Well, I agree that we abuse the heck of out the "cyberspace" metaphor, and say a lot of stupid things because of that metaphor. But aside from that, there's a

Well, I agree that we abuse the heck of out the "cyberspace" metaphor, and say a lot of stupid things because of that metaphor. But aside from that, there's a lot to sneer at in this article. First, on government and the internet. It's true that "most Internet activity takes place in particular territories governed by states ... [as are] users, ... servers, ...", but so what? States are not only trying to govern what is done within their borders, they are trying to govern what is done outside their borders. If I start a server in China, and serve pirated software to users in the UK, a country I have never visited, the UK government will still try to prosecute me. But all the things within the UK are things that do not belong to me and that I do not control! I'm not taking a position here on whether they should or should not.... I'm pointing out that Micheal Lind is encouraging an even dumber mental model than "cyberspace". And it makes _perfect_ sense to say that California or the US is "extending their jurisdiction “into” cyberspace". It is _not_ the case that they have jurisdiction over everything within their borders. For an extreme and unambiguous example, the US refuses to take -- and forbids California from taking -- jurisdiction over my religious belief. More relevantly, as I understand it, in 1900 the US took no jurisdiction over the movement of gold, and then later they extended their jurisdiction. States (both the kind that the US is, and the kind that California is) do extend their jurisdiction from time to time (and very rarely contract it). Again, Lind is talking nonsense. As others have pointed out, people complain all the time about corporations invading abstract things. Public spaces, the classroom/academy/etc, your living room, the national news agenda... those are all "spaces" that people have complained about corporations invading, and they're not all literal spaces (and of the ones that are, at most one involves a literal physical presence). Metaphorical invasions, including of non-spatial things. Welcome to the English language, Michael Lind, are you new here? Or just disingenuous and demagogic? All in all, the bulk of this article is worse than the thing it denounces. That said, props for the mention of “A Declaration of the Interdependence of Cyberspace”, which I hadn't heard of or read, and which I think is a pretty great rant (even if I think casting aside Article 27.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights just might be a good idea). http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9236603/A_Declaration_of_the_Interdependence_of_Cyberspace http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9236603/A_Decla...