What is a Manifesto ?

A manifest is a document that sets out the principles and objectives of an organization. Typically, a manifesto has been designed for wide dissemination to the public, and serves as an official record. Often is a manifesto of a political nature, as is the case with the Communist Manifesto, but a show can also be used by artists and other groups as a means of mass communication. In many cases, a manifesto is very revolutionary, and is designed to stimulate public dialogue. Generally, a manifesto for the public are written in clear, simple way that everyone can understand. The document can be long or short, and many of the organizations will create a poster campaign shorter than the mass distribution to the public interest. Shorter poster can be seen as a pilot or a poster, which can be easily duplicated and distributed, and contains information that can not be more manifest. It is expected that after reading a manifesto, members of the public seeking more information about the group he wrote, by creating awareness and support of a movement. In addition, the manifest can be used as a starting point for public debate, as some readers will probably criticize while others advocate. These discussions may help refine the manifest, as members of the public to raise important issues not addressed in the original. As a revolutionary statement, a manifesto to be a powerful document and fat. In some cases, the authors can not be identified, especially if the manifest is very radical for the sake of their safety. Citizens read the manifesto may have to question their government, the life they live, the state of science, or the meaning of art. This introspective interaction with the clear desire often lead the reader to forward it to another, causing the public to develop. Besides being used by revolutionary groups and mainstream political parties in some areas, many artists use the manifest as a communication tool to promote dialogue on the state of the art. This is particularly common with the art collectives, which may include political issues in his art or aesthetic participate in discussions with other groups of artists and critics. Some groups of famous writers have published manifestos, and some progressive companies issue a tongue in cheek "manifesto" to describe their goals and ethics as a society.

The Hardware Hacker Manifesto (2010), by Cody Brocious

My name is Cody and I'm a hardware hacker. It started at the age of five, taking apart a toy computer to figure out how it worked. I live for that thrill of discovery and rush of power that I feel when I figure out what makes something tick, then figure out how to bend it to my will. This has led to me hacking everything from game consoles to phones.

It used to be that this was what people did: if something was wrong with a device, it was acceptable to take it apart, figure out how it worked, and fix whatever was wrong with it. That's no longer the case; we're still there -- in growing numbers, to boot -- but what's changed is that it's no longer acceptable. As companies have made devices more and more locked down, making hardware hacking even more important than ever, there's a growing segment of the population that believes we're pirates. Who are we to modify these devices against the company's will?

It all comes down to one simple question: once you've purchased something, do you own it? While this may seem like a silly question, it's the entire crux of the argument for hardware hacking. If you believe that the purchaser owns the good, then they have the right to do with it what they want.

I exercise that right on a daily basis, whether with my jailbroken phone, my Wii running homebrew media player software, or -- now -- my hacked brain-computer interface. The last case is interesting, because it's the first time I've ever been called a pirate by a representative of the company producing the hardware I hacked:


Piracy is a vexed question but in its worst form it is still basically taking what someone has spent a lot of time and money on, and denying them some or all of the rewards for doing it. If the developer is being reasonable about it then it's tough to justify piracy. It costs a lot to get something developed and into the market, and next to nothing to copy or crack it. It discourages people from taking the risks in the first place, and we're all the poorer for the things that didn't get done because they would be too easy to steal.

In this case, I purchased a brain-computer interface outright, then proceeded to reverse-engineer it and release details of how to communicate with it. In the week since I released this, I've been called a selfish pirate more than I'd like to recall. All of this because I decided to exercise my right to use my hardware the way I want.

Why should we have to ask permission to use what we've spent our money on? Let's see an absurd extension of this logic: Why should Ford lose out on the rewards of building the car, when you don't go to an authorized service station to get your oil changed?

