I read this entire article, and I'm still not sure what it really said. IMO the author falls into the same trap as most of the media, casting people as "leftist" or "conservative" when most take a liberal position on some issues and not on others.
What's really happening, in my opinion, is that there are people who are happy with the status quo. These people are usually doing pretty well (see Koch bros or startup millionaires.) They are politically inclined to believe in things that are in their own self-interest: for many tech geeks, that is the "freedom" of information because it sustains the belief that they can personally profit from such a situation.
You saw a lot of this with Google. For a long time, they were all about freedom of information and open source software because their mission statement is to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful". A key part of doing that is having access to all of the world's information. But now that they have proprietary information that is in their interest to keep to themselves, that tune of openness and transparency is changing a bit (see Google+, et al).
Many tech folks have the same thoughts about government regulation. "If only HIPAA didn't exist, I could create a universal medical records solution!" Nevermind that if the regulation didn't exist, someone would have done it a long time ago: tech people see government regulation as a limiting factor in their potential for greatness.
It's not about "left" or "right", it's about individuals who believe many different things for many different reasons. To call out "cyberlibertarians" as a unified group is disingenuous at best: net neutrality is a classic case where this falls apart. The cyberlibertarian believes in additional government regulation on telecommunications not out of a belief that government regulation is a good thing, but because they fear the loss of a profitable market that belongs to technologists. It's special-interest politics at its finest.
The author does not call people leftists or rightist, but rather associates language and causes with the left or right. He points out that cyber-libertarianism tend to use the terminology of the left ("freedom", "open"), while embracing the values of the right. Not every one on every issue, but as a pattern of behavior across many issues. The article points out that because of this language, people who otherwise identify with leftist causes end up supporting cyber-libertarian policies that further rightist causes.
I think the best thing in the article is about the different definitions of "freedom." Cyberlibertarians use "freedom" to mean "freedom from." This is quite incompatible with what many leftists,[1] might mean by "freedom," specifically the freedom of the masses to act collectively to shape their society.
[1] And indeed, many who would probably consider themselves "conservatives" in a pre-Tea Party world.
The concept of freedom can quickly become confusing, but I think the accepted terminology is that "freedom from" is negative freedom as in protections like universal healthcare. While "freedom to" is positive freedom as in expressions like absolute[-1] freedom of speech [0]. Where negative freedom is more left and positive freedom more right. You of course also have to account for the political y-axis (or similar concept [1]) i.e. the level of authoritarianism.
I think it's interesting that many of the concepts that the US prides itself on originally included negative freedom in a more prominent way than you see today [2][3][4].
[-1] Non-absolute freedom of speech can probably also be seen as a negative freedom.
In mass communication it is important to group ideas together. Some words possess no ownership. I can not describe myself as gold, because I clearly am not, but I could call myself a patriotic American. You attach words with positive connotation to yourself while tossing negative words at your opponent. The positive/negative definitions are determined by the ideology of those you are communicating to, not yourself.
In the non-political sense, we can see words like "Lite" or "Professional" attached to food or software. I can't say something is sodium free, but I can call it "Lite."
Eventually these words become meaningless because too many people have chosen to attach the words to themselves or others.
People in the United States see left and right differently than other countries. From some standpoints, the Democrats are on the right, and the Republicans just a little further.
The first "siege" on internet freedom came with the Children's Online Protection Act (COPA.) Research it if you want to know more.
Was COPA a bill to protect children from the evil's of internet pornography? Or was it a law to enable the government to suppress free speech on the internet? The law received support from the "left" and from the "right" and was signed by a Democrat President (was Bill Clinton left or right?) The Supreme Court threw the whole thing out.
What's really happening, in my opinion, is that there are people who are happy with the status quo. These people are usually doing pretty well (see Koch bros or startup millionaires.) They are politically inclined to believe in things that are in their own self-interest: for many tech geeks, that is the "freedom" of information because it sustains the belief that they can personally profit from such a situation.
You saw a lot of this with Google. For a long time, they were all about freedom of information and open source software because their mission statement is to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful". A key part of doing that is having access to all of the world's information. But now that they have proprietary information that is in their interest to keep to themselves, that tune of openness and transparency is changing a bit (see Google+, et al).
Many tech folks have the same thoughts about government regulation. "If only HIPAA didn't exist, I could create a universal medical records solution!" Nevermind that if the regulation didn't exist, someone would have done it a long time ago: tech people see government regulation as a limiting factor in their potential for greatness.
It's not about "left" or "right", it's about individuals who believe many different things for many different reasons. To call out "cyberlibertarians" as a unified group is disingenuous at best: net neutrality is a classic case where this falls apart. The cyberlibertarian believes in additional government regulation on telecommunications not out of a belief that government regulation is a good thing, but because they fear the loss of a profitable market that belongs to technologists. It's special-interest politics at its finest.