Deutsche Fassung | Version française | Versión en español | Versione in italiano | Versão em português | ?eská verze | Srpsko-Hrvatski | Türk Versiyon | ???????? ?????? |??????? ?????? | Versiunea in limba romana | ???? | ??? ?? | ??????????? | ?????? ??????? 1 | ?????? ??????? 2 | ?????

1. The Internet is different.

It produces different public spheres, different terms of trade and different cultural skills. The media must adapt their work methods to today’s technological reality instead of ignoring or challenging it.  It is their duty to develop the best possible form of journalism based on the available technology. This includes new journalistic products and methods.

2. The Internet is a pocket-sized media empire.

The web rearranges existing media structures by transcending their former boundaries and oligopolies. The publication and dissemination of media contents are no longer tied to heavy investments. Journalism’s self-conception is—fortunately—being cured of its gatekeeping function. All that remains is the journalistic quality through which journalism distinguishes itself from mere publication.

3. The Internet is our society is the Internet.

Web-based platforms like social networks, Wikipedia or YouTube have become a part of everyday life for the majority of people in the western world. They are as accessible as the telephone or television. If media companies want to continue to exist, they must understand the lifeworld of today’s users and embrace their forms of communication. This includes basic forms of social communication: listening and responding, also known as dialog.

4. The freedom of the Internet is inviolable.

The Internet’s open architecture constitutes the basic IT law of a society which communicates digitally and, consequently, of journalism. It may not be modified for the sake of protecting the special commercial or political interests often hidden behind the pretense of public interest. Regardless of how it is done, blocking access to the Internet endangers the free flow of information and corrupts our fundamental right to a self-determined level of information.

5. The Internet is the victory of information.

Due to inadequate technology, media companies, research centers, public institutions and other organizations compiled and classified the world’s information up to now. Today every citizen can set up her own personal news filter while search engines tap into wealths of information of a magnitude never before known. Individuals can now inform themselves better than ever.

6. The Internet changes improves journalism.

Through the Internet, journalism can fulfill its social-educational role in a new way. This includes presenting information as an ever-changing, continual process; the forfeiture of print media’s inalterability is a benefit. Those who want to survive in this new world of information need a new idealism, new journalistic ideas and a sense of pleasure in exploiting this new potential.

7. The net requires networking.

Links are connections. We know each other through links. Those who do not use them exclude themselves from social discourse. This also holds for the websites of traditional media companies.

8. Links reward, citations adorn.

Search engines and aggregators facilitate quality journalism: they boost the findability of outstanding content over a long-term basis and are thus an integral part of the new, networked public sphere. References through links and citations—especially including those made without any consent or even remuneration of the originator—make the very culture of networked social discourse possible in the first place. They are by all means worthy of protection.

9. The Internet is the new venue for political discourse.

Democracy thrives on participation and freedom of information. Transferring the political discussion from traditional media to the Internet and expanding on this discussion by involving the active participation of the public is one of journalism’s new tasks.

10. Today’s freedom of the press means freedom of opinion.

Article 5 of the German Constitution does not comprise protective rights for professions or technically traditional business models. The Internet overrides the technological boundaries between the amateur and professional. This is why the privilege of freedom of the press must hold for anyone who can contribute to the fulfillment of journalistic duties. Qualitatively speaking, no differentiation should be made between paid and unpaid journalism, but rather, between good and poor journalism.

11. More is more – there is no such thing as too much information.

Once upon a time, institutions such as the church prioritized power over personal awareness and warned of an unsifted flood of information when the letterpress was invented. On the other hand were the pamphleteers, encyclopaedists and journalists who proved that more information leads to more freedom, both for the individual as well as society as a whole. To this day, nothing has changed in this respect.

12. Tradition is not a business model.

Money can be made on the Internet with journalistic content. There are many examples of this today already. Yet because the Internet is fiercely competitive, business models have to be adapted to the structure of the net. No one should try to abscond from this essential adaptation through policy-making geared to preserving the status quo. Journalism needs open competition for the best refinancing solutions on the net, along with the courage to invest in the multifaceted implementation of these solutions.

13. Copyright becomes a civic duty on the Internet.

Copyright is a cornerstone of information organization on the Internet. Originators’ rights to decide on the type and scope of dissemination of their contents are also valid on the net. At the same time, copyright may not be abused as a lever to safeguard obsolete supply mechanisms and shut out new distribution models or license schemes. Ownership entails obligations.

14. The Internet has many currencies.

Journalistic online services financed through adverts offer content in exchange for a pull effect. A reader’s, viewer’s or listener’s time is valuable. In the industry of journalism, this correlation has always been one of the fundamental tenets of financing. Other forms of refinancing which are journalistically justifiable need to be forged and tested.

15. What’s on the net stays on the net.

The Internet is lifting journalism to a new qualitative level. Online, text, sound and images no longer have to be transient. They remain retrievable, thus building an archive of contemporary history. Journalism must take the development of information, its interpretation and errors into account, i.e., it must admit its mistakes and correct them in a transparent manner.

16. Quality remains the most important quality.

The Internet debunks homogenous bulk goods. Only those who are outstanding, credible and exceptional will gain a steady following in the long run. Users’ demands have increased. Journalism must fulfill them and abide by its own frequently formulated principles.

17. All for all.

The web constitutes an infrastructure for social exchange superior to that of 20th century mass media: When in doubt, the “generation Wikipedia” is capable of appraising the credibility of a source, tracking news back to its original source, researching it, checking it and assessing it—alone or as part of a group effort. Journalists who snub this and are unwilling to respect these skills are not taken seriously by these Internet users. Rightly so. The Internet makes it possible to communicate directly with those once known as recipients—readers, listeners and viewers—and to take advantage of their knowledge. Not the journalists who know it all are in demand, but those who communicate and investigate.

Internet, 07.09.2009

Translated from the German by Jenna L. Brinning


Comment From Peter G. submitted at 8.9.2009.:

Nice manifesto. Some countries still have problems with the net, haven’t they?

Comment From John T. submitted at 8.9.2009.:

Yes, the world is changing fast. Too fast for some.

Comment From hiddenbk submitted at 8.9.2009.:

Yes, we all have to re-think and attune to the new way of gaining information and communicate! Life is changing…fast! For my part, I already live online! ^^ Greetz, Hidden

Comment From David D. submitted at 8.9.2009.:

Who reads this anyway? It’s not like anyone reads german blogs! Ashton Kutcher’s got more followers than all german twitter accounts in total, so who cares what the german “internet-elite” says? Are these guys really representing “The German Internet”? If so, why? They got some dude with an Mohawk in their council, who’s gonna take them serious? And as we all know, the internet is serious business.

Comment From Jannings submitted at 8.9.2009.:

@David D. Please do not make the mistake and judge people from if they have a Mohawk or not. The “German Internet”, as you call it, is leading a discussion about the future of journalism and if you are not stuck in the last century sooner or later the rest of the internet will have to lead this discussion too. I think the net is neither totally serious nor all business. It is a mirror of our society and therefor alway open for new thoughts.

Comment From Don Tapscott submitted at 8.9.2009.:

This is a good document.  I support it.

Comment From David D. submitted at 8.9.2009.:

Of course it should be open for new ideas. But calling this pamphlet a “manifesto”? Also, it reads pretty serious and kind of written in stone, that’s why I was pretty surprised seeing the guy with a mohawk pop up when I looked up the names.

Comment From Sol submitted at 8.9.2009.:

These are points to consider.

Comment From Paul Potten submitted at 8.9.2009.:

Stelletje zielige gozers. Groepje van 17 gasten die denken dat ze wat weten. Wat willen jullie hier mee bereiken? Koning worden van het internet?
Dit faalt zo hard…

Comment From Dave Goldenberg submitted at 8.9.2009.:

18. A viable Internet depends on media literacy and critical thinking.

19. Anonymity is the enemy of the Internet. The ability to escape accountability for one’s comments leads to unchained invective and devalues all discourse.

Comment From Paulo Querido submitted at 8.9.2009.:

I support this. God work. (We will translate it to portuguese tonight)

Comment From foleymo submitted at 8.9.2009.:

Thanks for compiling this. I have it printed out and hanging on my cubicle wall to act as a conversation starter if any of my colleagues dare to ask me about it. grin

Comment From David McRaney submitted at 8.9.2009.:

This is good stuff. I’ll do what I can to promote it.

I’ll add:

20: On the Internet, every publication becomes part of one giant publication, and the user can move between the New York Times and their home newspaper as easily as they can turn pages in a magazine. This means all media sources are competing with each other for eyeballs in a way which had never been feasible before. This means your hometown newspaper now competes with the New York Times and vice versa. In some ways, this is good for both, in some ways it is bad. News sources who don’t figure our how this hurts or helps them will die off and be replaced.

Comment From Uberblogged submitted at 8.9.2009.:

Hello! I have translated the Manifesto to Spanish in my blog. Is there a way I could send it to you so you add it along with the English and German one?

Comment From Uberblogged submitted at 8.9.2009.:

Im sorry I forgot to put the link to it.

Comment From Mario submitted at 8.9.2009.:

Uberblogger, that’s great, thanks a lot! We will include it asap. Cheers!

Comment From Marcel Mitsuto Fucatu Sugano submitted at 8.9.2009.:

Hi, I’ve parked the domain and I’d like to translate it to portuguese. I’m coming here to have your approval for the publication.

Comment From Armin submitted at 8.9.2009.:

Blimey, some of this reads like one of those pointless old-fashioned corporate mission statements. Big and important buzzwords, but not really that much (if any) substance behind it. Can you do this in plain English (and German for that matter) as well?

A few other points:

Re #3:

You might want leave your Starbucks and Macbook behind for a while, there are more than enough people even in the western world who rarely touch the internet, let alone social networks. I suspect they are even in the majority.

Yes, they will use the internet. Yes, they will have heard of Facebook or Twitter, quite possibly they will even have an account. But no, it’s not something of their everyday life.

Don’t draw conclusions from your social circle and your friends about society at large.

