around us and natural structures. In other words, Mann highlights harmonization of humans and technology for improved nature and nurture, because technology over nature is unsustainable and reckless. Mann thereby uses Humanistic Intelligence (HI) instead of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for alerting us to unknown future(s). He does not claim that we should replace humans with computers. Therefore, HI has six basic signals; (a) "Un-monopolizing of the user's attention," (b) "Unrestrictive to the users," (c) "Observable by the user," (d) "Controllable by the user," (e) "Attentive to the environment" and (f) "Communicative to others." Essentially, it seems these factors are already consistent with FOSS philosophies.

Mann further argues that, in HI, the main argument of Surveillance Environments (watching from up and over, as artifactual-centric) is how to improve smart technology! As opposed to Sousveillance Environments (watching from down and below, as human-centric), is how to improve smart people! Actually, to some extent, Mann's argument has become real especially when taking photos and videos of government officials and posting them on the internet constitute a method of citizens protesting government surveillance. The problem is therefore not only a big brother one; there are also little brothers (anyone). Therefore, we have to know how to protect ourselves in the future.

As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more of their decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won't be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide. (Joy, 2000)

From these arguments, according to Boyle, the past, current and future issues fundamentally are the same; we have a lot to learn from environmentalists who have so many pertinent points, probably to save the world. So we need to create Ecological Environments in which NGOs, activists, scholars and others collaborate to solve many issues through many different angles; instead of just believing technology itself, which is simply controlling us. Therefore, we have to take power to control our worlds. In this regard, it is essential to get a sense of another (techno-political) manifesto, as NeoLuddite Manifesto to expand Cyber-Luddism (a new NSM) in particularly for the real practices. Boyle published "A Manifesto on World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Future of Intellectual Property" in which Intellectual-Property Policy must adopt seven principles: "Balance" (between the realm of protected material and the public domain common technology is for all, no privilege should be taken); "Proportionality" (imposes costs as well as benefits on the public, commerciality should not be something just for profit); "Development Appropriateness" (a counterforce to the tendency to impose one size fits all solutions, there is always a level of variation in technology); "Participation and Transparency" (increase the participation of civil society groups in the discussion and debate, embrace various human related concerns as much as possible); "Openness to Alternatives and Additions" (methods of encouraging and organizing innovation, ethically, we should not ignore the need for technology to provide solutions for the terminally ill, including those who cannot pay); "Embracing the Net as a Solution, Rather than a Problem" (WIPO should establish a standing committee which focuses on two key issues: the barriers that traditional intellectual property erects against global educational and cultural access, we need to establish a new media to focus on the opportunity of the internet, not its techno-political threats); and "Neutrality" (between different methods of using those rights to encourage innovation, both considering the pressure of software patents upon FOSS development and the pressure of software piracy upon PCSS development) (2004, pp. 8-11).

Nevertheless after all, what is the current reality to understand CyberLuddism?

Our movements, our speech, our emotions and even our dreams have become the informational message that is incessantly decoded, probed, and reconfigured into statistical silhouettes, serving as targets for products, services, political slogans or interventions of the police. Each of us, paradoxically, is at once the promise and the threat of the future, which itself is our Telos, our God; our Creator. And so, under the incessant scrutiny of today's surveillance technologies, Wiener's philosophical question returns in an inverse form. Can a creature play a significant game with her creator? Can we play a significant game with the cybernetic society that has created us? (Holmes, 2007)

In this sense, some publicly available information; Barack Obama believes "you can't have 100% security and then also have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience" (2013). Google says "Google on Gmail: 'No legitimate expectation of privacy,' 'Google policy is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it,' 'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. ' We know where you are. We know where you've been. We can more or less know what you're thinking about." (2013) or even know more than that. Microsoft wants "Lawful Intercept and Microsoft's 'Legal Intercept' Patent Pending Applications through Skype" (e.g. Microsoft lately claimed that they will develop a voice recognition system in which end-users will speak Mandarin and it will come out English and vice versa). Blind computers (virus) and slowing the system to sell more and to gain more profits (e.g. Microsoft lately confessed that, in Skype, the speed of the free services has been deliberately slowed down to push end-users to pay more) (e.g. PRNewswire, 2012). Microsoft has recently collaborated with the US Intelligence, in order to allow end-users' communications to be intercepted together with top secret documents from the National Security Agency, (e.g. The Guardian, 2013), etc.

