I was one year old in 1993, so I'll defer to you on the meaning of this expression [0], but it sounds like you were on the opposite side of its ideological argument. How did that work out for you? Thirty years later, I'm not sure it's a position I'd want to brag about taking, considering the tremendous success and net positive impact of the Internet (despite its many flaws). Although, based on this Wikipedia article, I can see how it's a sort of Rorschach test that naive libertarians and optimistic statists could each interpret favorably according to their own bias.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free
You're making a lot of assumptions.
You're also kind of insulting without having any grounds whatsoever to do so.
I suggest you read the guidelines for a bit.
Eh? I wasn't trying to be, and I was genuinely curious to read your reply to this. Oh well, sorry about that I guess.
Your comment is a complete strawman and you then attach all kinds of attributes to me that do not apply.
It sounded like you were arguing against "software wants to be free," or at least that you were exasperated with the argument, so I was wondering how you reconciled that with the fact that the Internet appears to have been a resounding success, and those advocating "software wants to be free" turned out to be mostly correct.
I feel like I'm in a time warp and we're back in 1993 or so on /. Software doesn't want anything and the people claim that technological progress is always good dream themselves to be the beneficiaries of that progress regardless of the effects on others, even if those are negative.
As for the intentional limits on technological progress: there are so many examples of this that I wonder why you would claim that we haven't done that in the past.