Let me make this crystal clear: once you sell me something, I will do whatever I want with it. Period. I'll take it apart, I'll patch it, I'll make it do things you never imagined, and I'll tell everyone who will listen exactly how to do the same. It's mine, and every device you've purchased is yours too; don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

I am a hardware hacker and this is my manifesto. We've always been here and we will always be here; you can fight to keep us out, but we'll fight even harder to get back in. I assure you we'll win.

Principles of Programming Languages (2007), by Robert Harper

This is a course on the principles of programming languages. Why study these principles? Because they are fundamental to the design, implementation, and application of programming languages.
Programming language design is often regarded as largely, or even entirely, a matter of opinion, with few, if any, organizing principles, and no generally accepted facts. Dozens of languages are in everyday use in research laboratories and in industry, each with its adherents and detractors. The relative merits of languages are debated endlessly, but always, it seems, with an inconclusive outcome. Some would even suggest that all languages are equivalent, the only difference being a matter of personal taste. Yet it is obvious that programming languages do matter!
Yet can we really say that Java is ``better'' (or ``worse'') than C++? Is Scheme ``better'' than Lisp? Is ML ``better'' than either of them? Can we hope to give substance to any of these questions? Or should we simply reserve them for late night bull sessions over a glass of beer? While there is certainly an irreducible subjective element in programming language design, there is also a rigorous scientific theory of programming languages that provides a framework for posing, and sometimes answering, such questions. To be sure there are good questions for which current theory offers no solutions, but surprisingly many issues are amenable to a rigorous analysis, providing definite answers to many questions. Programming language theory liberates us from the tar pit of personal opinion, and elevates us to the level of respectable scientific discourse.
Programming language theory is fundamental to the implementation of programming languages, as well as their design. While compiler writers have long drawn on the theory of grammars for parsing and on graph theory for register allocation, the methods used to compile well-known languages such as C do not rely on deep results from programming language theory. For relatively simple languages, relatively simple compilation methods suffice. But as languages become more sophisticated, so must more sophisticated methods be employed to compile them.
For example, some programs can be made substantially more efficient if code generation is deferred until some run-time data is available. A tight inner loop might be ``unrolled'' into a linear instruction sequence once the iteration bound is determined. This is one example of partial evaluation, a technique for program specialization that rests on results from programming language theory. To take another example, modern languages such as ML (and proposed extensions of Java) include what are known as parameterized types to support flexible code re-use. Parameterized types complicate compilers considerably because they must account for situations in which the type of a variable or function argument is not known at compile time. The most effective methods for handling parameterized types rely on typed intermediate languages with quite sophisticated type systems. Here again programming language theory provides the foundation for building such compilers.
Programming language theory has many applications to programming practice. For example, ``little languages'' arise frequently in software systems --- command languages, scripting languages, configuration files, mark-up languages, and so on. All too often the basic principles of programming languages are neglected in their design, with all too familiar results. After all, the argument goes, these are ``just'' scripting languages, or ``just'' mark-up languages, why bother too much about them? One reason is that what starts out as ``just'' an ad hoc little language often grows into much more than that, to the point that it is, or ought to be, a fully-fledged language in its own right. Programming language theory can serve as a guide to the design and implementation of special purpose, as well as general purpose, languages.
Another application of the theory of programming languages is to provide a rigorous foundation for software engineering. Formal methods for software engineering are grounded in the theory of specification and verification. A specification is a logical formula describing the intended behavior of a program. There are all kinds of specifications, ranging from simple typing conditions (``the result is a floating point number between 0 and 1'') to complex invariants governing shared variables in a concurrent program. Verification is the process of checking that the implementation indeed satisfies the specification. Much work has gone into the development of tools for specifying and verifying programs. Programming language theory makes precise the connection between the code and its specification, and provides the basis for constructing tools for program analysis.
The theory of programming languages provides a ``reality check'' on programming methodology, that part of software engineering concerned with the codification of successful approaches to software development. For example, the merits of object-oriented programming for software development are well known and widely touted. Object-oriented methodology relies heavily the notions of subtyping and inheritance. In many accounts these two notions are confused, or even conflated into one concept, apparently because both are concerned with the idea of one class being an enrichment of another. But careful analysis reveals that the two concepts are, and must be, distinct: confusing them leads to programs that violate abstraction boundaries or even incur run-time faults.
The purpose of the this course is to introduce the basic principles, methods, and results of programming languages to undergraduate students who have completed the introductory sequence in computer science at Carnegie Mellon.  I intend for students to develop an appreciation for the benefits (and limitations) of the rigorous analysis of programming concepts