Cavoukian highlights that "privacy has to be protected globally or nowhere;" "Privacy versus Security is complete nonsense. You must have privacy in order to have freedom. And you can have privacy and other functionalities" (Privacy by Design, Positive-Sum versus Surveillance by Design, Negative-Sum) (2014). On that note, "there's no shortage of anything except brains in Washington." Fresco "You can't make money from the sun." bystander "No you can't, exactly that" (Fresco, 2013).

Cyber-Luddites state we can use FOSS to fight back with the mature issues of techno-politics (e.g. pure Corporatocracy) and possible future (birth) issue of unknown technology (e.g. more Plutocracy, Meritocracy, etc.), because the principle of Cyber-Luddism is to protect new ways of life. Do not lie to us in order to control the market because we can trust you. Do not make us a rebel and criminal for asking how the system works on our computers, and in our computers worlds; viz., being in a real Democracy (to some extent for the author). Giant corporations and their corrupted friends (governments) are not interested in individual privacy; they are only interested in their own privacies (PCSS).

7. Utopia versus Dystopia (Reasoning)

"Being asked what was the most beautiful thing in the world," Diogenes Laertius replied, 'Freedom of speech.'" (Cited in Heinemann, 1925, p. 13)

Is it possible to be Cyber-Luddites using FOSS to address techno-politics (e.g. cybernetic capitalism)? Many scholars perhaps believe it is. The potential argument mirrors the first argument in support of the right to freedom of speech and expression which was started in the late 17th century in the UK. It was a controversial idea which put the instigator (William and Mary, originally the late 6th or early 5th century BC) and his supporters at considerable risk. Nevertheless, it was valid and necessary and has become reality for many developed nations to some extent. In this regard, the actual emergency involves the fact that, "the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.... a problem caused by the 'crisis of authority' of the old generations in power, and by the mechanical impediment that has been imposed on those who could exercise hegemony, which prevents them from carrying out their mission." (Gramsci, 1971, p. 556)

According to Boyle, Digital Ecology is the concept of creating digital codes and environmentalisms together in practice; by establishing friendly artificial intelligence as part of ecological environments. His vision is to form a different family within different groups through different interests but within a right culture (e.g. Knowledge Ecology as Blindness to Alternatives: In and Out of the System). Boyle puts forward this idea "to see if there was such a thing as 'the environment' rather than just my pond, your forest, his canal. Perhaps, the same recalibration is needed in the information environment because we have to 'invent' the public domain before we can save it" (2008, p. 42). This idea can be seen in the Pacific Edge, which is the third book of Kim Stanley Robinson. What is so interesting in this book is that people living in the Pacific Edge create an Ecotopia--an ecological utopia, which is against that of a commercial-industrial complex, and only claims the negative growth of development as dangerous for nature. In the utopia, technology is not a threat to kill and destroy its creator. "Utopia is the process of making a better world, the name for one path history can take, a dynamic, tumultuous, agonizing process, with no end; struggle forever" (1990, p. 95). The discourse of the Pacific Edge is in parallel with the Venus Project which "proposes a system in which automation and technology would be intelligently integrated into an overall holistic socioeconomic design, where the primary function would be to maximize the quality of life rather than profit" (Fresco 2014).

From the foregoing discussion, the principles of Sousveillance Environments with HI (by Mann) and Ecological, Digital and Knowledge Environments with Future of Intellectual Property (by Boyle) could be taken as a foundation to raise Cyber-Luddites and to create Cyber-Luddism Societies (not a Society). In this sense, this techno-politics may also refer to the literature of the eco-society in which there is a depictive civilian love and peace between human and un-human in order to theoretically and rightfully overcome the lethal needs, desires and requirements of the century of Singularity. The idea is the study of being a human and being in a community with love, which lies within the values of love and peace to create a gracious equilibrium harmony and an ethical life. In this way, there is always a positive existence limitation in negative techno-human social interactions.