Re #11:

Yes, there is. There is too much raw information out there. But not enough analysis, perspective and most importantly reflection and understanding. Information as such is mostly worthless, because it needs context and understanding. Something I’m afraid a lot of people, far too many people, don’t have. Far too many people don’t have the capability to process information and bring it into context and make sense of it.

Re #16:

So how do you explain the incredible success of various gossip websites with all their made up stories and the like?

Or are you speaking of different type of quality? The only thing that counts there seems to be speed and a different kind of uniqueness.

Re #17:

“When in doubt, the “generation Wikipedia” is capable of appraising the credibility of a source, tracking news back to its original source, researching it, checking it and assessing it—alone or as part of a group effort.”

Really? Are you sure about that? That must be why complete and utter nonsense is “retweeted”, “reblogged” and regurgitated left, right and centre. Centuries old urban myths and misrepresentations are alive and well, despite all the efforts by various mythbusters and the like.

Nope, sorry, I don’t buy that. (While there are some who do doubt and check, the vast majority doesn’t)

Comment From [Enikao] submitted at 9.9.2009.:

Please find a translation of the manifesto in French on Owni :

Comment From Mario submitted at 9.9.2009.:

Thanx a lot! We linked it allready. Feel free to edit, discuss and extend the text with your readers. This is what it is made for.

All the best &

Comment From Preston Austin submitted at 9.9.2009.:

Read it, passed it along smile  Seems like this captures a lot of what would ideally be preserved about online discourse in general - affirms what is good and should be defended about what has emerged. Acknowledges that business models for sustenance of that ecology need to be determined and proven.

I would be curious to see more thoughts or details on the specific obligations of ownership that follow from your point number 13. To what degree is a copyright holder obliged? In what ways?

Comment From Benji Lanyado submitted at 9.9.2009.:

Hmm. Agree with Armin. Nice stuff, not sure about the delivery. Blogged about it here:

Comment From NatetheGrate submitted at 9.9.2009.:

This “manifesto” is breathtakingly utopian but, as such, is breathtakingly naive. There is a difference between journalism and blogging, just as there is a difference between facts and what is haphazardly posted on Wikipedia. If you just want to hear the cacaphony of other people’s thinking, enjoy the Internet. But if you want to know what’s really going on in the world, read a quality newspaper.

Comment From marconeuro submitted at 9.9.2009.:

Nice article, but who are you? who do you represent? There is no Italian translation, can I make one on my blog? I wrote the Destructuralist Manifesto, I guess you write a manifesto for everything, nowadays.

Che Fare?

“We’re interested in an open discussion, but will delete offending comments and those only submitted for the reason of SEO optimising. A “nofollow” attribute will be added to hyperlinks in comments. SEO’s searching for google soup have to look for another place.”

Comment From dangun76 submitted at 9.9.2009.:

thank’s a lot. I try to translate this manifesto into korean version.

Comment From Robert submitted at 9.9.2009.:

This document completely ingores the fact that the majority of the world’s population does not have access to the internet. It says nothing about broadening access. As it stands, it is a manifesto for the first world only.

Comment From Muzica submitted at 9.9.2009.:

Let’s hope that money, religion and politics won’t stay behind and “guide” us through, like they always did.

This manifesto is one of the best things I’ve read in years. I really think people should promote this, make it well-known and use it wisely.

Comment From elemen submitted at 9.9.2009.:

It’s curious how the administrators delete not only comments with offensive contents, but also some of those that don’t seem favorable for their cause. For what it’s worth, I am tempted to quote one of the authors, Stefan Niggemeier, who once used the term “Go die”.

Comment From Elizabeth Hodgson submitted at 9.9.2009.:

To those saying it’s too simple, of course it is - that’s why it’s called a Manifesto. The detail isn’t there by definition. However, it could be something to build on - take the conversation further: for example, off the top of my head, how do we organise our info and source valuable data, how do we get to the core of an issue, how can we ensure the single voice of reason isn’t lost in the sonic boom of hysteria? None of these issues and the million others that will fall out from them will be answered any time soon. But we have to start the process. And this offering might just be one such opportunity.

Comment From Yuri Aksyonov submitted at 9.9.2009.:


Translated into Russian:

One question: why did you posted it this days?

Comment From Paulo Querido submitted at 9.9.2009.:

Already online, the portuguese version:

O Manifesto Internet também em língua portuguesa:

Comment From Grayscale100 submitted at 9.9.2009.:

This is a drop in the ocean, a single voice in a crowd of billions, a star in the universe, a grain of sand on the beach.

The Internet - let’s do that again, with a drum roll, and special echo-effects for the basso profundo voice in which these portentous words should be pronounced - Ladies and Gentlemen… The Internet [pause for applause] is no more ‘subject to’ a Manifesto than the Earth’s biosphere/ecosystem or the physical laws of the universe. You can observe and describe, but you can’t change it.
You can, of course, make statements of intent and principle as part of a description; which I guess this is. [Drumroll] The Internet has many currencies, as you put it, and I guess this counts as some kind of coinage. But, in the same way that before the dawn of central banking anyone could mint metal discs and claim they had a value, what authority underwrites these observations? Highly tendentious statements like ‘There is no such thing as too much information’ might be compared with the truism ‘All that glitters is not gold’: and your point is…?
I think the underlying point of this is probably that a well-timed activation of an influential network can still grab you headlines and attention, even in a rapidly expanding universe like [drum roll] The Internet. The long-term interest, meaning and value of such an impact is indeterminate.
Give it a decade and let’s see how the [drum roll!]Internet Manifesto looks. In the meantime try These guys a)said a lot more b)a lot more coherently and c)had previously developed their ideas and and have continued to develop them ever since.

Comment From Fringer submitted at 9.9.2009.:

Awesome work, guys. I’ve translated it into Thai on my blog— Feel free to add a link to this translation if you want smile

Comment From Eugene submitted at 9.9.2009.:

May I point out this most curious fact that shortly after the posting of this so-called manifesto, a multitude of comments were written, the majority against the manifesto and the cause behind it, but now it appears that they have all been deleted by the administrators.

Even though I agree that some of them were quite offensive, it seems a tiny bit like hypocrisy to first write a manifesto that promotes the freedom and liberty of Internet and the importance of freedom of opinion, and then to censure the comment of anyone who disagrees.

I sincerely hope that this comment was not offensive in any way and will be posted.

Comment From Armand Brahaj submitted at 9.9.2009.:

Great Manifesto! I am translating it in my language as well.

Comment From Dave Levy submitted at 9.9.2009.:

Absolutely brilliant stuff, posted some info about it to pass it forward and added on to my thoughts here:

Comment From Eamonn Shaw submitted at 9.9.2009.:

The presses will soon be silent. The meta-narrative is evolving.

Comment From Joachim Weidemmann submitted at 9.9.2009.:

This manifesto may not be new in its single points, but as a whole constitutes most of the rules of our modern information society. Consider Bert Brecht - a German leftwing playwright - who demanded of the radio what is now true for the web: that receivers are turned into senders. That was 1929… I would go even further: The manifesto describes the fall of information monopolies, with all its risks and dangers. Big media model implode, but millions of micro-media may replace them, clowd-computed at lower cost than ever.

Comment From Phill Midwinter submitted at 9.9.2009.:

I find it interesting that your comments information points out the nofollow attribute placed on links (and wisely too).

As SEOs we work with online content as much as bloggers and ultimately I think we as an industry understand that bloggers are journalists too, albeit poorly rewarded in most cases compared with printed media.

Many of us take pains to point out to our clients the immense value behind your words and the followings you attract. Our hardest task now is to encourage interaction between corporation and consumer, too many still think Twitter is a tool to yell at potential customers.

Comment From Mitch Maddox submitted at 9.9.2009.:

The time for change has come.  Freedom of the Press must now become Freedom from the Press

Comment From Dario Salvelli submitted at 9.9.2009.:

I hope that Jeff Jarvis sign this manifesto. I’am available to translate this from english to italian. Write me an email. Thanks for your work.

Comment From Robert / Webjournalist submitted at 9.9.2009.:

Great manifesto… It’s been more than 10 years since the Web has changed journalism, but the acceptance has been slow. Great way to spark discussion and debate.

Comment From Bob Klass submitted at 9.9.2009.:

I am in agreement with this manifesto. It is the Tao of Internet journalism. These truths are self-evident.

Comment From Adam Bemma submitted at 9.9.2009.:

Beautifully written. This manifesto sets the standard for internet journalism. Danke.

Adam Bemma
Montreal, Quebec

Comment From Sean Neprud submitted at 9.9.2009.:

This manifesto is true not just of Journalism, but of all businesses and mediums in the age of the internet.

Well said.

Comment From Dominic submitted at 9.9.2009.:

The Internet and Journalism SHOULD be about the same exact thing.


People want and deserve the truth… and people will follow and even pay for the truth…

It’s an open game now as it should be!

Comment From Ingard Clausen submitted at 9.9.2009.:

Better not to define rules of the road without, at least, having a first pass at a definition of the destina-tion.
    Ah, there’s the rub ... you have to risk being wrong, as many Pioneers discover.
    A destination also explains, “Why rules?” and “What rules are needed.”

Comment From submitted at 9.9.2009.:

You may find the translation in Greek at!101128 translated by

Great work

Comment From SoCooLBob submitted at 9.9.2009.:


Comment From Fringer submitted at 9.9.2009.:

Hey, that was fast, thanks for adding the link to Thai version! A slight grammatical mistake though—it should be “???????????” instead of “??????? ????.” Thanks in advance smile

Comment From Mario submitted at 10.9.2009.:

Dear Fringer, thanks a lot for the translation! I hope the link is right now? (The first version was translated by some web automats wink so, thanks also for the correction.)

Comment From eduardo submitted at 10.9.2009.:

where are the negative comments left yesterday?

great way to start. grrrreat. censoring is the way to be.

if you want to be true to your intentions, add the possibility for the public to rate the comments. and, anyway, the internet is made of masses, not of groups of 10, 15 or 20. masses.

anyone ignoring this is totally ignoring what the so called web 2.0 meant.