The Mozilla Manifesto (2007), by Mozilla community

The Internet is becoming an increasingly important part of our lives.
The Mozilla project is a global community of people who believe that openness, innovation, and opportunity are key to the continued health of the Internet. We have worked together since 1998 to ensure that the Internet is developed in a way that benefits everyone. We are best known for creating the Mozilla Firefox web browser.
The Mozilla project uses a community-based approach to create world-class open source software and to develop new types of collaborative activities. We create communities of people involved in making the Internet experience better for all of us.
As a result of these efforts, we have distilled a set of principles that we believe are critical for the Internet to continue to benefit the public good as well as commercial aspects of life. We set out these principles below.
The goals for the Manifesto are to:
  1. articulate a vision for the Internet that Mozilla participants want the Mozilla Foundation to pursue;
  2. speak to people whether or not they have a technical background;
  3. make Mozilla contributors proud of what we're doing and motivate us to continue; and
  4. provide a framework for other people to advance this vision of the Internet.
These principles will not come to life on their own. People are needed to make the Internet open and participatory - people acting as individuals, working together in groups, and leading others. The Mozilla Foundation is committed to advancing the principles set out in the Mozilla Manifesto. We invite others to join us and make the Internet an ever better place for everyone.

Principles

  1. The Internet is an integral part of modern life–a key component in education, communication, collaboration, business, entertainment and society as a whole.
  2. The Internet is a global public resource that must remain open and accessible.
  3. The Internet should enrich the lives of individual human beings.
  4. Individuals' security on the Internet is fundamental and cannot be treated as optional.
  5. Individuals must have the ability to shape their own experiences on the Internet.
  6. The effectiveness of the Internet as a public resource depends upon interoperability (protocols, data formats, content), innovation and decentralized participation worldwide.
  7. Free and open source software promotes the development of the Internet as a public resource.
  8. Transparent community-based processes promote participation, accountability, and trust.
  9. Commercial involvement in the development of the Internet brings many benefits; a balance between commercial goals and public benefit is critical.
  10. Magnifying the public benefit aspects of the Internet is an important goal, worthy of time, attention and commitment.

Advancing the Mozilla Manifesto

There are many different ways of advancing the principles of the Mozilla Manifesto. We welcome a broad range of activities, and anticipate the same creativity that Mozilla participants have shown in other areas of the project. For individuals not deeply involved in the Mozilla project, one basic and very effective way to support the Manifesto is to use Mozilla Firefox and other products that embody the principles of the Manifesto.

Mozilla Foundation Pledge

The Mozilla Foundation pledges to support the Mozilla Manifesto in its activities. Specifically, we will:
  • build and enable open-source technologies and communities that support the Manifesto's principles;
  • build and deliver great consumer products that support the Manifesto's principles;
  • use the Mozilla assets (intellectual property such as copyrights and trademarks, infrastructure, funds, and reputation) to keep the Internet an open platform;
  • promote models for creating economic value for the public benefit; and
  • promote the Mozilla Manifesto principles in public discourse and within the Internet industry.
Some Foundation activities–currently the creation, delivery and promotion of consumer products–are conducted primarily through the Mozilla Foundation's wholly owned subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation.

Invitation

The Mozilla Foundation invites all others who support the principles of the Mozilla Manifesto to join with us, and to find new ways to make this vision of the Internet a reality.