The eco-society is decentralized, communitarian, and participatory. Individual responsibility and initiative really exist in it. The eco-society rests on the plurality of ideas about life, life styles and behaviours in life. The consequence of this is that equality and justice make progress. But also there is an upheaval in habits, ways of thinking, and morals. Mankind has invented a different kind of life, in a balanced society, having understood that maintaining a state of balance is more of a delicate process than maintaining a state of continual growth is. Thanks to a new vision, a new logic of complementarity, and new values, the people of eco-society have invented an economic doctrine, a political science, sociology, a technology, and a psychology of the state of controlled equilibrium. Joel de Rosnay, The Macroscope, 1975 (cited in Tiqqun, 2010, p. 29)

We need water, food, air, etc., to survive, but we also need technology to live in the current era. Many analysts believe the philosophies of FOSS and New-Luddism are to clean up technology. What kind of world(s) could we have lived or be living in if we agree to make technology something like a digital public good (with reference to safe technology). So, we need to think about patentable products again, to identify our potentials without being afraid of future Dinosaurs (Microsoft, Apple, etc.) and their intimidations and fraudulent promises as they are the only solutions to improve the current market values (efficiency, interoperability and innovation). Nevertheless, these arguments do not mean that we will solve all problems within technopolitics when we define and follow the value(s) within Cyber-Luddism; but, after all, we can design better human-techno social interactions. In this sense, the author believes this is the relationship between Cyber-Luddism and Singularity.

In summary, the philosophical questions are the same; instead of considering what we can do more, what money can buy, etc., we need to ask ourselves what we should do, what money should buy, etc. As, Heidegger argued, "... but where danger is, grows. The saving power also.... poetically dwells man upon this earth ... The closer we come to the danger, the more brightly do the ways into the saving power begin to shine and the more inquisitive we become; for questioning is the piety of thought" (1977, pp. 18-19). So, the concept is the victory of one power and the defeat of the other since that atmosphere is the equilibrium of these two. This duality of patterning has been always vested through human existentialism. In this sense, with a short term vision, we can optimistically consider FOSS, "We can build a network that is part of our freedom or part of our oppression ... I want a free and fair world.... There is no way to fight oppression without free devices and free networks" (Doctorow, 2013c). On the other hand, we can pessimistically consider the PCSS view; giant corporations will continue to control and regiment the masses towards their wills without any awareness through Corporatocracy with PCSS. "If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control the masses according to our will without their knowledge? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible at least up to a certain point and within certain limits," (Bernays, 1928, p. 47). Nevertheless, there will always be minority group(s) like Neo-Luddism and FOSS supporters. Therefore, there will be strange conversations between people who fundamentally do not trust Corporatocracy with PCSS. Perhaps, one possible conversation will be:

Tom: Can I use that plug?

Jerry: I am charging my laptop, charge your tool through wireless,

Tom: But I need to charge my arm, and I am already disconnected myself out of the system (untrusted/PCSS).

Jerry: And after all, you are too!

They will look at each other and laugh!

Crucially, many people believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong with nature and that nature is absolutely fine without "human" intervention (source). So, going back to the introduction, it is not only humans that want to be free sine nature also wants to be free from human unsanities! "Unsane" is a term used by Fresco, who is a renaissance man, to define people, who essentially are not rational and responsible because they have not been exposed to the right ideas yet. Unsane is not insane, which would be to be conclusively irrational and irresponsible. Unsanity leads the knowledge & education argument as "life is not determined by consciousness but consciousness by life" consistent to the views of Karl Marx (1845, p. 6) that historical and social interactions create particular ideas, as unsanity (e.g. current markets believers)! "The majority of the people of the world today are unsane, not insane, unsane meaning having been exposed to methods of evaluation" (Fresco, 2013)

8. Concluding Remarks

"Only after the last tree has been cut down. Only after the last river has been poisoned. Only after the last fish has been caught. Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten." Cree Indian Prophecy

The philosophies of FOSS and Neo-Luddism are a starting point rather than an end to pick up important lessons from human nurture (intellects) to cure (some) human unsanities (not insanities)! (E.g. Cree Indian Prophecy) The paradox of the 21st century is that everything is global after all, but there are still understandable concerns and considerations for de-globalization (nationalisms). Nevertheless, "there will be no option for some to win and some to lose: we all will win or we all will lose. Now we must collaborate as if we are members of a single planetary tribe" (Ellyard, 2009), e.g. the International Air Traffic Control System, we collaborate to avoid air incidents whilst flying! It seems that instead of saying "my enemy's enemy (PCSS) is my friend," we should say "my friend's friend (FOSS) is my friend." Nevertheless, what is clear is that,

