There's a good argument to be made about this kind of thing. This isn't it. The author starts out critiquing people who see connections between their own poli

There's a good argument to be made about this kind of thing. This isn't it. The author starts out critiquing people who see connections between their own politics and technology where no such connection exists, then proceeds to ramble through a variety of tenuously connected issues, labeling anything he doesn't like the look of as "cyber-libertarianism", then segues into a piece about neoliberalism that has no obvious connection with the text that precedes it other than an attempt to rescue his argument by wrapping it in someone else's metaphor. The really fucking annoying thing is that you can draw connections between, say, Hayek, decentralised networks and silicon valley hiring practices. You really can do this and actually be quite devastating, but the author seems to be throwing as many "boo" words in as possible (Hayek 'n' Mises, Ayn Rand because why not, the Tea Party) rather than assembling any kind of argument. He lumps Julian Assange in with the bad guy crowd, but I presume he doesn't think that leaking the activities of the US government in Iraq and around the world was some kind of right-wing plot. He says various things about the EFF, some which are true but which give an overall misleading picture by ignoring their actions which don't fit his narrative. By the time he gets to Carl Malamud, he's reduced to saying "I'm not sure he's done anything I disagree with, and I can't disagree with anything he's said, but his work is championed by libertarians so he's probably one of them". The closing paragraphs, where he talks about general principles and values, are actually pretty good! If you ignore most of the factual claims, it's a decent article. I think the author could benefit from a slightly more nuanced and informed perspective on both the technology and the attitudes of the people who use and create it though.