This essay is inspired by the “Hacker’s Perspective” column in the latest issue of 2600 (Vol 42.2, Summer 2025) which was written by @socketwench, a digital choom of mine from Hackers Town on Fedi. The main thrust of her article was the question, “Who gets to call themselves a hacker?”
This is a question I’ve found myself asking a lot these days as well as the corollary, “Who gets to call themselves a cyberpunk?” But are these two terms & subcultures synonymous, tangentially related, or diametrically opposed? Both terms have associated sub-cultures, colloquialisms, mores, worldviews, posers, and impostors. One of them is “real life” (“IRL”) and one of them comes from the world of futurism and fiction.
Here’s what I think.
Definitions, Please
For the purposes of this discussion, I would make the following characterizations to define what I understand these terms to mean to me.
A hacker is anyone that seeks to circumvent a closed system for a variety of reasons. That system might be physical, ideological, political, or any other method of control. The media and social worldview have latched onto the physical aspects of these systems by creating the mythos of the “computer hacker” (primarily because digital technology has been the explosively driving force behind societal development for the last 50 years), but the original usage of the term just meant someone that wanted free access to information and felt that all information should be available - either by reverse engineering something to see how it works, circumventing barriers that keep that information private (whatever they may be), or building upon or extending existing systems to work in new ways to wrest control away from those who would hoard it all for themselves. There tends to be a strong “builder” component to the hacker culture in general as well.
A cyberpunk is anyone that also seeks to circumvent those closed systems that keep them living a “low life” specifically by gaining access to the “high tech” that has been weaponized against them to keep them “in their place”. From my perspective, cyberpunks tend to not be so much builders as they are maintainers and “applied users” of technology. The sense that I get from my years in the cyberpunk culture is that while there are certainly those that build new tools to subvert the system, most of the “punks” themselves use technology that already exists (and which they can lay their hands on by any means necessary) to subvert the systems and attempt to lead the lives that the system has denied to them through no fault of their own. “Cyberpunk” isn’t just about the aesthetics of neon and chrome; it’s about the punk ideology that drives the need to void warranties by using existing technology in ways that it was not intended to be used by its “owners”. I tend to view “cyberpunk” as a specific driving ethos for a particular subset of hackers. See What Is Cyberpunk?
So Who Gets To Call Themselves What Then, Smart Guy?
I think there is some significant overlap between the two terms, but I don’t think they’re synonymous. Are all Hackers Cyberpunks? I would say no. Are all Cyberpunks Hackers? I would say yes. Let me explain.
As I said above, I view cyberpunks as “applied technology users” who are using that technology to subvert systems, but I tend to think of it as limited to technology use to accomplish one’s goals. But cyberpunks might be more akin to the “script kiddies”, ransomware, and cracker/phracker subsets of the overall hacker genre. This isn’t to denigrate the cyberpunks, of course; these characterizations are basically meant to highlight what I think of when I think of “applied technology”. They’re not building the tools themselves per se (although they might), but they’re definitely using them once installed to break the system(s) in ways that the system didn’t intend. It’s that “cyber” prefix that makes me think this way - hacking as specifically limited to the use of technology, whether it’s bio-enhancement, netrunning, “smart” weaponry, or computational power.
I think of cyberpunks as a subset of the hacker community. Hackers, in the traditional sense, are those who are infinitely curious about something and mainly care about equity for everyone, so they try to figure out ways to achieve that equity (which often requires “adjustment” of pieces of technology to make them more accessible, safer to use, or affordable for as many people as possible). But as I said above, “hacking” isn’t limited to just computer or communications technology - it’s about understanding and democratizing a wide variety of systems.
Cyberpunks are hackers. Solarpunks are hackers. Self-hosters are hackers. Home printers of generic drug compounds are hackers. Protesters and activists are hackers. De-Googlers and De-Applers are hackers. Information & media archivers are hackers. People who inspire others to buck the system are hackers. People that care about privacy and security are hackers. Writers are hackers. Anyone that refuses to be bound by the norms of society is a hacker.