Monsters have always defined the limits of community in Western imaginations.... There are several consequences to taking seriously the imagery of cyborgs as other than our enemies. Our bodies, ourselves; bodies are maps of power and identity. Cyborgs are no exception. A cyborg body is not innocent; it was not born in a garden; it does not seek unitary identity and so generate antagonistic dualisms without end (or until the world ends); it takes irony for granted.... The machine is not an 'it' to be animated, worshipped, and dominated. The machine is us, our processes, an aspect of our embodiment. We can be responsible for machines; they do not dominate or threaten us. We are responsible for boundaries; we are they." (Haraway, 2006, p. 146)

To be realistic, in technology (e.g. cyborg), software sells hardware in general purpose computing! And standards in technology are only applied to software and formats. In other words, it is impossible to have an ongoing accurate "policy" and "strategy" in hardware and telecommunication technologies, but it may be possible to have an on-going sensitive and delicate "vision." Therefore, technology "policies" and "strategies" are meant to be mostly software "policies" and "strategies" in any state. Besides, technology in education is also meant to be establishing teaching and learning environments by, with, and through "software," with the exception of some, but not all, branches of technical and vocational secondary education.

Software is one of the most evolvable phenomena in our modern time, and a form of fragmentary digital good but clearly distinguishable as two families; FOSS and PCSS. Through history, the FOSS literature rightfully asks end-users to decide which software family they want to use. They are provided with choices and yet, FOSS argues they have not yet explored the question; because, they are either not aware of FOSS and or, they are not enabled with an awareness of FOSS and may not be allowed to choose FOSS. This argument raises some need-to-know questions about the software decision-making process and our collective "choices" in education systems and states. However, the freedom of software choice is ostensible or, at least irrational (Tolu, 2014). The identification of end-users with the purpose of controlling their actions as customers and consumers developed the foundation of what Holmes (2011) titled Neilsenism, an analysis of societies as a cybernetic system based on informational movements as controlling loops.

In education systems and states, the software choice requires a combination of various resources owned by different actors, which includes clients of PCSS, but also actors, who are decision-makers, in where mutual dependants are not equally divided across parties and the local decisionmakers which might include teachers, directors, supervisors who control limited resources and are influenced by internal and external factors and the decisions of other actors. The interactions between actors are not really clear through the history because the internal and external factors depend on the power of the contents. The literature argues

that the obstacles are technological, political, economical and social, not really (and never been) psychological, not as I like it and so it is my choice.

It is a question, in other words, of fixing the limits of freedom of discussion and propaganda, a freedom which should not be conceived of in the administrative and police sense, but in the sense of a self-limitation which the leaders impose on their own activity, or, more strictly, in the sense of fixing the direction of cultural policy. In other words--who is to fix the 'rights of knowl edge' and the limits of the pursuit of knowledge? And can these rights and limits indeed be fixed?" (Gramsci, 1971, p. 653)

Nevertheless, up to now, for the complex relationship between governments and PCSS nothing is clarified yet and everything is disorganized by the popular beliefs and fake populism and entirely force contrast between the trinity of techno-politics into education systems and so states through interests of PCSS. In particular, Microsoft platforms currently compel us in this system to realize more and more intensely than ever and the attractive stroke permeates itself in front of us like a delicate spider's web (for more profits and controls). Mistaken but stimulated in-equalization between FOSS and PCSS is not so ironic when technological acceleration is taken into account; because, governments have not been smarter buyers, negotiators and consumers of ICT goods and services while PCSS is our new archenemy in the modern structures.

At this juncture, any attempt to distinguish FOSS and PCSS and then "theoretically" and "technologically" claim that either one of them is the "best" might be wrong, incoherent and uninteresting because, they are both under-going technological changes and developments. Fastidious political, administrative and educational dimensions naturally fall behind and miss a deadline in this hardly predictable alteration. Now, perceiving FOSS as an alternative to PCSS from a socio-economic perspective and exploring their chosen reasons in educational institutions and states may provide more meaningful contributions to academic and social disciplines. Thus, it is essential to make distinctions between two interlinked concepts. This paper does not seek to clarify what exactly they are or how they are supposed to be conceptualized; it on highlights how these two are intricately interdependent.