The Agile Manifesto (2001) by 17 software professionals

Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer
through early and continuous delivery
of valuable software.

Welcome changing requirements, even late in
development. Agile processes harness change for
the customer's competitive advantage.

Deliver working software frequently, from a
couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a
preference to the shorter timescale.

Business people and developers must work
together daily throughout the project.

Build projects around motivated individuals.
Give them the environment and support they need,
and trust them to get the job done.

The most efficient and effective method of
conveying information to and within a development
team is face-to-face conversation.

Working software is the primary measure of progress.

Agile processes promote sustainable development.
The sponsors, developers, and users should be able
to maintain a constant pace indefinitely.

Continuous attention to technical excellence
and good design enhances agility.

Simplicity--the art of maximizing the amount
of work not done--is essential.

The best architectures, requirements, and designs
emerge from self-organizing teams.

At regular intervals, the team reflects on how
to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts
its behavior accordingly.

The Hacktivismo Declaration (2001) by Oxblood Ruffin

Free speech is under siege at the
margins of the Internet. Quite a few countries are censoring access
to the Web through DNS [Domain Name Service] filtering. This is a
process whereby politically incorrect information is blocked by
domain address -- the name that appears before the dot com suffix.
Others employ filtering which denies politically or socially
challenging subject matter based on its content.

Hacktivismo and the CULT OF THE DEAD COW have decided that enough
is too much. We are hackers and free speech advocates, and we are
developing technologies to challenge state-sponsored censorship of
the Internet.

Most countries use intimidation and filtering of one, kind or
another including the Peoples Republic of China, Cuba, and many
Islamic countries. Most claim to be blocking pornographic content.
But the real reason is to prevent challenging content from spreading
through repressive regimes. This includes information ranging from
political opinion, "foreign" news, women's issues, academic
and scholarly works, religious information, information
regarding ethnic groups in disfavor, news of human rights abuses,
documents which present drugs in a positive light, and gay and lesbian
content, among others.

The capriciousness of state-sanctioned censorship is wide-ranging. [1]

* In Zambia, the government has attempted to censor information
revealing their plans for constitutional referendums. 

* In Mauritania -- as in most countries --, owners of cybercafes are
required to supply government intelligence agents with copies of e-mail
sent or received at their establishments.

* Even less draconian governments, like Malaysia, have threatened
web-publishers for violating their publishing licenses by publishing
frequent updates: _timely, relevant_ information is seen as a threat.

* South Korean's national security law forbids South Koreans from
having any contact -- including contact over the Internet -- with 
their North Korean neighbors. 

* Sri Lanka threatened news sites with possible revocation
of their licenses if coverage of a presidential election
campaign was not partial to the party of the outgoing president.

The risks of accessing or disseminating information are often great.

* In Ukraine, a decapitated body found near the village of Tarachtcha is
believed to be that of Georgiy Gongadze, founder and editor of an
on-line newspaper critical of the authorities. 

* In August, 1998, eighteen year old Turk Emre Ersoz was found
guilty of "insulting the national police" in an Internet forum
after participating in a demonstration that was violently suppressed
by the police. His ISP provided the authorities with his address.

* Journalist Miroslav Filipovic has the dubious distinction of having
been the first Journalist accused of spying because of articles
published on the Internet -- in this case detailing the abuses of
certain Yugoslav army units in Kosovo.

We are sickened by these egregious violations of information and
human rights. The liberal democracies have talked a far better
game than they've played on access to information. But hackers
are not willing to watch the custodians of the International
Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights turn them into a mockery. We are
willing to put our money where our mouth is.

