Wittgenstein would be rolling in his grave. Here's another argument that is parsed exactly the same way as this CyberSpace one: "Is all that is good beautiful

Wittgenstein would be rolling in his grave. Here's another argument that is parsed exactly the same way as this CyberSpace one: "Is all that is good beautiful?" As Wittgenstein would note, wonderful intellectual gymnastics, but you've essentially achieved nothing. The author doesn't understand the concept of a metaphor. No one believes there is a mystical Narnia of 1s and 0s "somewhere out there" - no one reasonable, whose opinion matters at least. CyberSpace is a way to visually describe certain perceived catastrophes, such as the internet being consolidated into public domains that restrict user rights - whether or not the catastrophes are valid is a separate debate. CyberSpace itself is a valid framework of looking at internet protocols, communities and basic rights. It doesn't necessitate other views. The author built a strawman argument by trying to invalidate CyberSpace in the "Fax Space" and "Telephone Space" argument. Okay, those two terms don't port easily, but that's only one nuanced area of discussion. Do you really believe you need to view CyberSpace as some sort of sovereign territory to understand what someone is talking about when they say the government is restricting rights? That's not the point. We know there isn't an internet continent/kingdom/nation/whathaveyou being invaded by a host of other nations trying to use it selfishly. That's missing the point. The real point is, if the government has their way, you could lose the ability to make blog posts like this. That's the reality. And whether or not you agree with this argument, that is the argument - not that the internet is being visualized as a sovereign nation of idealist hackers somewhere. The author's rant on CyberSpace is simply too literal and completely misses the point. It sounds good at first, but when you examine the real logic behind it, the author is not arguing anything that has ever really been said by notable representatives of internet communities. Taking this article's view on "CyberSpace" to it's logical extrapolation, the article must think people who argue against SOPA and PIPA are ignorant of basic linguistics. But really, the author is just being deliberately obtuse for argument's sake, or is simply ignorant of the fact that analogies are not designed to translate perfectly into concrete descriptions. You can break an analogy by stretching it too far. And this is what the author did in analyzing the use of the term "CyberSpace" - extended it too far (and much farther than it is ordinarily used), and then defeated the argument he constructed.