(a) "ICT education" and

(b) "ICT in state(s)"

For (a), the author supports to be a Hard-Cyber-Luddite who strictly believes and supports the merger and confluence of FOSS and Neo-Luddism. Admittedly, from the first computer until now, the computer has become an indispensable artefact of "modern" human life, associated with other technological developments. As a result of the use of computers in learning and teaching activities, various terminologies such as computer-based education and computer-assisted education have emerged. The terminologies commonly used in the discipline are open to debate because of our understanding of ICT and education. The question of what ICT is in an educational system depends on how ICT is shaped into it. In other words, it is arguable that ICT is a tool for educational purposes; a medium and a connector for establishing learning beyond schools; and opens up access to educational contents; and an accelerator, not a driver, for taking advantages of ICT within and through pedagogies (Miles, et al., 2012) and/or much more than what ICT is, as it is defined, actually its connections and relationships within societies and its own creative environments such as concerns of neoluddites. As it is argued in the relative literature (e.g. Actor Network Theory), technology cannot be a simple educational tool; it is more likely a viable cell, which is shaped by and shape to societies. Therefore, to be in the modern world, certain technology should be given and taught to certain students; by approaching certain ways of thinking how to approach technology and develop its certain pedagogies (e.g. Raspberry Pi Computers). [Either ... or V]"aluing the other of both human and non-human nature should be the basis for developing design projects in technology education" (Pavlova, 2008, p. 128).

For (b), the author supports to be a Soft-Cyber-Luddite who still believes and supports the merger of FOSS and Neo-Luddism; but, realizes it is neces sary to be flexible when the concept is technology. FOSS is not a silver bullet or a panacea for all of our problems in techno-human social interactions. The author believes FOSS is the potential option to liberate the power of technology, to solve many human and human related social and environmental issues. Nevertheless, FOSS is only a solution, driven by a single evolvable value, not values, to fight Corporatocracy. We can trust governments and non-governments based systems if and only if, the system is FOSS although concerns such as the security of FOSS libraries, etc. will be raised. Therefore, FOSS is not to provide equality for all, we must have appropriate knowledge; but, rather FOSS provides fairness for all. It is a naive perspective to think and expect all markets to employ FOSS without international or national forces; therefore, the aims of states should be clear, in particular for techno-politics. We can build a system in which we can trust each other, because after all, we do trust technological systems more than fallible humans, in particular, when the concept is the general control (technique as the Camus's quotation as the fear of any threat with less states,), because [same as above] "being a powerful means of cognition and transformation of the world, science and technology are capable of tracking the most sophisticated problems faced by humanity" (Guishiani, 1979, p. 146).

In this respect, presenting different standpoints (hard-soft) does not suggest confusion. These arguments may be controversial to some extent, in particular within undeniable prevailing market realities. For example, without money (capital), the right vision is just another hallucination! Consequently, we need to be realistic, as opposed to most governments that appear to satisfy themselves with a sort of metaphysical Don Quixotism, or, at least, Sentimentalism; that being a fanciful idealist, without any grounded rationality for valuing PCSS. Therefore, this paper attempts to an activist stance, espousing both beliefs of optimism (the worst will be prevented, so improving the alternatives) and pessimism (the worst will be allowed, continuing to use more inappropriate technology). Many people believe what is a "bad" or a "good" idea in science is not only dependent on its own opportunities and challenges, but also dependent on why we are doing this; the reasoning behind the "idea" (e.g. hubris of PCSS). While "democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife" from John Dewey (1980, p. 139), there is no attention and or motivation to hone the definition of human-techno social interactions, not least in the short term, whilst the public remains un-knowledgeable and/or ignorant of this deliberate omission, because, "A little knowledge is more successful than complete knowledge: it conceives things as simpler than they are, thus resulting in opinions that are more comprehensible and persuasive." (Nietzsche, 1876, p. 578) "The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion." (Bernays, 1928, p. 92) Therefore, the current techno-politics is poised as, "for so long as we go on focusing this debate on artists, creativity, and audiences--instead of free speech, privacy, and fairness--we'll keep making the future of society as a whole subservient to the present-day business woes of one industry" (Doctorow, 2011b).