Hacktivismo and the CULT OF THE DEAD COW are issuing the HACKTIVISMO
DECLARATION as a declaration of outrage and a statement of intent.
It is our Magna Carta for information rights. People have a right
to reasonable access of otherwise lawfully published information.
If our leaders aren't prepared to defend the Internet, we are.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] some information cited in this press release was either
paraphrased, or quoted directly, from the "Enemies of the Internet"
report published by Reporters Without Frontiers, and may be found
at http://www.rsf.fr

/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>

 THE HACKTIVISMO DECLARATION
assertions of liberty in support of an uncensored internet

DEEPLY ALARMED that state-sponsored censorship of the Internet is
rapidly spreading with the assistance of transnational corporations,

TAKING AS A BASIS the principles and purposes enshrined in Article 19
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) that states,
_Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this
right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media
and regardless of frontiers_, and Article 19 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that says,

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right
shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and
ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing
or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his
choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this 
article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may
therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be
such as are provided by law and are necessary:

 (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

 (b) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of
public health or morals.

RECALLING that some member states of the United Nations have signed the
ICCPR, or have ratified it in such a way as to prevent their citizens 
from using it in courts of law,

CONSIDERING that, such member states continue to willfully suppress
wide-ranging access to lawfully published information on the Internet,
despite the clear language of the ICCPR that freedom of expression 
exists in all media,

TAKING NOTE that transnational corporations continue to sell 
information technologies to the world's most repressive regimes
knowing full well that they will be used to track and control an
already harried citizenry,

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT that the Internet is fast becoming a method of
repression rather than an instrument of liberation,

BEARING IN MIND that in some countries it is a crime to demand the 
right to access lawfully published information, and of other basic human
rights,

RECALLING that member states of the United Nations have failed to press 
the world's most egregious information rights violators to a higher 
standard,

MINDFUL that denying access to information could lead to spiritual,
intellectual, and economic decline, the promotion of xenophobia and
destabilization of international order,

CONCERNED that governments and transnationals are colluding to maintain 
the status quo,

DEEPLY ALARMED that world leaders have failed to address information 
rights issues directly and without equivocation,

RECOGNIZING the importance to fight against human rights abuses with 
respect to reasonable access to information on the Internet,

THEREFORE WE ARE CONVINCED that the international hacking community has 
a moral imperative to act, and we

DECLARE:

* THAT FULL RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS 
INCLUDES THE LIBERTY OF FAIR AND REASONABLE ACCESS TO INFORMATION,
WHETHER BY SHORTWAVE RADIO, AIR MAIL, SIMPLE TELEPHONY, THE GLOBAL
INTERNET, OR OTHER MEDIA.

* THAT WE RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT OF GOVERNMENTS TO FORBID THE 
PUBLICATION OF PROPERLY CATEGORIZED STATE SECRETS, CHILD PORNOGRAPHY,
AND MATTERS RELATED TO PERSONAL PRIVACY AND PRIVILEDGE, AMONG OTHER
ACCEPTED RESTRICTIONS. BUT WE OPPOSE THE USE OF STATE POWER TO CONTROL
ACCESS TO THE WORKS OF CRITICS, INTELLECTUALS, ARTISTS, OR RELIGIOUS
FIGURES.

* THAT STATE SPONSORED CENSORSHIP OF THE INTERNET ERODES PEACEFUL AND
CIVILIZED COEXISTENCE, AFFECTS THE EXERCISE OF DEMOCRACY, AND ENDANGERS 
THE SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONS.

* THAT STATE-SPONSORED CENSORSHIP OF THE INTERNET IS A SERIOUS FORM 
OF ORGANIZED AND SYSTEMATIC VIOLENCE AGAINST CITIZENS, IS INTENDED TO 
GENERATE CONFUSION AND XENOPHOPIA, AND IS A REPREHENSIBLE VIOLATION OF
TRUST.

* THAT WE WILL STUDY WAYS AND MEANS OF CIRCUMVENTING STATE SPONSORED
CENSORSHIP OF THE INTERNET AND WILL IMPLEMENT TECHNOLOGIES TO CHALLENGE
INFORMATION RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.