Comment From Fitzroyalty submitted at 10.9.2009.:

A brilliant document. The statements about copyright and tradition are most insightful.

Comment From Arne Klingenberg submitted at 10.9.2009.:

Excellent work, well done guys! Particularly timely now when you have the Murdoch’s of the world attacking the publicly supported BBC or an Australian PM wanting to censure the internet downunder (on whose “order”?!)...

One thing I’d change in point 9: the first use of the word “discussion” really should be “monologue” (or perhaps “preaching” grin because with the traditional gate-keeping media there was no discussion - ever!

Comment From Fringer submitted at 10.9.2009.:

Mario: Yes, the link looks great now. Thanks for a fast correction! I am a blogger who’s increasingly frustrated by the appalling inability of most people in Thailand’s mainstream media to understand and respect “citizen journalists.” Many veteran journalists even say that the only way for bloggers to be credible/legitimate is to adopt 100% THEIR outmoded way of thought and “journalistic methodology.” Very few people seem to see that it’s THEY who have to adapt to the net. What’s worse is that the mainstream media seems to get dumber and dumber every day from self-censorship, lack of capability, and just plain laziness to do proper journalism, instead of pandering the latest fad or feeding mass paranoia as they are doing.

So, I find your Manifesto very refreshing and very much to-the-point. Rock on! smile

Comment From Stephen Collins submitted at 10.9.2009.:

Nice. I definitely back this statement. It resonates closely with many of my beliefs.

Well done.

Comment From Bill walker submitted at 10.9.2009.:

While news that is also available by other means may be on the Internet, I would hardly classify blogs, social networks and so forth as “journalism” unless the term “yellow journalism” is applied.

Journalism is objective, unbiased and above all accurate news reporting. It is rare you find that on the Internet. Most of the “journalism” is clearly not objective, that is reports both sides of a story equally. As to being unbiased, the list above shows the bias when it discusses the “social purpose” of journalism. True journalism is reporting the news pure and simple.

As to accuracy. Only a complete fool would accept what is on the net without checking and rechecking information off the net. Therefore I do agree with the comment regarding this in the list.

Finally, these “journalists” need to realize the reason print journalism is on the decline around the world is not the Internet, per se. It is the fact that most of the media decided to go away from the rules of journalism I’ve discussed and become liberal medial outlets. The public, realizing they were no longer getting objective, unbiased, accurate news moved away from them and down went the advertising revenues.

This will happen on the Internet as well as those “news” sources who think they exist “to make a difference” rather than report the news will, over time, die away. Only those sources that can be trusted to be objective, unbiased and accurate will ultimately remain. They may be few in number or perhaps only one in number but so long as it remains true to the real principles of journalism, people will use it, believe it and most important, rely on it for their information.

The fact is most “journalists” today wouldn’t know a news story if it bit them unless it fits their version of liberal bias. I will prove my point with the following news tip. I guarantee not one of the journalists on this list will follow up on this.

There is objective, documented, public information that Barack Obama committed a federal crime before becoming president of the United States. That information can be found at, FAQ 9.1. Also, there is documented public information to prove the Congress of the United States is involved in a conspiracy to deliberately overthrow the Constitution of the United States regarding their obligation to obey it.

Now if this information is put all over the Internet, it means the end of liberalism’s favorite liberal. But if reported accurately, unbiasedly and objectively, it is the truth and that is what good journalism is about. Reporting the news as it is, telling the truth and letting the chips fall where they may.

I say not one of the so-called journalists on that lists ever does a thing about this news story.

Comment From jeff submitted at 10.9.2009.:

A nice collection of principles for journalism that can be applied to a great many other knowledge professions built on tradition and control of the tools (e.g., advertising, education).

As in most human endeavours, agreed upon truths emerge as the fact-based outputs of clashing opinion systems engaged over time. You have provided another effective forum for engaging divergent opinions in pursuit of truth.

Comment From Kurren submitted at 10.9.2009.:

Is of today the news about Google ‘offering’ a micro-payment option for newspapers (Google moves toward micropayments for newspapers - on CNET:, looks like the ‘how to make money out of it’ is still the focus of the discussion for media professionals.

While citizen-journalism, or crowd-generated journalism (as in user generated), could be a out-of-fashion term, I’m still convinced the old media approach of broadcasting (as opposite to community-driven/generated) is at the moment the only viable approach. In that sense an interesting point on this ‘social media strategy’ for newspaper is available here: Newspapers Social Media Strategy (

Unfortunately, if the money part (as selling news for dollars) is the only aspect considered, it’s unlikely the news corps. could find a way out if not making use of their lobbying powers (read: copyright laws)

Comment From Bill Walker submitted at 10.9.2009.:

Two new comments and no one even mentions Obama and the fact he violated federal criminal law. Oh yeah, forgot to mention. The law specifically forbid Obama from either holding or accepting a federal office meaning he was ineligible to hold or accept the presidency as was John McCain.

As to the comment about money and journalism. You’d have to be living under a rock not to realize that a newspaper, television station and so on are businesses meaning they exist to make a profit. They do this by selling advertising which is given to them by advertisers because the media exposes the products of the advertisers to the public such that the public can become customers of the advertisers. Thus, the advertisers make money in their business.

As has always been, squeezed in among the ads in any newspaper is news which until recently was reported in most newspapers such that it was objective, unbiased and accurate. As papers moved away from that so did audience and so did advertisers who simply weren’t getting enough money for their investments.

If tomorrow the newspapers that are going under were to revert to what they were about 40 years ago, that is objective, unbiased and accurate, within a year the Internet could kiss its influence goodbye.

The reason the Internet is being used is not because of any standard of journalism. It’s because it offers sources of information that now the reader has to take his time ferret out that used to be done by the reporter of a paper. The reporter used to dig out all sources and provide all angles. He doesn’t so the reader has to do the job for himself. And why bother reading something when they don’t do the job you require in order to make a decision—provide all information.

Comment From marco turco submitted at 10.9.2009.:

Condivido, ottimo lavoro, complimenti.

Comment From Tagil Oliveira Ramos (br_TOR) submitted at 10.9.2009.:

This Manifesto is up-to-date, mainly in Brazil. I support it absolutely. I’m translating it into Portuguese. We, brazilian webjournalists, have launched a blog to discuss these new thoughts and ideas

Comment From Pio Borges submitted at 10.9.2009.:

Needed enthusiastic and the first steps of a long run.

Shoud be open to improvement, all the time.

Comment From Sms Falas submitted at 10.9.2009.:

If tomorrow the newspapers that are going under were to revert to what they were about 40 years ago, that is objective, unbiased and accurate, within a year the Internet could kiss its influence goodbye.

Comment From Matteo Muià submitted at 10.9.2009.:


Comment From criticalcontrarian submitted at 11.9.2009.:

True Democracy in action. May we get to keep it alive.

Comment From bruce submitted at 11.9.2009.:

this is still in the realm of hopeful thinking, alas…

if not, why are such BIG LIES like 9/11’s “Official Story” and the HIV/AIDS scam, and many, many other easily disprovable “public truths” still holding sway over public opinion and policy of every so-called “democratic” nation???

the rabbit hole of the Web may be deep, but few have ACTUALLY bothered to go down it and do the critical thinking required to change the course of humanity….

for every Noam Chomsky reader, for every 9/11 Truther, there are a dozen or a hundred who still buy the official stories trumpeted by the big corporations….  i’ve been waiting for 15 years and really, nothing much has changed…  look at Obama’s already failed presidency for more if you have your doubts.

Comment From Pavel Kasík submitted at 11.9.2009.:

I could sign this poignant summary of attitudes, advices, principles and observations. Except for Head 11 - I think tech-oriented people who use Internet daily for decades now tend to overestimate the abilities of majority of users and readers. Truth is, less is very often more and internet can help filter this overload of information, but only thanks to our help and our understanding that less is, in fact, often more.

Comment From Daniele submitted at 11.9.2009.:

Very good and interesting.
I made a complete translation in italian of this manifesto:

Comment From angel submitted at 11.9.2009.:

in italy on the telephone wap there are some obmissions of censured articles and also on internet. angelodellamore

Comment From Sandor submitted at 12.9.2009.:

The Zone Alarm is warning me against this site.

Comment From John May submitted at 12.9.2009.:

Dear Friends; Have just posted the Manifesto on my blog THE GENERALIST. It goes to the heart of what I am all about. I began blogging 4 years ago to explore a medium which I considered the future of journalism. Every week I am making new discoveries, thinking new thoughts about the unfolding possibilities of this new medium. Fantastic. Please keep me in the loop.

Comment From freshperry submitted at 12.9.2009.:

Great manifesto you have here…
i like this line…
“The Internet overrides the technological boundaries between the amateur and professional. This is why the privilege of freedom of the press must hold for anyone who can contribute to the fulfillment of journalistic duties. Qualitatively speaking, no differentiation should be made between paid and unpaid journalism, but rather, between good and poor journalism”

Comment From open eyes submitted at 12.9.2009.:

An Internet Manifesto for improving journalism?
This text is below any criticism! There is in this “wrong manifesto” as much dictatorship than there is in the strategy of the big economic and media trusts against liberty of expression and sharing of culture. It is normal since there is really no “difference” ! “The Internet is different” they say. But “different from what ?
So the “manifestors” proclaim: “Money can be made on the Internet” or “Journalism needs open competition” while they pretend to believe that this is not the biggest fish that eat their smaller! As usual. It is normal since “Ownership entails obligations”. Which obligations ? The authors know that: “ownership” purchase body and soul of the intellectual output of the thinking layer of humanity. And it is normal ?
Also a boon for media owners: “No differentiation should be made between paid and unpaid journalism”. Long live for unpaid workers!