Aspray, W., Mayadas, F., and Vardi, M.Y. (2006), "Globalization and Offshoring of Software," A Report of the ACM Job Migration Task Force, Association for Computing Machinery Advancing Computing as a Science & Profession.

Bernays, E. (1928), "Propaganda," Retrieved 19/06/2014 from /b/bernays.pdf.

Blumer, H.G. (1969), "Collective Behaviour," in A. McClung Lee (ed.), Principles of Sociology. New Y ork, NY: Barnes and Noble.

Boyle, J. (2004), "A Manifesto on WIPO and the Future of Intellectual Property," Duke L. & Tech. Rev. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1113&context=dltr.

Boyle, J. (2008), The Public Domain: Enclosing of the Commons of the Mind, Yale University Press. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from publicdomain1 .pdf.

Brin, D. (2012), "What's Important Is Not Me. And It's Not You. It's Us!" Retrieved 19/06/2014 from, the time is in 42.00.

Brown, M.B. (2007), "Can Technology Represent Their Public?" Technology in Society 29: 327-338.

Buechler S.M. (1995), "New Social Movement Theories," The Sociological Quarterly 36(3): 441-464.

Butler, S. (1863), "Darwin Among the Machines," written anonymously in the Christchurch. New Zealand Press. Reprinted in The Notebooks of Samuel Butler at Project Gutenberg in 2004. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from http://www.guten berg. org/ebooks/6173.

Camus, A. (1955), The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays. Justin O'Brien, trans. New York: Vintage Books.

Camus, A. (1972), Neither Victims Nor Executioners. Dwight Macdonald, trans. Chicago World Without War Publications.

Cavoukian, A. (2014), "Data, Data Everywhere--The Need for Big Privacy in a World of Big Data," 15th Annual Privacy and Security Conference. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from Reboot%20-%20Keynote%20(Final).pdf.

Collins, D. (2000), Management Fads and Buzzwords: Critical-Practical Perspectives. London: Routledge.

Dewey, J. (1980), The Middle Works of John Dewey, Volume 10, 1899-1924: Journal Articles, Essays, and Miscellany Published in the 1916-1917 (Collected Works of John Dewey), edited by Jo Ann Boydston with an Introduction by Lewis E. Hahn, Southern Illinois University.

Dillon, T., and Bacon, S. (2006), "The Potential of Open Source Approaches for Education," Futurelab Innovation in Education. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from ource_report.pdf.

Doctorow, C. (2004), Microsoft Research DRM talk. This talk was originally given to Microsoft's Research Group and other interested parties from within the company at their Redmond offices. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from http://crap

Doctorow, C. (2011a), "The Coming Civil War over General Purpose Computing," Retrieved 19/06/2014 from lockdown.html.

Doctorow, C. (2011b), "Cory Doctorow: It's Time to Stop Talking About Copyright," Locusonline. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from Perspectives/2011/11/cory-doctorow-its-time-to-stop-talking-about-copyright/.

Doctorow, C. (2012), "What's Inside the Box," Locusonline. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from

Doctorow, C. (2013a), "Information Doesn't Want to Be Free. People Do," Medium. com, Retrieved 19/06/2014 from

Doctorow, C. (2013b), "Ten Years On," Locusonline, Retrieved 19/06/2014 from

Doctorow, C. (2013c), "The Sleeping Policeman: DRM Is Not Harmless," Jenny Arch. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from

Durrani, N. (2007), "Jacque Fresco on The Future," Forbes. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from http://www. forbes. com/2007/10/13/j acque-fresco-prediction-tech-future07cx_1015fresco.html.

Ellyard, P. (2009), "The G20 Summit: This Time We Are All on the Same Side and We Will Put the Planet First," Designing 2050. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from

Eyerman, R., and Jamison, A. (1991), Social Movement: A Cognitive Approach. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.