The Cluetrain Manifesto (1999) by Rick Levine, Christopher Locke, Doc Searls and David Weinberger

A single paragraph summarizes the essential position taken by the writers:
A powerful le are discovering and inventing new ways to share relevant knowledge with blinding speed. As a direct result, markets are getting smarter—and getting smarter faster than most companies.
A reading of the '95 theses' can lead to a number of divisions or aggregations, it is possible to make a somewhat arbitrary split of the listed theses as a basis for understanding the content of the printed publication and a simplified structural view of the main suppositions of the authors.

Theses 1–6: Markets are Conversations

Historically, the authors state, the marketplace was a location where people gathered and talked to each other (thesis 1): they would discuss available products, price, reputation and in doing so connect with others (theses 2–5.) The authors then assert that the internet is providing a means for anyone connected to the internet to re-enter such a virtual marketplace and once again achieve such a level of communication between people. This, prior to the internet, had not been available in the age of mass media (thesis 6.)

Thesis 7: Hyperlinks Subvert Hierarchy

The ability of the internet to link to additional information – information which might exist beyond the formal hierarchy of organizational structure or published material from such an organization – acts as a means of subverting, or bypassing, formal hierarchies.

Theses 8–13: Connection between the new markets and companies

The same technology connecting people into markets outside of organizations, is also connecting employees within organizations (thesis 8.) The authors suggest that these networks create a more informed marketplace/consumer (thesis 9) through the conversations being held. The information available in the marketplace is superior to that available from the organizations themselves (thesis 10–12.)
The authors, through the remaining theses, then examine the impact that these changes will have on organizations and how, in turn, organizations will need to respond to the changing marketplace to remain viable.

Theses 14 – 25: Organizations entering the marketplace

With the emergence of the virtual marketplace, the authors indicate that the onus will be on organizations to enter the marketplace conversation (thesis 25) and do so in a way that connects with the ‘voice’ of the new marketplace (thesis 14–16) or risk becoming irrelevant (thesis 16).

Theses 26–40: Marketing & Organizational Response

The authors then list a number of theses that deal with the approach that they believe organizations will need to adapt if they are to successfully enter the new marketplace (thesis 26) as it is claimed that those within the new marketplace will no longer respond to the previously issued mass-media communications as such communication is not ‘authentic’ (thesis 33.)

Theses 41–52: Intranets and the impact to organization control and structure

More fully exploring the impact of the intranet within organizations, theses forty-one through fifty-two elaborate on the subversion of hierarchy initially listed as thesis seven. When implemented correctly (theses 44–46), it is suggested that such intranets re-establish real communication amongst employees in parallel with the impact of the internet to the marketplace (thesis 48) and this will lead to a 'hyperlinked' organizational structure within the organization which will take the place of (or be utilized in place of) the formally documented organization chart (thesis 50).

Theses 53–71: Connecting the Internet marketplace with corporate Intranets

The ideal, according to the manifesto, is for the networked marketplace to be connected to the networked intranet so that full communication can exist between those within the marketplace and those within the company itself (thesis 53.) Achieving this level of communication is hindered by the imposition of ‘command and control’ structures (thesis 54–58) but, ultimately, organizations will need to allow this level of communication to exist as the new marketplace will no longer respond to the mass-media ‘voice’ of the organization (theses 59–71)