Not to mention the confusion that permeates this manifesto without head or tail. Including the genuine apology for ignorance: “the forfeiture of print media’s inalterability is a benefit” certainly because the “print media’s” - in its “inalterability” date of “the mass media of the twentieth century” ! (17th declaration) or at the end of the same paragraph: “Not the journalists who know it all are in demand”.
In this regard, each reader also notices a plenty of tautologies which are clear evidence of thorough thinking.

The “manifestors” to say yet: “No one should try to abscond from this essential adaptation through policy-making geared to preserving the status quo” God! Then, sir and lady “manifestors”, if I may, I say no! There are already the “struggle of life” of “the open competition” for the big fishes to determine “good and poor journalism” and now, the “manifest-dictators” tell us that “No one should try to abscond…”! The small fishes were even not allowed to escape. What freedom is before us here! Sir and lady “manifest-dictators”, are the small fishes allowed - at least - go together to struggle the big fish of the profit which interfered his “Web” in even there (especially there) where someone pretend to to refuse it?

Decidely, “the Internet is not really different”… of this society!

Comment From Mustafa Akgul submitted at 12.9.2009.:

I have translated manifesto into Turkish.
Currently at

A bold manifesto. We have a long way ...

Comment From N. Dodge submitted at 13.9.2009.:

I will be giving this to all my students and well to everyone I know. It will guide them into their futures.
Thank you.

Comment From Richard Lyle submitted at 13.9.2009.:

There are some interesting ideas in The Internet Manifesto. I shall follow the debate with interest.

Comment From Alex Ceneviva submitted at 14.9.2009.:

Journalism and the Internet are so intimately connected that any inclination to detach them out comes to be a folly. Even its language and dynamic are being delineated in order to be more and more user-friendly, meaning, closer to their followers demands. And this is also a structural part of journalism today. What brings to the followers the quality of what they absorb is also their own capacity of being selective. That’s why a reader or watcher, for example, can decide to follow certain journalistic source and, just like that, turns to unfollow. So this ability to choose is what should always be covered, secured and respected. Well as all the information cycle that started in a job well done in journalism and is echoed in the paths and crossroads of the web.

Comment From John Bottom submitted at 14.9.2009.:

A very worthy exercise, but did we really need 17 points? An earlier commenter mentioned that the main points are to promote ‘good’ journalism and ‘the truth’. In my mind, one means the other but it doesn’t take this long to say it. The irony is that I thought journalists were good at distilling information down into a usable format so it can be distributed and understood more widely. Not here, it seems (although I heartily applaud your motives).

And to echo another point, why censor negative comments on this site? You say freedom is important; you say our society is the internet. So why delete comments from those parts of the online society who disagree?


Comment From Praveen submitted at 14.9.2009.:

A Manifesto indeed, The internet has truly changed the way i live.

“Change is Imminent, If you can’t accept it, you’ll be left behind”

Comment From Pedja Puselja submitted at 15.9.2009.:

Just wanted to tell you that I’ve published Internet Manifesto (respecting your CC) on my blog. The manifesto is translated into Serbo-Croatian language from this, English version.

Comment From Jaga submitted at 15.9.2009.:

Relevant post (in greek) in “The Zocalo” blog (15/9/09).

My general comment is that, although the 17 points may seem a revelation to those not familiar with the Internet after ‘93 and the social networking, but for the rest are somewhat obvious and every day’s work.

One point that should be stressed out is the issue of accessibility. Today, less than 1 in 4 people in the world have access to the Internet, only 1 in 20 in Africa. This is the one problem of utmost importance. First, we have to ensure access to the medium, then worry about content and usage practice.

In any case, this is a must-read text for all the professional journalists working in the “traditional” media today.

Comment From alessandro submitted at 15.9.2009.:

Great document, but you should create a group on Facebook: you can do a lot more visibility in the initiative.

Comment From greekbox submitted at 15.9.2009.:

(you may use a translator for understanding my comment which is in greek language - thanks)

??? ?????? ??? ??????????????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? 3 ??? ????????? ??????????? ??? ???????, ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???????? ????????? ??? ?????????, ????????? ?? ?????????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?????????? ?? ??????????.
???? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ???????????? ?? ?? ??????????? ??? ?????????.
????? ?? ?????? ?? ???????????? ??? ???????? ????????? ?????? ( ? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ?????????? ??? ?? ????????? ?? ??????? ?? ??????).

Comment From greekbox submitted at 15.9.2009.:

(you may use a translator for understanding my comment which is in greek language - thanks)

??? ?????? ??? ??????????????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? 3 ??? ????????? ??????????? ??? ???????, ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???????? ????????? ??? ?????????, ????????? ?? ?????????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?????????? ?? ??????????.
???? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ???????????? ?? ?? ??????????? ??? ?????????.
????? ?? ?????? ?? ???????????? ??? ???????? ????????? ?????? ( ? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ?????????? ??? ?? ????????? ?? ??????? ?? ??????).

Comment From Jaga submitted at 16.9.2009.:

Greek post and some comments.

In general, the text may be a revelation to those who are not familiar with the evolution of the Internet after ‘93 (emergence of WWW).

However, it fails to report that today only 1 in 4 people in the world has access to the Internet, only 1 in 20 in Africa. Thus, the most important issue here is first to ensure accessibility to the medium, then worry about proper practices on how to use it.

Comment From giancarlo parlagreco submitted at 16.9.2009.:

ottimo. condivido a pieno il manifesto.

Comment From Robert G. Coenen submitted at 16.9.2009.:

Democracy demands equality and freedom. The Internet is the only global democratic instrument, it should be preserved and defended as such by all journalists. This is a good document.  I support it.

Comment From Eugene submitted at 16.9.2009.:

@Robert Coenen Sorry, if you want equality and freedom, you’ve come to the wrong place. Interestingly enough, these freedom defending manifesto makers censore all comments that disagree about their views of internet. A multitude of “negative” comments were posted shortly after the posting of this manifesto, but then they all suddenly vanished, and now there is almost omly praise left in the comments.

Comment From Mario submitted at 16.9.2009.:

To say it clear once and for all: no “negative comment” was ever “censored” here. In fact we did delete a whole bunch of abusive crap postings. The clearly intention of those “comments” was not to participate in any distussion but to insult and offend. Any critic might write anything he/she whishes, as long as he/she behaves in a civilized way.

Comment From Cole submitted at 18.9.2009.:

That was extremely intresting the part about the internet, wow.

Comment From Jimmy Domingo submitted at 18.9.2009.:

This is interesting. I am thinking of making a derivative for my column in a Philippine tabloid, Remate Tonight, which I write in Filipino with a little English dash. grin

Comment From Bill Walker submitted at 18.9.2009.:

It’s been nine days since I’ve posted my first remark and, as I said, not one “journalist” has followed up on the news lead I put in my comment.

The classic definition of a journalist is “one who reports the news.” To do that first requires people who call themselves that first recognize what “news” is. When you have a news tip you follow it up regardless of political persuasion. Not one person has done so.

Please, please, please in the future do not disparage the name “journalist” when you refer to yourselves. At least be accurate. Call yourselves liberals, socialists, hacks or whatever but not journalists. You lack the basic job skill required.

Knowing what a news story is.

Comment From Fiete submitted at 21.9.2009.:

@ Bill Walker

Please note that you’re off topic. This is why no one has picked up the accusations you made in your remark. You’ll probably find a more interested audience at any website dedicated to U.S. politics.

Comment From Bill Walker submitted at 21.9.2009.:

I refer you to number 9 of your “manifesto.” Political discourse.

Face it, you’re just liberal hacks trying to justify your bias liberal “reporting” by smirching the name “journalist.” And as I said, you’ve proved my point. To a real journalist, news is never “off topic.” Only to a liberal hack where such news gets in the way of their POV of the world is this so.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. You wouldn’t know a news story if it came up and bit you and that alone proves you are not journalists. Hacks, liberals, bias, unobjective and inaccurate bloggers, posters perhaps. But not journalists.

Comment From Richard Lyle submitted at 21.9.2009.:

I’ve been following the posts here for a few days now. Bill Walker’s points about European journalists and bloggers ignoring alleged violations of the United States’ Constitution only point to its complete irrelevance outside the United States itself. The only people outside the United States who pay it attention are academics and lawyers with in interest in US affairs, or occasional sad bloggers like me.

None of these discussions can have their full impact until there is sufficient access to the communications technologies we’re all taking for granted. 10 years ago, I couldn’t have taken part in this discussion because I had no telephone line and therefore no internet access. There are still people in the UK whose access to digital debates like this one is non-existent because they have no computer. The situation is worse in other parts of the world.

Now as long as the discussions are trivial or esoteric, the digital democratic deficit isn’t important. However, governments are placing more and more information online where it is out of reach of sections of their population. The internet only has the power to reach those who have access to it and nothing in this Manifesto addresses those who cannot for whatever reason access it themselves.

It’s a flawed document, but one which has provided the basis for some discussion and thought.

Comment From Bill Walker submitted at 21.9.2009.:

I’d buy the irrelevant comment as most Europeans think the U.S. is “irrelevant” until we need to save your ass either from one of your own, i.e., Germany or Russia or you need our money. Then we’re relevant but for the spectacle you showed over Obama in Germany when he was running for office.

Don’t try and convince me Obama and his liberalism/socialism don’t make your mouths water with the prospect of the U.S. becoming just as liberal/socialist as Europe is. He can only do that if he is president and if he can’t be president, then he can’t force America to become socialist. So, any constitutional issue about Obama directly relates to Europe.

Besides, as was correctly stated, it is bloggers, not journalists, we are discussing. Bloggers who like to think they are journalists because it justifies their meager existence of commenting on the Internet. Problem is, they can’t be believed because they are just that—bloggers, not journalists.

Journalists report the facts. The report the news and they don’t concern themselves one damn bit about any social or political effect of some manifesto which worth a tinker’s dime.

And the proof? A total unwillingness to follow up and cover a news tip. Notice I gave just the bare information and a source which can be checked out. You’ll find that source has in turn public information in the form of documented public record which can be independently checked for factual accuracy.