Fresco, J. (2013), "Jacque Fresco & the Venus Project: Future by Design," Dedroidify. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from

Fresco, J. (2014), "Venus Project." Retrieved 19/06/2014 http://www.thevenus

Friedman, T. (2005), The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

Gates, B. (2007), "How Microsoft Conquered China," Fortune Magazine. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from 2007/07/23/100134488/index.htm.

Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2008), "Diverse Economies: Performative Practices for 'Other Worlds,'" Human Geography 32(5): 613-632.

Glendinning, C. (1990), "Notes towards a Neo-Luddite Manifesto," Untre Reader 38(1): 82-88. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from

Google (2013), "Google on Gmail: 'No Legitimate Expectation' of Privacy," UPI. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from Google-on-Gmail-No-legitimate-expectation-of-privacy/UPI-50661376550 000/#ixzz32jnvuo9S.

Guardian (2013), "Microsoft Handed the NSA Access to Encrypted Messages," The Guardian. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from 2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-data.

Gramsci, A. (1971), Selections from The Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Edited and translated by Hoare, Q. and Smith, G. N. London: Lawrence & Wishart.

Guishiani, J. M. (1979), "Management and Technological Change," Technology in Society 1(2): 137-146.

Haraway, D. (2006), "A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology and Socialist Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century," in J. Weiss et al. (eds.), The International Handbook of Virtual Learning Environments. Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Springer, 117-158. Reprinted from Socialist Review 1985, 80: 65-108.

Heidegger, M. (1977), The Question Concerning Technology, 3-35. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from /05/question_concerning_technology.pdf.

Heinemann, W. (1925), Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophies. Vol. 2. R. D. Hicks, trans. London. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from http://homepages.gac. edu/~arosenth/265/Diogenes_Testimonials.pdf.

Hess, D.J. (2005), "Technology- and Product-Oriented Movements: Approximating Social Movement Studies and STS," Science, Technology and Human Values 30(4): 515-535.

Holmes, B. (2007), "Future Map or: How the Cyborgs Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Surveillance," Deriva Continental. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from http://

Holmes, B. (2011), "Ten Postulates for Technopolitics," Deriva continental. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from

Hoyt, J. K. (1896), The Cyclopaedia of Practical Quotations. Funk & Wagnalls Co. Revised edn.

Joy, B. (2000), "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us," Wired. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from

Lanier, J. (2012), "Learning by Experience & Play." Retrieved 19/06/2014 from the time is in the 28-29 minutes.

Langman, L. (2005), "From Virtual Public Spheres to Global Justice: A Critical Theory of Internetworked Social Movements," Sociological Theory 23(1): 4274.

Langman, L., and Morris, D. (2005), "Networks of Dissent: A Typology of Social Movements in a Global Age," Information Technology Education and Society 6(2): 5-25.

Mann, S. (2001), "Wearable Computing: Towards Humanistic Intelligence," Intelligent Systems, IEEE, Vol. 16(3): 100-108.

Marx, K. (1845), The German Ideology. Part I: Feuerbach. Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook, A. Idealism and Materialism.

Miles, B., Bernadette, B., Steven, C., Deepwell, M., Jennings, D., Schmoller, S., Slater, J., Twining, P., and Webb, J. (2012), "Better Learning through Technology." A report from the SchoolsTech Conversation run by Naace and ALT between January and March 2012. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from uk/2012/07/better-learning-through-technology-report/.

Moon, J.Y., and Sproull L. (2000), "Essence of Distributed Work: The Case of Linux Kernel," First Monday 5(1). Retrieved 19/06/2014 from http://first monday. org/oj s/index. php/ fm/ article/ view/801/710.

Morozov, E. (2011), The Net Delusion: How Not to Liberate The World. London: Penguin Group.

Nietzsche, F. (1876/1984), Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits. Marion Faber and Stephen Lehmann, trans. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Obama, B. (2013), "Obama on NSA Surveillance: Can't Have 100% Security and 100% Privacy," RT Question More. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from usa/obama-surveillance-nsa-monitoring-385/.

Pavlova, M. (2009), "Conceptualisation of Technology Education within the Paradigm of Sustainable Education," International Journal of Technology and Design Education 19(2): 109-132.

