Name: Code
ISBN: 9781442996465

Code

Although the book is named Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Lessig uses this theme sparingly. It is a fairly simple concept: since cyberspace is entirely human-made, there are no natural laws to determine its architecture. While we tend to assume that what is in cyberspace is a given, in fact everything there is a construction based on decisions made by people. What we can and can't do there is governed by the underlying code of all of the programs that make up the Internet, which both permit and restrict. So while the libertarians among us rail against the idea of government, our freedoms in cyberspace are being determined by an invisible structure that is every bit as restricting as any laws that can come out of a legislature, legitimate or not. Even more important, this invisible code has been written by people we did not elect and who have no formal obligations to us, such as the members of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) or the more recently-developed Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). It follows that what we will be able to do in the future will be determined by code that will be written tomorrow, and we should be thinking about who will determine what this code will be. [from

What Hacker News says

pdfernhoutMay 2025

Good point and links on architecture. I am so grateful to the architecture student who told me about Jane Jacobs around 1990 and opened my eyes to how much urban architecture design (things like height restrictions as in Philadelphia, unsafe edge effects of big special-purpose areas, sidewalks & porches, and mixed-use zoning) can affect human behavior and "eyes on the street" safety. I also liked the point that new ideas require old buildings (for cheap rents).

This article and your comment makes me think of Lawrence Lessig's "Code 2.0" book where he writes that (at least) four things can shape human behavior:

    * rules
    * norms
    * prices
    * architecture

All are important -- but they influence people in different ways at different times. If we want to have healthy cities, all are worth considering.

Hopefully we could do so in a "Kaizen" approach of incremental improvement and usually small steps within existing cities? But we likely need a lot of new cities too with more housing (perhaps by upgrading towns on existing transit lines). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaizen

thread

GMoromisatoAug 2026

This was a fascinating interview, and there were a lot of ideas packed into it. Honestly, it makes me want to read her book.

That said, I disagree with a lot of her conclusions.

Contra her assertions, I believe that technological change is the principal cause of historical change. Lawrence Lessig wrote Code is Law, which highlights how specific software system decisions constrained the available legal regimes that could apply. The same thing happens for all technology: the invention of containerized shipping plus the internet led to globalization, which is the real reason nation states are eroding.

I do agree with her about the undesirability of an "artificial state"--an algorithmic government that rules by deterministic rules instead of representative human judgement. And I do agree that many technologists think that we'd be better off being ruled by machines instead of people. But that is (a) not a new phenomenon, and (b) equally found outside Silicon Valley. Paul Krugman often writes about Asimov's psychohistory being a strong influence on him. He longs for a world of Philosopher Kings who make decisions logically and without the messy delusions of the masses.

thread

jt2190Mar 2026

> We could have used that time to have a sensible conversation about policy trade offs [of age verification]…

There is always a conversation, but it is often not the popular one and gets drown out by whatever everyone is excited about at the moment. You can find it if you seek it out.

Lawrence Lessig’s book “Code” (1999), for example, talks about how a completely unrelated internet is an anomaly, and that regulation will certainly be necessary, and advocates that it be done in a thoughtful manner.

thread

mulberry_seasNov 2023

Isn't it coercive in the sense of the monetary "rules" being hard-coded? Lawrence Lessig says this is "East Coast Code" as opposed to West Coast Code in his book "Code 2.0".

Anyways, even if it is non-coercive in the sense of having no West Coast Code or legislative coercive forces at play, you can still learn a lot about monetary economics in such environments. This author is interested in the emergence of monetary exchange, and that's a pretty big literature for instance, going back to Menger's "On the Origin of Money" (though Menger does note the later imposition of standardization from political authorities, etc.) and more analytical work such as Duffy & Ochs (1999).

This literature on the emergence of currency/monetary exchange from barter exchange typically understands such emergence to occur independent of any such force - all you need is the existence of the problem of double coincidence of wants. What I have in my inventory may not match what you want to trade for in your inventory, so some object that is marginally more "saleable" in the sense of being more widely desired, easier to carry, etc., will emerge as a currency standard. Also see Radford (1945)'s study "Economic Organization of a POW Camp" where cigarettes emerged as a common currency.

thread

topspinOct 2023

"Code is law." -Lawrence Lessig

The UK apparently made that explicit. Doubtless others have as well: if we could forego the flag waving and whataboutery, That Would Be Great (tm).

thread

nonrandomstringSep 2023

Fresher readers might note how old this is. "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace" is a 1999 book by Lawrence Lessig. The linked summary is by students of cyber-politics, where their mention of more contemporary affairs makes it seem more up to date.

The impressive part is how prescient is Lessig in identifying points of friction two decades ahead of time.

A few blind-spots we can now see:

1) That the structure and governance of the Internet might never resolve into a stable, lawful and universally acceptable utility, but that it remains forever a highly dynamic, unstable proxy battleground for real-word geopolitical forces.

2) That governments and commerce might side together in a Faustian pact against "people and society" to produce an Internet that is entirely a mechanism for control and extraction to be fought against, rather than through.

3) That AI would emerge making moot concepts of "identity", "truth", and much more, so requiring a whole new set of legal and technical concepts hitherto unparalleled in reality.

I'm sure HN readers can suggest a few more.

thread