In short, you have a news story in front of you and I want to see how you “journalists” cover it. The fact the president of the United States might be forced from office is news—worldwide and that includes Europe because what happens in the United States, whether you like it or not, effects Europe.

So far all you’ve done is prove my point. You aren’t journalists. If you were you’d check out the news tip for accuracy, verify it and report it. That is what journalists do. They don’t decide what is the news; they let their readers or audience do that. They report it, factually, accurately, unbiasedly and objectively. And none of those requirements of journalism is in one word of this so-called manifesto.

And by the way, Webster’s Dictionary defines “manifesto as “a public declaration of intentions, motives, or views : a public statement of policy or opinion.” Obviously this cannot state a policy so it is clearly therefore an opinion and nothing more. It does declare its intention and motives that bloggers who are notorious lots of opinion and no fact now are trying to justify themselves by labeling themselves journalists.

If there is any question of irrelevance in all of this, it is not that the United States and the question about Obama but you bloggers who are irrelevant and shown you don’t even deserve to shine the boots of the real journalists of this world. It is you people who are irrelevant, at least as far as calling yourselves journalists.

You may be very good at writing your opinions without any facts to back them up and for that I will agree you serve a purpose. Good fiction is always hard to find. But for solid, reliable journalism, you are the last place anyone should look.

Now if you want to prove me wrong, check out the news tip, dig out the facts and report them. Otherwise admit the truth: to be something requires a lot more than just saying you are it. You actually got to do it.

Comment From Richard Lyle submitted at 22.9.2009.:

The US is far from being irrelevant to the life of Europeans. Domestic American political wrangling is mildly diverting for some of us but is nevertheless irrelevant because we are not United States citizens and we have no say in your politics. Some of us have an opinion, few of us have an informed one.

The current head of state of France is suing a former prime minister of France over allegations of corruption. The political parties are having their annual conferences in Britain over the next few weeks. There is a general election in Germany. These news stories are all more relevant to the interests of Europeans than the story you’re pitching.

The website to which you directed people is wholly addressed to a domestic, US audience. A journalist would know how to explain the relevance of any particular story to his readers.

On the other hand, I particularly celebrate Article 11 of this Manifesto: “Once upon a time, institutions such as the church prioritized power over personal awareness and warned of an unsifted flood of information when the letterpress was invented. On the other hand were the pamphleteers, encyclopaedists and journalists who proved that more information leads to more freedom, both for the individual as well as society as a whole. To this day, nothing has changed in this respect.” The people behind the Friends of the Article V Convention are in the same tradition. They just need better PR and the services of a decent web designer.

Comment From luigibio submitted at 22.9.2009.:

in Italy we risk to completely loose freedom of speech on the internet by law. Italian old politics try to eliminate the possibility to write on a blog for everybody.

Comment From Vinh Prag submitted at 23.9.2009.:


It’s about time someone tells us journalists that we have to adapt to a new world. We have to update our profession in order to stay relevant at all.

Comment From Bill Walker submitted at 24.9.2009.:

The fact the Internet provides a better technological ability of the journalist to present his information does not relieve him of his fundamental obligation to present the news unbiasedly, objectively and accurately and to present that material in such a fashion as to allow his reader to make up his mind regarding it rather than to attempt to fashion an opinion based upon the personal view of the reporter.

As to the comment about our website. If those on the Internet who call themselves journalists determine how important a news source is based on its appearance rather than its importance, it goes a long ways to explaining why they will never be journalists. Liberals have a clear trait that is unmistakable. They always concern themselves with how things look rather than how things are. Take this manifesto for example.

A clear puff piece without one rule, one sample, one method as to how to actually implement it into practice. Take number 12 for just one example. Exactly how to do you adapt business practices? What are the costs? What are the results? What exactly is meant by the word “adapt” as used in this case? What experience has the writer or writers of this “manifesto” had with his or their attempts at adapting business to the Internet? What amount of return for invested dollar was achieved?

These are but some of the questions a real journalist would ask on this point alone. The same could be applied up and down this “manifesto”. When actually examined, it states nothing of use that can be applied to the real world.

As to PR, again this shows the liberal bias. News should not and does not require PR. It is news and completely different from public relations.

Websters defines “public relations” as:the promotion of rapport and goodwill between a person, firm, or institution and other persons, special publics, or the community at large through the distribution of interpretative material, the development of neighborly interchange, and the assessment of public reaction.”

Perhaps before trying to write a useless “manifesto” you so-called “journalists” should learn how to read a dictionary.

FOAVC is not trying to assess public reaction. We distribute facts, not interpretive material and as to neighborly interchange, there is hardly room for that given that ultimately what is at stake is the determination of whether or not our form of government will exist at all. If we fail and the United States does not peacefully resolve its internal issues and instead turns to the means which it has done in the past, it will mean civil war.

Given that we have nukes which may or may not remain in the possession of a government that could be overthrown in such a conflict, not to mention such weapons might be used in such a conflict by conflicting forces, I would suggest that not only is an Article V Convention relevant to Europe in ensuring its own future, but that Europe would be well advised to do everything it can to promote such a peaceful alternative rather than allowing the United States to proceed toward civil war. All other peaceful means to bring about the necessary changes in this nation have failed; Article V is all that is left that has not been tried.

It’s one thing to have a civil war when all you have is a Springfield rifle. It’s quite another to have a civil war when you have enough nuclear arms to wipe this planet out many times over and whether you liberals like it or not that fact alone always makes the United States and what happens in it relevant to you.

Now do yourselves a favor. Get on your computers and start talking about a convention in the United States before the only thing you will be able to write is “if only…”

Comment From Richard Lyle submitted at 26.9.2009.:

I have a feeling that in spite of the interconnectedness and interdependence of everyone living in our global cybervillage (see Article 9 above), anyone other than an American who commented on internal American affairs would be told, with varying degrees of politeness, to mind their own business.

Comment From greekbox submitted at 26.9.2009.:

For greek readers: You may find the greek translation of the Manifesto at:
where you can leave your comments in greek.

???????? ?? ?????? ??? ???????? ????????? ??? Manifesto ??? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ?????????? ??? ????????.

Comment From Sean Todd submitted at 1.10.2009.:

A wonderful start, to the debate, a vision writ large. It will be intersting to see how it develops.
Thank you for your manifesto


Comment From Anonymous submitted at 8.10.2009.:

Hey guise, here are the REAL rules of the internet once again, plz comment your opinion about them and get a polite discussion going.

Hope I’m not being too rude or offensive.

