A fun editorial in the Register, UK about the potential demise of Geekdom.  The author describes the emergence of a nearly universal Geek Cannon with a fairly diverse set of philosophical roots:

It has become a culture which has amazingly strict boundaries on what you we can believe whilst still counting as a 'real geek'. Stranger still is the lack of consistency amongst these beliefs. Many values, such as the love of privacy and free speech come from a broadly libertarian tradition evolving from the philosophy of Mill and Locke. Others, such as the hatred of Microsoft and the loathing of Spam come from a quite reverse philosophy - a principled distain of the side-effects of capitalism, betraying socialist ancestry. Still others come from a strong defence of certain rights (notably fair use of copyrighted materials) which seem to be primarily based on rational self-interest, rather than any particular ideology.

Each of the intellectual frameworks described above (libertarianism, pseudo-anti-capitalism, etc.) grants one set of freedoms while necessarily restricting freedoms (often by adding responsibilities) in other areas.

I personally think that Geek adherence to this diverse set of ideology stems from an opportunistic, almost child-like insistence on maximum freedom for themselves and their group of like-minded buddies - in particular - freedom from economic responsibility.

While sounding good from a prima facie standpoint, this freedom is sought regardless of consequences in any sphere and the inherent contradictions that stem from this intellectual "hopping".  When the libertarian ethic doesn't provide a certain type of freedom (for ex., from Spam), they conveniently hop to an alternative ethic (pseudo-anti-capitalism) until that philosophy reveals limits on behavior. 

On the plus side, the belief in (some) forms of copyright IP -- e.g. GPL enforcement, attribution, etc. -- is an example of a "tribe-reinforcing" custom.  Selective applications of copyright in the Geek worldview has legitimacy because it helps reinforce the Geek world.  

On the other hand, most other forms of Intellectual property (esp patents!) are *reviled* because they are supreme examples of an economically motivated curtailment of Geek Freedom.  Perhaps more importantly -- and a very important nuance -- Patent IP exists to support/benefit an 'external' economic world outside of Geek cyperspace domain.   Because it's outside the Geek world, it has lacks legitimacy in that world. 

This is especially true when so many threads of Geekdom are about explicitly *divorcing* yourself from the seemingly arbitrary worries of "RL".

...This article is a warning about a dangerous monoculture of beliefs I see starting to form in the world of geeks, and a plea for more variety

The author presents what I consider to be a much needed dissection of the absolutist nature of much geekthought -- for ex., strong crypto + psuedonyms + whatever else to ensure 100% untrackable hotmail sessions vs. law enforcement. 

Can't anyone set out a principled, techno-literate argument against more of the sacred cows, such as P2P, absolute online privacy, and so forth? If we can't manage this, then when we lose one of these fights, we'll lose big. If we can manage to keep arguing about these issues, and responding to changing circumstances, then a shifting tide needn't wash away everything we care about.

---