Abstract
Information and communication technologies present new challenges for
political theory and philosophy due to its large-scale and scope transformations. Their demands are reflected in institutional needs that cover a “cyber-political” space, i. e., a cluster of problems of the governance of the network of networks –Internet– that results in
the formation of new institutions –e. g. ICANN. The question I try to answer here is: What characterizes cyberspace political discourses? The proposed hypothesis is that it is possible to interpret the varied cyber-political positions from their relation with the actors that dispute cyberspace regulation. Taking this relationship as an Archimedean
point, I distinguish between extreme positions –cyber-conservatism and
cyber-libertarianism– and moderate positions –cyber-liberalism and cyber-
socialism. Through the investigation of the works of the main proponents
of each position (Goldsmith, Wu, Barlow, Assange, Lessig, Barbrook and
Filby) I try to show the modifications in the traditional political positions after the incorporation of the prefix “cyber” and also, to highlight the benefits of the moderate positions over the extreme ones.