A. There is always an exception, no exceptions.
B. Disregard rule A.
C. NO MOAR LETTERZ. No exceptions.
D. Only newfags add letter rules. No exceptions.
E. Hentai is your friend
F. The averege grade of a troll
i. You can’t the square root of a negative integer.
ii. Roman numerals are not allowed. No exceptions.
-9. All newfags will be shot in the balls on site. No exceptions.
-8. combo breaker i am the combo breaker. the combo breaker is the law and the law is the law so who say you? combo breaker or combo breaker? combo breaker combo! breaker! combo breaker! so its now or never!
-7. /b/ is not your friend. No exceptions.
-5. No moar negative rules.
-4. Rule 210 must be followed or you are breaking rule 100. No exceptions.
-3. Every rule above 100 must be followed. No exceptions.
-2. Never cuss out any Canadians apart from Tico135.
-1. Rule 0 does not exist.
0. There are no rules after 0.
1. do not talk about /b/
2. do NOT talk about /b/
2.1337. You can’t edit rule 2, newfags. 2.13337. By editing rule 2 you will never have sex in your life. EVER. No exceptions.
3. We are Anonymous.
3.141592653589793238462643383279502… . Expect us.
4. Anonymous is legion.
5. Anonymous does not forgive, Anonymous does not forget.
6. Anonymous can be a horrible, senseless, uncaring monster.
7. Anonymous is still able to deliver.
8. There are no real rules about posting.
9. There are no real rules about moderation either — enjoy your ban.
10. If you enjoy any rival sites — DON’T.
11. All your carefully picked arguments can easily be ignored.
12. Anything you say can and will be used against you.
13. Anything you say can be turned into something else. - fixed
14. Do not argue with trolls — it means that they win.
15. The harder you try, the harder you will fail.
16. If you fail in epic proportions, it may just become a winning failure.
17. Every win fails eventually.
18. Everything that can be labeled, can be hated.
19. The more you hate it, the stronger it gets.
20. Nothing is to be taken seriously.
21. Original content is original only for a few seconds before getting old.
22. Copypasta is made to ruin every last bit of originality.
23. Copypasta is made to ruin every last bit of originality.
24. Every repost is always a repost of a repost.
24.5. Half rules count double, go to rule 96.5
25. Relation to the original topic decreases with every single post.
26. Any topic can be turned into something totally unrelated.
27. Always question a person’s sexual preferences without any real reason.
28. Always question a person’s gender - just in case it’s really a man.
29. On the internet, all girls are men, and all kids are undercover FBI agents.
30. There are NO girls on the internet.
31. TITS or GTFO - the choice is yours.
32. You must have pictures to prove your statements.
33. Lurk moar — it’s never enough.
34. There is porn of it, no exceptions.
35. If no porn is found of it, it will be made.
36. There will always be more fucked up shit than what you just saw.
37. You can not divide by zero (just because the calculator says so).
38. No real limits of any kind apply here — not even the sky
41. Desu isn’t funny. Seriously guys. It’s worse than Chuck Norris jokes.
42. The meaning of life is 42.
43. The more beautiful and pure a thing is, the more satisfying it is to corrupt it.
44. Even one positive comment about Japanese things can make you a weeaboo.
45. When one sees a lion, one must get into the car
46. There is furry porn of it. No exceptions.
47. The pool is always closed due to AIDS (and stingrays, which also have AIDS).
48. A cat is fine too.
49. One cat leads to another.
50. Another cat leads to Zippo Cat.
51. No matter what it is, it is somebody’s fetish. No exceptions.
52. It is delicious cake. You must eat it.
53. It is delicious trap. You must hit it.
54. /b/ sucks today.
55. If you have time to make up new rules, you have no life.
56. They will not bring back Snacks.
57. You will never have sex.
58. It needs more Desu. No exceptions.
59. Fuck Gaston.
60. It needs more pumpkin. No exceptions.
61. Chuck Norris is the exception to Rule #63, no exceptions or else.
62. Everything has been cracked and pirated.
63. There are female versions of all male characters. No Exceptions.
64. If you /r/ it and Popcorn Mariachi!9i78bPeIxI does not have it, become an hero.
65. Anonymous is not your personal army.
66. The cake is a lie.
67. Anonymous does not “buy”, he downloads.
68. Milhouse will never be a meme. Ever. No matter what your post ends with. No exceptions. Ever. No.
70. Do not talk about the 100M GET failure.
72. Chuck Norris is your father. No exceptions.
73. If there isn’t enough just ask for Moar.
74. If you post it, they will cum.
75. Rule 75 is a lie. goddamn windows
76. Twinkies are the answers to life’s problems.
77. The internet makes you stupid.
78. It will always need moar sauce.
79. Ceilingcat IS watching you masturbate
80. Ebaums did it. No exceptions.
81. Anonymous is a virgin by default.
82. Nobody tells the truth on the Internet
83. Only clusterfucks start edit wars.
84. All rules aren’t true, including this one.
84-B. Sub-rules are forbidden.
85. Rules 1, 2, 34, and 35 are exceptions to rule 84.
86. The term “sage” does not refer to the spice.
87. If you say Candlejack, you w
88. Anonymous rules the internet. No exceptions.
89. Mitchell Henderson was an hero to us all.
90. It’s never lupus.
91. There is gay porn of it, no exceptions.
92. Chuck Norris is the exception to rule 91. No exceptions.
93. Go fuck yourself.
95. Anonymous did NOT, under any circumstances, tk him 2da bar|?
96. If you express astonishment at someone’s claim, it is most likely just a clever ruse.
96.5. Thank you!
97. The government, The CIA, Everything is a lie.
98. Only Zippocat is truth.
99. All numbers are at least 100 but always OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAND.
100. Faggotry will not be tolerated.
101. You are never THE BEST suck at anyeverything, deal with it.
102. You are made of fail and AIDS.
103. That’s not mud.
104. The internet is for porn.
106. Rule 109 is true.
107. “That’s what she said” jokes are stupid
109. Rule 106 is false.
110. If your statement is preceded by “HAY GUYZ”, then you’re doing something wrong.
111. If you cannot understand it, it is machine code.
112. What you click isn’t always what you get.
113. Gamestop does NOT have Battletoads. But ask anyway.
114. Secure tripcodes are for jerks.
115. If someone herd u liek Mudkipz, deny it constantly for the lulz.
116. Combo breakers are inevitable. If the combo is completed successfully, it is gay.
117. Always go out of your way to make newbies feel uncomfortable.
118. Newfags must be tortured to death. No exceptions.
119. Only newfags like caturday, Chuck Norris, and Desu fuck with The Rules.
120. Nobody likes you.
121. Co$ is the sworn enemy of Anonymous. It must be stopped.
122. There is NO God here (Except Chuck Norris).
123. 456789
124. When Anonymous is surprised, bricks must be shat.
125. If you have no bricks to shit, you are made of fail and AIDS.
126. shaMTV must give Rick his award. No exceptions.
127. No NewFaggots aloud.
128. Everything you know is a lie, but all those lies are nothing. So by using the transitive property we can conclude that everything = nothing and if you add an integer (x) into the equation we can single anything out and turn it into a certain amount of nothing explained by this graph e = everything n = nothing
————————————————-?  |      _?  |    ___/ \?e| ____/    \?  |/        \?  |________________________________?            n
As you can see, at a certain point of everything, nothing cannot exist. So in conclusion, I have no idea what I’m talking about.
129. BOTS will be dismantled.
130. Internet = Very Scary
131. Whatever it is, pie is involved in some form. No exceptions.
132. If it can’t be killed, it doesn’t exist. (Except Chuck Norris) No other exceptions.
133. If you met your girlfriend/boyfriend online then you are dating a one armed lady hooker named Steve.(Unless there is webcam involved, then his name is John.)
134. If it talks, you must shut it up.
135. Myspace is for thirteen year old girls and people who fit the description of Rule # 133.
136. _uck _ou_self solve it.
137. Tuck yourself in. Is the answer.
138. Rule 139 does/will not exist.
139. Rule 138 is true.
140. XKCD can explain everything. explain it or it goes.
141. Godmoding is retarded. Seriously just accept your death.
142. Just ignore him he will think you’re afk.
143. If you ignore her, she will bitch.
144. People can’t understand sarcasm.
145. If you take it seriously gtfo.
146. Stop giving the mic a blowjob.
147. Regardless, if you get pissed on teamspeak there is someone that has muted themselves just so they can laugh at you.
148. You don’t get any cookies. No exceptions. So don’t even ask.
149. Brandon is God’s son, making him Jesus. Chuck Norris has no son.
150. You are not going to get a handicap so don’t even ask. They will just target you.
151. You will not get a free Xbox 360/Playstation 3/iPhone so don’t even get your hopes up.
152. They didn’t call you retarded but they were thinking it.
153. It’s funny to pick on people’s grammar no matter how good it is. No exceptions.
154. The louder you scream at people the harder someone else will laugh.
155. They don’t have hacks, you just suck really bad.
156. If u want to know who anonymous is then GTFO!
157. Someone already did it better. No exceptions.
158. It was in an episode of South Park. No exceptions.
159. The more you deny something the more they are going to say that you are “something”.
160. Google ftw. No exceptions.
161. The guy next to you in the library is always looking at what you are saying.
162. The girl next to you in the library couldn’t give a shit.
163. There’s a reason- you know what? Fuck it. If you can’t figure it out, you seriously need to LURK MOAR.
164. Refer to step 2 on Rule #165.
165. Refer to step 3 on Rule #93.
166. People who get depressed on the internet need a better use of time.
167. Fleshlights are the answers to life’s problems. No exceptions.
168. If you pretend that you are drunk people will just think you’re retarded because no one can act drunk on the internet.
169? Nah I’ll have 2 69s.
170. None of us is as cruel as all of us.
171. At any given moment, more birds could join, leave, or peel off in another direction entirely.
172. Use inside jokes moar. It upsets users.
173. STFU! Before i go chris brown on you!
174. Only 4chan’rs unsuspecting victims hate Rick Astley.
175. The talk page is for spam. Don’t go there.
176. Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks children with the last name of Edgerton.
177. Tropicana tastes like the rainbow. No exceptions
178. Shadow sticks are fun to play with in the dark. Unless there are more than 3.
179. Refer to all unwritten rules. No exceptions.
180. For every life the internet improves it destroys 10 others.
181. Anything that’s good is a virus.
182. We better start helping the earth, otherwise Al Gore will take back the internets!!! NO MORE BROADBAND! NO DIALUP!
183. If I have 3 cakes and you have one cake, only here you have no cake and I have 3 ps3’s. Also, I have this cake.
184. The only potty training videos allowed are ones that feature tigers and are japanese in nature (english subtitles are acceptable)
185. The Internet and Golf are quite similar they both were invented for men to get away from woman, except the internet has porn.
186. Furfags can yiff in hell.
187. If you think you are the meister, you’re lying to yourself. JMW, JMO, JEO, JEE, and JME are teh Lords & Meisters. So all your bass r belong to us!
188. If none of these rules are followed/obliged to then Chuck Norris will roundhouse kick you to Mars.
189. Bukake is not cool. Never was. Never will be. EVER!!
190. The only good hentai is yuri, thats how the internet works.
191. You will always forget to add an attachment to your e-mails.
192. If you break rule 1 and 2. You will be rickroll’d in hell.
193. If you break rule 192. You will be spanked by Chuck Norris. In heaven. No exceptions.
194. If you break rule 2, Chuck Norris will tickle your pubes.
195. People called Fred are just epic. No Exceptions.
196. People named Tony are just win. No Exceptions.
197. People named Matty are just sexy. No and I mean no Exceptions.
198. If it’s not on Google, It doesn’t exist. No Exceptions.
199. “???? PROFIT!” must always be at the bottom, newfags.
200. Pictures or it didn’t happen.
201. Maths in failing:
Win + Fail = Epicfail?Fail + Fail = Win?Win + Win = Fail?Epicfail + Epicfail = Chuck Norris
No exceptions
203. If you run out of cookies, give apples, If you run out of apples, Give Spam. No exceptions.
204. People named Kevin are queer, People called “Z 0 D I A C” Are also queer. Please throw rocks at them, Unless Kevin knows what 8 X Pi Is. NO EXCEPTIONS.
205. Americans are fat. No exceptions (except for Dave)
206. Any breaking of pi will result in pi being broken. No one knows the consequenses. You have been warned.
207. Rules 1 and 2 are false. From now on, all rules must be about /b/. Unless they aren’t.
208. Rules 1, 2 and 206 are false. /b/ does not exist.
209. See rule 210.
210. See rule 209.
211. srt8 must not marry MITB. No exceptions.
212. 4chan sucks. No exceptions.
213. Your mother is behind you. No exceptions, unless she isn’t.
214. In case of an emergency, your emergency exit can be found in the top right corner of your screen. No, and i promise you, NO exceptions.
215. Rule 213 is false. Do not click that button.
216. 3, is the magic number…. 3, is the magic number…. NO EXCEPTIONS!
217. Creator of 4chan is gay. No exceptions.
218. Porn must only be looked at when porn is needed.
219. Google is not a calculator
222. Matt has a girlfriend. No Exceptions
223. Only faggots post rules above “PROFIT!”. No Exceptions.
224. All rules above “PROFIT!” don’t count. No Exceptions.
225. The Simpsons already did it. South Park already did it better. NO EXCEPTIONS
226. If a statement may be taken sexually in any way, then she already said it. No exceptions.
227. Creed is the worst band in the world. No exceptions
228. None of these rules apply to this wiki. No exceptions.
229. You never see the porn first, even if you made or drew it. No exceptions.
230. If it exists, there is Touhou fanart of it. No exceptions.
231. The number of friends you have on Facebook does not indicate the number of friends you have in reallife. No exceptions.
233. There’s always a rapist behind you. No exceptions.
234. You cannot control the person in charge. No exceptions.
235. The person in charge only wants to make your life miserable. No exceptions.
236. Eat the bagel!
237. Edward Cullen is a fag. No exceptions.
238. Only hardcore gamers buy computers without RAM
239. If you cant triforce then you are a newfag. And if you brag that you are not a newfag because you can triforce, you are still a newfag. The same thing goes for zalgo towers, greentext, blankpost, 7 and PENIS. No exceptions.???? ?
241. There will always be one rule that somebody left out. No exceptions.
242. Only niggers like watermelon. No exceptions.
243. The 90’s didn’t exist.
244. It’s not possible to understand it, and when you do understand it, then it’s even worse.
246. Never gonna give you up. Never gonna let you down. Never gonna run around and desert you. No exceptions.
247. Never gonna tell a lie, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna cross the line and hurt you. No exceptions.
248. By the time you are taking a shit every thread you’re interested in 404’s.
249. People on the internet do NOT know how to use apostrophe`s.
250. Rule 250 divided by 0. Oh shi-
251. Anything can be a meme.
252. This is a showdown, a throwdown, hell no I can’t slow down, it’s gonna go.
253. If it hadn’t been for Cotton Eyed Joe, Anonymous would have been married a long time ago.
254. One does not simply shoop da whoop into a mordor
255. Mods are fucking fags. No exceptions.
256. The cuter and more innocent it is, the more fun it is to corrupt it. See Rule 43.
257. I am a huge faggot. Please rape my face.
258. As the amount of time a person spends on the internet increases, the probability of that person learning about the sexual behavior (and in particular, PENISes) of species other than humans increases to 1.
259. The game. You just lost it.
260. The stuff under the sink is for drinking ONLY. NO EXCEPTIONS.
261. /b/ is the devil’s lair, no exceptions.
262. Azn people cant read well enough to type on here.
263. TENTACLE RAPE. ENJOY IT MOAR THAN 232. No exceptions.
264. Moot has cat ears, even in real life. No exceptions.
265. All Caturday threads will be bombarded with Zippocat. No exceptions.
266. That’s not mud.
267. The interwebz is for cats only
268. The government is a lie.
269. three 69’s. mmmm
270. The CIA is a lie
271. If it is merely amazing, it can never be OMIGOSH!
272. Anonymous rules the internet. No exceptions.
273. Be afraid of Allah. Wherever you are..
274. ;_;
276. inb4 ???? PROFIT
277. inafteralotofshit
279. Anonymous, The only thing you’ve managed to break so far, Is my heart.
280. This was a triumph.
281. All Anonymous are Hackers on Steroids. No Exceptions.
282. It’s not Lupus. It’s never Lupus. No Exceptions.
283. Stop calling me homo.
284. Pillz Here.
285. All will add to the awesome of this site. No exceptions.
286. There are always an exception. No exceptions.
287. Everybody is playing the game. No exceptions.
288. Nothing is Sacred.
289. The Black Guy Dies first. NO Exceptions. Unless it’s Morgan Freeman.
290. No one in real life cares about your interests. No exceptions.
291. Women are for sammiches. No exceptions. Women who are offended can refer to rule 293.
292. Women belong in the kitchen. No exceptions. Unless it is in the bedroom.
293. Why aren’t you in the kitchen? whore.
294. There is always an exception, when there’s no exceptions.
295. She does not want to touch you, nor does she want to love you.
297. Reading this makes you a mrade. As many exceptions as wanted
298. If you see it on 4chan it doesn’t exist.
299. This is blasphemy. This is madness. No exceptions.
301. 16 year old girls are the largest known source of fail in the universe. No exceptions.
302. If it isn’t a Rule. It Doesn’t exist. No Exceptions. Please Refer to Rule 303 for further Instructions.
303. If it isn’t a Rule Yet, it will be. No Exceptions
304. Anontalk is a bunch of fags. No exceptions.
305. AT&T is a bunch of fags. No exceptions.
308 .Thepiratebay is full of win. No exceptions
309. Moar rules?
310. Microsoft Sam is God. No Exceptions.
311. LOLcats created the internet. No Exceptions.
312. Rule 311 is false. Chuck Norris created the internet. No exceptions.
313. Tampons are teabags for vampires.
314.1592653589793238462643383279502… . Expect us.
315. Do NOT troll a troll. You do not know the consequences of doing this.
316. O o?317. /¯_______________________________?318. | SHOOP DA WHOOOOOOOOOOOOP?319. \_¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
322. Refer to step 1 on Rule #164
323. Boxxy Co$ is the only exception to rule 19.
324. One shall never be judged by what they fap to.
325. you NEVER shoot anybody in the balls. No exceptions.
326. Sharing is caring. No exceptions.
327. as long as there are 2 people on this earth, somebody is gonna want somebody dead
328. You always lose your money on something, no exceptions.
329. You always should like waffles.
330. Ctrl+W opens another webpage.
331. Rule -9 is the only exception to rule 325. No exceptions.
332. everybody was a newfag at one point in their lives.
333. None of the Internet rules can apply to every day life.
334. The Filmcow Forum member Tozoa_Nuva will destroy the internet.
335. In 50 years the world will follow these rule as if they were the bible.
336. Fear is only an alusion. No Exeptions.
337. No matter who or were you are Pedrobear will find you.
338. Sage is sexy. see Rule 86.
339. In soviet Russia, Rules write YOU!!!!!
340. People on the internet don’t care for your sempathy all they want is your pride.
341. The internet is like a cake,witch is like an onion witch is like an ogre.
342. If God made us and we made the internet then god must love porn.
343. 1+1=3. No exeptions.
344. If we were ment to fly we would be born with jet engines.
345. If you link-surf more than 3 times you will end up on porn.
346. Two people and something inanimate will always end bad.
347. Plagerizim is only right when its for school work! no execeptions.
348. Rule 347 was taken from some one else for a good reason.
349. The only proper way to experiance Web 2.0 is to use windows vista or mac OSX and be running firefox or google chrome. no exceptions.
350. Anyone can hack anything. No Exceptions.
351. Always remember, what has been seen can not be unseen
352. The internet is alive and it knows where you live. No exceptions.
353. Chuck Norris. No exceptions
354. Everyone, everywhere, sucks, all the time
355. Randomly typing the word “fuck” into anything instantly makes it better
356. YouTube wants your soul
357. The internet is everything. All that once was and all that will be. It controls time and space; love and death. The internet can see into your mind. The internet can see into your SOOOUUL. Not really
404. This rule is unable to be found.
666. Humanity is evil. No exceptions.
1337. You are not an oldfag because you know what 1337 means. No exceptions.
2012. It’s the end of the world as we know it. And I feel fine.
9000. Vegeta what does the scoter say about his power level?...
9001. It’s over 9000. No exceptions.
9002. Newfags abuse the meme “OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAND”
9003. If it has a hole it can be fucked. No exceptions.
9004. ????
9005. PROFIT!
?. Guns are the answer. No exceptions.
?+1. Denying it does make it go away except AIDS, no exceptions
?+2. Its not gay if you beat them up afterwards.
?+3. Only Newfags believe in the number Infiniti.