Theses 72–95: New Market Expectations

Theses seventy-two through ninety-five aim to identify the expectations (theses 76, 77, 78, 95) and changes (thesis 72) that exist within the new marketplace and how those expectations and changes will require a corresponding change from organizations (theses 79, 84, 91, 92, 94).
The authors proposed that the Internet provided new means for both the markets and organizations to communicate. Technologies listed within the printed publication and used as examples of the style of communication available were:
  • Email
  • News groups
  • Mailing lists
  • Chat
  • Web pages
Newer technologies (such as blogs and wikis) could be added to the list. However, according to the manifesto, it is within the new Internet-enabled conversations that the new marketplace would join in conversation with networked employees.
There is little doubt that the Internet has changed the way people communicate across the world; whether the world has been changed exactly as 'The Cluetrain Manifesto' charges is another thing. There are certainly new ways of communicating; in some cases businesses have benefited and in some others businesses have been hurt badly.
Whether human beings have gained the type of power ascribed to them when they talk human to human across the Internet is still to be proven. Some bloggers have caught the limelight from time to time, just as the proponents did with 'Cluetrain', and perhaps they may be onto something, but not exactly what they stated in the manifesto.
Fundamental to 'The Cluetrain Manifesto' was the premise that the Internet provided a new and unique forum for communication that would ultimately shift the nature of business communication and marketing. Essentially, the change that is central to this text is one of breaking down corporate barriers and forming a conversation between those within and those outside a corporation — online marketing would be more about holding conversations with people rather than broadcasting half-truths about products and services.
The authors of the manifesto suggested that such a shift would occur through substantial and pervasive changes in current company-to-consumer interaction. Communication would shift from mission statements and marketing media aimed at consumer segments to open dialogues or conversations between businesses and consumers.
Since publication, however, some state that the use of mass-media marketing has not fundamentally shifted from its use within organizations as the key means of communicating with consumers. Advertising on the Internet has grown over the intervening years, it remains, in some cases, an online version of the same style of mass-media marketing.
Although a number of companies have aimed to achieve customization of marketing material to the point where it is tailored to a single individual, in many cases this remains a one-way dialogue which is the antithesis of what the authors propose as the ideal.
However — there is an undeniable sea-change taking place with companies who are starting to reach out and ask to join conversations — earning the right to speak with citizens rather than just expecting it.
It is unlikely the authors of the manifesto had exact timeframes expected for all aspects and the popularity, engagement levels and acceptance of commercial communication will continue to be limited until the principles of the manifesto are applied more.
During the height of the 'Cluetrain Internet buzz' there were both supporters and opponents making their point online. The conversation spawned by the 'Cluetrain Manifesto' website, in some instances, was taken to be almost a religious argument. Quite notably the technically oriented people, who were adept in building websites, writing blogs and making themselves heard on the Internet, were often the most ardent adherents.
Some people interpret the public reception of 'Cluetrain' to be cultish. For example John C. Dvorak who admits he does not understand the concepts presented in the book. John C. Dvorak in PC Magazine:
"I don't get it."
John C. Dvorack then continues on in his article to ridicule those people who do understand the book with the following unsubstantiated personal opinion:
". . . the apparent faith in this odd vision of an idealistic human-oriented internetworked new world/new economy marches forward. I imagine all these folks holding hands in a large circle, rolling back and forth, with some in the middle of the circle, spinning and chanting and hugging, all naked. I'm betting that most of these folks go to Burning Man and all of them write blogs about it and how cool it was. They link to each others' blogs and read what they say about each other—all highly complimentary."
Other opponents to some of the the concepts presented in 'Cluetrain' point to the fact that the Internet cannot be conceptualized simply as "a conversation" or that the human activity online cannot be so neatly compacted into the notion of a clear and concise 'conversation'. While it is true that there are some clear and concise conversations online, the Internet at this current stage of the evolution can also viewed as a chaotic and or fascist system as well. Along with email, blogs, and other forms of communication there is also spam, deluges of corporate ads, filters manipulating the viewing of websites, as well as the noise of many voices simply shouting to be heard above the babble and confusion these voices create of there own accord.
On 30 April 2009, Andrew Cherwenka writes that he expected changes presented in the book to happen in less then a decade. Andrew Cherwenka in The Huffington Post said: "Sadly, in many key ways, it's still business as usual."
On 22 May 2009, David Knowles in MarCom Professional wrote that the ideas within The Cluetrain Manifesto have been discussed since the release of the book and that conversational marketing "is just another channel in the marketing mix. It’s not a replacement for methods that continue to be effective when used well."