No More Gatekeepers
Just like @socketwench, I struggle with a whole lot of “impostor syndrome” when it comes to considering myself a hacker (or a cyberpunk, for that matter) even though I’ve been programming and using computers since I was 9 years old. But I’ve never “hacked the Gibson”, or written some custom piece of software on my own, or built some gadget to accomplish some sort of subversive activity. The most cred that I have in this area is that I’ve built my own PC once or twice.
And there’s a fair amount of societal misinterpretation and people around that will constantly tell me that I don’t qualify as a hacker because I haven’t “done anything” like some sort of “righteous hack” or because I haven’t got a 5-3D-printer setup constantly printing enclosures for some new device I’m building. But as I read through @socketwench’s piece, it started to strike me that “hacking” applies to a much wider range of things than even I thought it did, and I’ve been re-thinking my position. Her words kind of gave voice to my own internal doubts - that there’s more to hacking than just computers and Blue Boxes.
(As a side note, I do make a distinction between “hackers” and “makers”. All I will say here is that I think that “makers” are a subset of hacker culture but I wouldn’t say that the reverse is true. See I Want My Afterlife! for further thoughts along these lines.)
Anyway, I guess the conclusion that I’m coming to is that the terms “hacker” and “cyberpunk” imply that one subscribes to the underlying ethos enough to spur one into action of some sort, but what that action should be is not so well defined and is open to interpretation. While I tend to view cyberpunk as being limited to the realm of technology and its uses (which is not to say that Cyberpunks can’t be Hackers too), hacking may be (perhaps incorrectly) predominantly about computers and technology due to the origins of the terminology, but certainly not limited to that domain and I feel that we do a disservice to others who are trying to find their people and a community in which to belong if we limit it as such.
Hacking is about curiosity, exposure of information (of all kinds), and using tools to strive for equity and equality for everybody. Let’s not let the more nefarious and negative expressions of this culture dominate our perceptions nor attempt to gatekeep others into isolation based on a misinterpretation of what hacking is. Hackers see what’s going on and their curiosity drives them to find ways to make things better not only for themselves, but for everyone else as well. Hacking is about the community just as much as it is about the activities, and those communities can be uplifting or they can be toxic.
In My Humble Opinion…
So, who gets to be called a hacker? I’d say that anybody who is curious about something enough to not only find out how it works but tries to make it better, through whatever means necessary, could be called a Hacker. One may choose to focus in on a specific domain in which to apply those skills, but there are many more domains out there to which they can be applied beyond mere computer technology.
Biotechnology, social engineering, social activism, interoperability, communications, security, writing, music, sticker makers, and anything else that challenges systems of control, manipulation, and obfuscation is all hacking. Bodies and minds can be hacked just as much as computers and software can be.
Who gets to be called a cyberpunk, then? I’d say anyone that uses tech to break systems of control and monetization to better the lives of themselves and others around them is a cyberpunk. Like I said, the ethos is about much more than a love of neon and a chrome fetish; it’s about having the same access to all that “high tech” so that one can improve the “low life” that they’ve been force-fed for themselves and their loved ones, with much less regard for the societal norms of how to go about acquiring that aforementioned high tech.
Digital archivists, Stingray makers, Meshtastic node operators, Signal users, F-Droiders, Linux users, torrent seeders, Flipper0-havers, and (dare I say) Fediverse users (at least those who aren’t all about “reach” and “growth”, anyway) are all likely to be Cyberpunks because they see the hidden lines of control and oppression and they seek to break them by any means necessary. Cyberpunks aren’t just curious about the systems; they see the truth of the systems and want to bring them down so they stop hurting everyone else.
If you’re not happy in your own skin or with your own situation, and you take any action to circumvent “what is” for “what could be” to change that station - legal or not, and even if the goal is just to keep the rich from getting even richer while you suffer in a lower class - you just might be a Hacker and/or a Cyberpunk.
Welcome to the family, choomba.