Comment From Brendan Perring submitted at 13.10.2009.:

This manifesto has high points and is perhaps a sign pointing towards the roads that are already being travelled upon by the enlightend few.

Could we call this the beggining of the new enlightenment?

This manifesto is currently being commented upon and studied by 90 Journalists studying at Postgraduate level at the University of Cardiff.

Comment From WhiteBird submitted at 18.10.2009.:

I am a former radio journalist.  I hope that there’s ALWAYS a place for in-depth, insightful, factual journalism (the type that newspapers and magazines in my country USED TO provide).  Sadly, in my nation (the first nation to HAVE freedom of the press) the major media (broadcast AND print) are now controlled by corporate interests which are themselves controlled by the few.  I do not see the quality of internet journalism (sadly) being up to par.  In fact, there is very little actual journalism on the web that I’ve seen.  People point to bloggers, who try to look authoritative, as if they’re journalists.  However, I find that their material is often highly biased.

Comment From Øystein Jakobsen submitted at 29.10.2009.:

Great manifesto, although the name should not be “Internet Manifesto” but “Digital Journalism Manifesto”. It dont say much about internet in general.

The “Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace” written by John Perry Barlow in 1996 was an Internet Manifesto as such. He wrote with great clarity and vision, and did so beautifully.!Q09MT1JMSU5FXGV4dDIxNjpibHVlY29hdDpnkg61yIPx6/FF8JCfSC3F

Read everything, twice, and compare the text to current events. You will see little have changed….

Comment From Paolo Del Bene submitted at 10.11.2009.:

da paolo del bene <>
a “On. Roberto Cassinelli”  <,>
data 06 ottobre 2009 07.31
oggetto   Re: Software Non Libero e Software Libero

On.le Avv. Roberto Cassinelli,

Con la presente le rendo noto che in data 25 Settembre 2009 si è tenuta una Conferenza Stampa, con la quale il Ministro Renato Bruentta ed il Mnistro della Pubblica Istruzione Gelmini, hanno illustrato le iniziative del Governo in tema di innovazione digitale della scuola, ricomprese nel
programma e-Gov 2012.

Come le avevo già detto:

Paolo Del Bene: siamo altresì alterati per il continuo uso dei sistemi operativi microsoft,  nella pubblica amministrazione, senza prendere in considerazione il software libero che sarebbe un grande apporto di cultura se desidera le posso render noto i miei siti: ed il continuo lavoro no-profit eseguito finora per quanto riguarda la prassi per il rimborso di windows sui computers portatili
Roberto Cassinelli: Su questo specifico tema c’è da fare attenzione alla normativa comunitaria in materia di antitrust. Comunque vi sono già in Parlamento proposte per l’adozione di software libero.