Peters, M. A. (2013), "Radical Openness: Creative Institutions, Creative Labor and the Logic of Public Organization in Cognitive Capitalism," Knowledge Cultures 1(2): 47-72.

Petrina, S., Wolk, K., and Kim, S. (2004), "Technology and Right," International Journal of Technology and Design Education 14(3): 181-204.

Poster, M. (1995), The Second Media Age. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Prokesova, E. (2011), "What Is Moral Agency of Artificial Agents?," Beyond AI: Interdisciplinary Aspects of Artificial Intelligence. Proceedings of extended abstracts presented at The International Conference Beyond AI 2011 Pilsen, Czech Republic, December 8-9.

PRNewswire (2012), "Voip-Pal.Com Inc.'s Lawful Intercept and Microsoft's 'Legal Intercept' Patent Pending Applications Are Remarkably Similar," PRNewswire. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from applications-are-remarkably-similar-177242401.html.

Ouedraogo, D.L. (2005), Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) and the Millennium Development, Policies of United Nations System Organizations Towards the Use of Open Source Software (OSS) for Development. Geneva, United Nations.

Sale, K. (1996), "America's New Luddites," Le Monde diplomatique. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from

Shaffer, B. (2012), "The Importance of Free Minds," Retrieved 19/06/2014 from

St. Amant, K., and Still, B. (2007), Handbook of Research on Open Source Software: Technological, Economic, and Social Perspectives. Idea Group Inc.

Stallman, R. (1996), "What Is Free Software?" Free Software Foundation. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from

Stallman, R. (2002), Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from

Stallman, R. (2007), "Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software," Free Software Foundation. Retrieved 19/06/2014 open-source-misses-the-point.en.html.

Stephenson, N. (2002), Cryptonomicon, the New York Times Bestseller, HarperCollins Publishers. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from others/stephenson/honeypot.shtml.

Tarrow, S. (1998), Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politic. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tiqqun (2010), The Cybernetic Hypothesis. The Anarchist Library Anti-Copyright. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from tiqqun-the-cybernetic-hypothesis.pdf.

Thrift, N. (2005), Knowing Capitalism. London-Thousand Oaks-New Delhi: Sage.

Toffler, A. (1970), Future Shock. New York: Bantam Book / Random House.

Tolu, H. (2013), "Expendable 'Written' ICT Policies in a Digital Era, No Broken Promise," International Free and Open Source Software Law Review 5(2): 79104.

Tolu, H. (2014), "Fundamentally Flawed Software Policy to Design Microsoft-ed Education Systems in Turkey," Journal of Free Software & Free Knowledge 1(3): 1-9.

Raymond, E.S. (2000), The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from

Redhat (2010), "Open Source Index Ranks 2010," Redhat. Retrieved 19/06/2014 from

Robinson, K. S. (1990), Pacific Edge. New York: Tor Books.

Weber, S. (2004), The Success of Open Source. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wenger, E. (2006), Communities of Practice: A Brief Introduction. Retrieved 19/ 06/2014 from

Wheeler, A. D. (2014), "Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS)? Look at the Numbers!" Retrieved 19/06/2014 from oss_fs_why.html.

Winner, L. (1989), "The Glove Come Off: Shattered Alliances in Science and Technology Studies," in Science Wars, A. Ross (ed.), 102-5. An earlier version of this breakdown of STS can be found in Winner, L. (1989), "Conflicting Interests in Science and Technology Studies: Some Personal Reflections," Technology in Society 11: 433-438.


University of Bristol


(1.) The original discourse is that "I Can't Let You Do That, Dave" refers to the famous movie called 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) by Stanley Kubrick.

(2.) Jaron Lanier, who is one of the fathers of the virtual worlds' realities--Learning by Experience & Play, Retrieved 19/06/2014 from watch?v=F9eFZpdSeRU: the time is in the 28.00-29.00. The author personally disagrees many of Lanier's arguments, but the point he raised in here has a strong connotation.

(3.) See, Free Software Foundation, available from

(4.) See, Open Source Initiative, available from
COPYRIGHT 2014 Addleton Academic Publishers
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Tolu, Huseyin
Publication:Knowledge Cultures
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:May 1, 2014
Previous Article:Four words of privilege.
Next Article:Introduction to 'globalisation: now' special edition of knowledge cultures.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |