{"id":477,"date":"2025-12-05T18:45:00","date_gmt":"2025-12-05T16:45:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/notes.yadin.com\/?p=477"},"modified":"2026-03-30T11:13:35","modified_gmt":"2026-03-30T08:13:35","slug":"great-expectations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/yadin.com\/notes\/great-expectations\/","title":{"rendered":"Great Expectations"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

\u201cI had a vision of mankind to be:
I saw no grated windows, heard no roar
From iron mouths of war on land and sea;
Ambition broke the sway of peace no more.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014Henry Abbey, The Age of Good<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In the previous part of this series (Silicon Dawn<\/a><\/em>), we examined the digital era within the broader context of radical techno-social change throughout human history, ending with concerns about the direction of the Information Revolution. Such concerns were rare in the late 1990s, when this period of accelerated technological development began. The July 1997 cover of Wired Magazine showed a picture of a smiling Earth chewing on a flower stem with the text:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cWe\u2019re facing 25 years of prosperity, freedom, and a better environment for the whole world.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Wired Magazine\u2019s 1997 smiling future earth<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

What may seem like naive optimism today was a widely held sentiment at the onset of the Information Revolution: the belief that utopian global freedom, prosperity, and peace would be achieved through information technology, specifically through the Internet or, as they preferred, cyberspace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The term cyberspace<\/em> was coined by science fiction writer William Gibson in the 1980s. In Gibson\u2019s novel Neuromancer<\/em>, cyberspace is depicted as a dystopian virtual realm, an alternate reality separate from the physical world. The cyber-utopians of the 1990s adopted the term and reimagined cyberspace as an ideal place, separate and unconstrained by physical reality. This notion is metaphorical; it simplifies a complex idea and makes it more relatable. The technical sequence of DNS resolving a domain to an IP address, establishing a TCP\/IP connection, sending an HTTP request, receiving server files, rendering content, and loading additional resources is considerably less understandable and relatable than the metaphor of \u201cvisiting a website.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, metaphors have limitations, and overusing the cyberspace metaphor is one reason cyber-utopians overlooked that the Internet cannot realistically exist completely independent of the real world. Internet services are created, designed, and run by real-world entities, oftentimes corporations with business interests that do not always align with the utopian cyberspace vision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

A central cyber-utopian argument is that cyberspace would decentralize social power by shifting control over information away from existing power structures and social elites\u2014like business leaders, wealthy individuals, government officials, political leaders, academics, intellectuals, the media, and public figures\u2014toward the general public. All would be given an equal voice and equal opportunities. Cyberspace activist John Perry Barlow wrote in 1996<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cWe are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice\u2026 We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere, may express his or her beliefs\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Cyber-utopians believed the Internet\u2019s decentralized, open infrastructure would encourage government and corporate transparency, break down barriers to information, eliminate secrets, and prevent government censorship. Information gatekeepers, such as mainstream media conglomerates, would become obsolete as citizens gain tools to access information directly without intermediaries. Individuals would be free to organize, influence, get informed, educate themselves, and distribute their ideas. The Internet would amplify marginalized voices and encourage activism. Democracy would thrive in an environment of transparency, individual freedoms, equality, and citizen empowerment. The Internet would facilitate direct participation in decision-making through online petitions, digital town halls, real-time policy feedback, and online voting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These conceptions were accepted and encouraged by the technology industry. Microsoft founder and then-CEO Bill Gates said in 1998:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cBy providing people with more in-depth information, it will make the government more transparent. All previous advances in information technology have been good for democracy, and the ongoing changes will be good for it as well.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Another well-established cyber-utopian conception was that while promoting government and corporate transparency, the new information environment would facilitate individual privacy. The ability to share information without centralized control would make online surveillance by governments and corporations more difficult. The accessibility of privacy-enhancing technologies, like encryption and anonymization, would allow individuals to communicate securely and better control their personal information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Empowered individuals, rather than corporations or governments, would own their encrypted personal information and would be uniquely able to know how their information is collected and used, as well as determine who can access their information and for what purpose. Journalist Steven Levy wrote in a 1993 article in <\/a>Wired<\/a><\/em>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe people in this room hope for a world where an individual\u2019s informational footprints\u2026 can be traced only if the individual involved chooses to reveal them\u2026 a world where the tools of prying are transformed into the instruments of privacy.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The online culture that developed in the early days of the Internet encouraged anonymity. It was common practice for users to adopt aliases when participating in online communities and forums. This was thought to enable individuals to explore different aspects of their personalities, engage in discussions without fear of judgment, and connect with others based on shared interests rather than personal identities. Furthermore, it was a way to protect users from being tracked or monitored, or from having their personal information misused. The conception in the early 1990s was that user anonymity and privacy protection would persist and flourish in the future information society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Cyber-utopians held that socioeconomic models based on cooperation and sharing would supplant, or at least reduce, the profit- and competition-based economics of the Industrial Revolution. Freely accessible digital tools would allow anyone to create and innovate, free from traditional economic constraints. Ventures like Wikipedia, a free collaborative encyclopedia run by volunteers, or Linux, an open-source operating system maintained by a non-profit organization, were seen as models for the new information economy. Collaboration based on social incentives seems better suited to managing information than traditional capitalism, which is based on managing scarce material goods. Unlike material goods, digital resources can be copied and shared at virtually no cost, without diminishing their quality or availability. Harvard Professor Yochai Benkler\u2019s influential book The Wealth of Networks<\/a><\/em> explores this in detail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This conception originated in the technology development communities of the early 1990s. These communities advocated for ideas such as free software, open source, and collaborative technology development. By sharing code and improvements, communities can efficiently build and maintain software without ownership or competition. Free and open-source software is accessible to everyone; it is transparent and, therefore, trustworthy, inclusive, and empowering. Cyber-utopians believed these principles could extend beyond software to other areas of the economy, fostering a more cooperative and equitable society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Perhaps the most frequently expressed cyber-utopian notion was that the Internet would lead humanity toward a peaceful world without borders or nations. In 1997, Nicholas Negroponte, who was then Head of MIT Media Lab, said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe Internet would do no less than bring world peace by breaking down national borders. Twenty years from now, children who are used to finding out about other countries through the click of a mouse are not going to know what nationalism is.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Legal scholars argued that national laws would no longer be relevant. They envisioned cyberspace as a sovereign space with its own distinct legal system based on user consent, free from government intervention. As scholars Post and Johnson explained in a well-cited 1996 Stanford Law Review article<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cGlobal computer-based communications cut across territorial borders, creating a new realm of human activity and undermining the feasibility–and legitimacy–of applying laws based on geographic boundaries.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The notion that cyberspace should be free from government intervention was supported by the widely held belief that, even if governments wanted to regulate it, they could not do so technically because of the Internet\u2019s decentralized, distributed, borderless architecture. This view was shared by many at the highest level of government. In a 2000 speech at Johns Hopkins University<\/a>, United States President Bill Clinton addressed China\u2019s attempts to regulate the Internet. He sarcastically wished them good luck and said that their efforts were pointless, or in his words: \u201clike trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cyber-utopians believed that globalization, universal access to information, equality, participation, and cooperation would all lead to unprecedented worldwide prosperity. Individuals would enjoy more leisure time, greater opportunities for self-fulfillment, and richer lives. Communities would thrive as individuals gain new ways to find shared purpose, support, and solidarity. Social connection, inclusion, and opportunities for personal growth would contribute to happiness and well-being for all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

The 1990s vision of humanity\u2019s future is undeniably compelling, but as we now know, it is not unfolding as hoped. Our world today is not more democratic; in fact, democracy is in decline, alongside equality, human rights, and individual freedoms. Privacy, especially, has been eroded. The sharing economy remains a niche, while technology corporations have grown more powerful than nations. Nationalism and anti-globalization are on the rise. World peace remains out of reach, with major armed conflicts persisting across Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is still a chance to change the path of the Information Revolution. We may never achieve a perfect technological utopia, but we can and should strive to build a better digital-age society. To make this happen, we need to understand what really happened to the utopian cyberspace dreams of the 1990s and how we got off track. <\/p>\n\n\n

\n \n \n \n <\/svg>22\n |<\/span>\n \n \n \n <\/svg>\n 1<\/span>\n <\/span>\n |<\/span>\n Published: Dec. 5, 2025\n |<\/span>\n Updated: Mar. 30, 2026 |<\/span> Topics: Culture<\/a>, Future<\/a> |<\/span> Follow<\/a>\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

Next in this series:<\/p>\n\n\n\n