Riguardo al testo pubblicato in nero lei mi aveva detto: Comunque vi sono già in Parlamento proposte per l’adozione di software libero.

Non mi sembra che tali proposte vengano seriamente prese in considerazione, dato che:
Il Ministero dell’Istruzione dell’Università e della Ricerca ed il Ministero per la Pubblica Amministrazione e l’Innovazione hanno sottoscritto un Protocollo di Intesa con Microsoft S.r.l., nel quale si prevede un “impegno congiunto per la divulgazione della cultura digitale”, che si concretizza nella realizzazione di “attività mirate a rafforzare la diffusione di una cultura digitale nel sistema educativo” (art. 1).

Questo comportamento tende a rafforzare e promuovere prodotti e tecnologie di un’azienda il cui abuso di posizione dominante sul mercato è stato oggetto di ripetute sanzioni da parte delle autorità antitrust europee [1].

A maggio scorso al Forum Pa 2009 a Via Portuense 1555 (Roma), tenni una sessione che riguardava: “Il Software Libero nella Pubblica Amministrazione e l’ostruzionismo esercitato dai vari Governi, dietro pressione delle varie Multinazionali”.

Anzichè dar prova che i Governi passati e quello presente è capace di ignorare Microsoft, si continua a spender centinaia di milioni di euro 325.000.000 e poi il Ministro Renato Brunetta, va parlando di
assenteismo, scarsa produzione nel pubblico impiego, quando sinceramente qui si stanno svuotando le tasche degli ITALIANI.

Almeno i soldi li avessero spesi il Mnisitro Renato Brunetta e Gelmini, tirandoli fuori dalla propria tasca, invece no, stanno “mettendo in ginocchio il popolo italiano”, solo perchè debbono rafforzare il
partnership con Microsoft.

Tutto ciò è riprovevole e non posso credere che stia accadendo proprio a noi, inoltre e se lei ha letto il mio c’è scritto apertamente che:

“Un governo ha la responsabilità verso i suoi cittadini di mantenere il controllo dei propri computers e del loro funzionamento e l’unico modo per fare ciò è assicurandosi di usare solo Softwares Liberi perché quando si usano Softwares Non Liberi non si è in grado di controllare i propri computers chi ha sviluppato il programma controlla ciò che fa ma non si può nemmeno scoprire cosa faccia realmente non si può verificare, non si può revisionare il che significa che non si ha controllo ora è sbagliato se io e te non abbiamo controllo è sbagliato per noi ma quando è un governo a non avere il controllo dei suoi computers ciò non è sbagliato solo per il governo è sbagliato per tutti i cittadini che quel governo si suppone rappresenti e per i quali lavora, il governo non ha solo il diritto ma la responsabilità il dovere di insistere per l’uso di Softwares Liberi nei suoi computers”.
Queste sono le parole di Richard Matthew Stallman fondatore della Free Software Foundation http:/

Il Ministro Renato Brunetta e Gelmini sono liberi di comportarsi come desiderano, ma non certo con i soldi dei contribuenti.

“La notizia di quegli accordi ha destato in noi viva preoccupazione: in primo luogo perché la P.A. spende ogni anno molti milioni di euro in licenze software (274 nel solo 2003), in secondo luogo perché l’azienda Microsoft è stata condannata in sede europea per abuso di posizione dominante e in terzo luogo perché in qualità di Ministro della Repubblica Lei non può ignorare che il software libero offre una valida alternativa e che la legge (art. 68 D.Lgs. 82/05) impone di realizzare una valutazione comparativa prima d’acquisire il software da utilizzare”.

I vantaggi derivanti dal Software Libero:

Il software Libero iniziò ad esser usato inizialmente nella Pubblica Amministrazone di Bolzano, ottenendo i seguenti risultati:


Il testo integrale dell’intervista effettuata è disponibile al seguente URL:,7246,243^1072182,00.html

“in diverse occasioni ho chiesto a persone vicine all’ex ministro all’ambiente Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio, se fosse stato disposto ad aprire l’evento del JavaDay 1 Dicembre 2007 a Via della Vasca Navale presso La Sapienza “Roma3?.

Non sono mai stato raggiunto da una risposta ne affermativa, ne negativa, ma la cosa più dolente è che non solo non ha aperto l’evento, ma lui che a Primo Piano disse che era a favore del Software Libero, non si è mai fatto vedere in nessuna occasione presso le Università Italiane, così come Antonio Di Pietro dell’Italia dei Valori, che firma a favore del Software Libero e poi scompare nel nulla, lo stesso dicasi per Beatrice Magnolfi.

Per non parlare di Fabio Mussi che prima era nei DS, poi nella Sinistra Democratica ed infine con la Sinistra Arcobaleno.

Proprio lui assieme a Nicolais…. ha fatto avere a Microsoft un contributo a fondo perduto di 8.835.400 euro per l’informatizzazione del centro universitario di Trento.

Trento è solo sulla carta Italiano, poi è una regione a statuto speciale, dunque perchè i contributi li deve dare Roma LADRONA ?

Perchè poi dobbiamo regalare alla Microsoft somme di oltre 200 milioni di euro ?

Forse si sara impoverita con tutte le multe che deve pagare ?

Una volta per sempre si chiede di metter fine a questo continuo sperpero del denaro dei contribuenti, che, nel 90% dei casi, finisce nelle mani di microsoft e le sue partnerships.

Con l’ultima finanziaria 2007, sono stati destinati al Centro di Trento, ben 8.835.400,00 euro da elargire durante il 2007, 2008, 2009.

Si chiede pertanto di bloccare tale erogazione di fondi, sottolineo inoltre, che per il software libero erano stati destinati ben 10.000.000 di euro, non 1 centesimo di euro è stato erogato, nonostante la finanziaria 2007 lo prevedesse.

La finanziaria di fine anno 2007 parla da se:

contributo per la realizzazione dei progetti per la società dell’informazione

art. 1, c. 892

Al fine di estendere e sostenere in tutto il territorio nazionale la realizzazione di progetti per la società dell’informazione, è autorizzata una spesa di 10 milioni di euro per ciascuno degli anni 2007, 2008 e 2009.

Con decreto di natura non regolamentare, entro quattro mesi dalla data di entrata in vigore della presente legge, il Ministro per le riforme e le innovazioni nella pubblica amministrazione, di concerto con il Ministro per gli affari regionali e le autonomie locali per gli interventi relativi alle regioni e agli enti locali, individua le azioni da realizzare sul territorio nazionale, le aree destinatarie della sperimentazione e le modalità operative e di gestione di tali progetti.

Priorità dei progetti da finanziare

art. 1, c. 895

Nella valutazione dei progetti da finanziare, di cui al comma 892, è data priorità a quelli che utilizzano o sviluppano applicazioni software a codice aperto.

I codici sorgente, gli eseguibili e la documentazione dei softwares sviluppati sono mantenuti in un ambiente di sviluppo cooperativo, situato in un web individuato dal Ministero per le riforme e le innovazioni nella pubblica amministrazione al fine di poter essere visibili e riutilizzabili.

Si è sempre detto di voler usare il software libero in Italia perchè crea: condivisione del sapere, libero scambio del software, forma mentis, sviluppo software, posti di lavoro.

Cio’ permette di risparmiare ed usare in modo migliore i fondi dell’Unione Europea e del Governo Italiano.

Si preferisce però sperperare e a tal proposito, il Centro di Trento, è un esempio di erogazione di fondi non tassati, destinati a Microsoft (una multinazionale che la fa da padrone in tutto il mondo, pensando di poter imporre il suo sistema capitalistico ovunque).

Chiedo dunque che vengano elargiti 10.000.000 di euro da versare sul c/c che prossimamente vi comunicherò, soldi che verrano destinati interamente al Software Libero e qualsiasi somma che dovesse rimanere sarà restituita in parte, perchè chi si prodigherà a questo immenso lavoro dovrà pure pagare tecnici, materiali…. da mettere nelle varie istituzioni, visto che l’attuale Governo non ci pensa proprio a far mettere il Software Libero.

Il Ministro Renato Brunetta, dovrebbe chiarire definitivamente,  se in materia di Software non Libero, ebbe modo di aver preso atto dell’ (art. 68 D.Lgs. 82/05) che impone di realizzare una valutazione comparativa prima d’acquisire il software da utilizzare”.

Un Ministro dovrebbe far si che fra tante leggi i cittadini possano apprendere in modo chiaro e cristallino, semplice e celere l’attuazione delle leggi, come in Svezia.

Spero che molti altri la pensino come me !

Distinti Saluti,

Paolo Del Bene

p.s: investendo sul software non libero si aumenta sempre di più il DIGITAL DIVIDE !

Comment From Christiane Falke submitted at 20.4.2010.:

Here is a Danish version

Comment From Peter Klein submitted at 17.6.2010.:

I suggest to those who’ve commented to consider the following.

What these gentlemen have done is to thoughtfully and considerately compile the most concise and honest statements with regards to the viability, usefulness and value of both Independant, citizen media with the Internet as the distribution mechanism.

Just knowing that this document now exists for all time and can’t be shredded or spun gives me great hope that both the lot of fine men that thought this was such an important mission and the poor-spirited amongst the commenters who care more to defame the work using such narrow and ignorant criticisms can continue to co-exist as Netizens.

My theory is that as the mediums mature, we will regain both our language and the lost value in the importance of our comments. Then, rather than issue forth a barrage of negativism, we will (as I have in this post) take time to consider the material.

It’s been nearly a year. After occasional consideration, this work still stands up. In 20 years, this work might well be priceless. Free, but priceless.

Thanks to you all!

Comment From Simon Lydeals submitted at 23.6.2011.:

With the continuous rise of the internet it’s definately a good thing that journalism create a document like this. After all newspapers may not be around for much longer

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.