Hey. I appericate your move with regards to acknowledging how technology affects society and how the hacker ethic can be applied to all kinds of different parts of human life. I also respect how you are well read in this subject matter (for example, I have not heard of The Society of the Spectacle before reading this).
Here are my two pennies regarding what you wrote — specifically the original manifesto (not your follow up comments, and keep in mind, a lot of my response is based on my subjective take of the world, so take it with a "grain of salt 
.
Me being shallow and pedantic
First, please don’t take this personally, but you may want to work a bit on grammar and spelling. I’m not trying to hate or anything (in fact, I myself have lousy grammar and spelling — feel free to take the piss out of my Medium articles if you want). I say this because your article was a little hard to read (tho it can also be my silly autistic brain having the letters “bouncing off my head” lol). I recommend submitting drafts of your works to Critique Circle for proofreading purposes.
Enough pedantry, I’ll get into the substance!
Now I want to actually address the “meat” of what you said. I totally agree with youself on how the world has changed since the turn of the millenium. I have had this discussion with family and friends: websites like YouTube and Twitter, and the blogosphere were not what they used to be. “EmpLemon” (2017) discussed the political economy of YouTube and how the incentives for content creators have “nudged” them into creating lousy content. One of the things that make me feel sad is that the internet is too ubiqutious, and I really with that it was not powerful enough to be an engine for economic growth or influencing the political process.
I also agree with you on how design has became more proprietary over the years. Louis Rossman has discussed this and worked with this problem as an independent repair technician. I recommend checking him out if you want to learn more. Many technology companies also intentionally make their products more prone to breakdown to create an artifical demand for more of them (Keeble 2013; Rodriguez et al. 2015; Taffel 2022).
I suppose where I disagree with yourself is on the stuff to do with hackers being powerful in this new world. Technical skills are great, but they can only get you so far (and sometimes, like in my case, not that far at all). I am still in my mid-twenties and living with parents, despite having decent technical skills. Social skills are very important as well; one should be able to collaborate in teams in order to accomplish a big task. This is something that I (and possibly other hackers) have struggled with.
On Meta-Open Source
We as hackers need to change this. We need to share with new generations, we need to make open-source projects “meta”.
I am definiately with you there! The application of hacker ethic and open source principles have been increasing since the internet became more widespread. Here are some examples:
-
There is a movement to make medicine more “open source” (see Open Source Pharma, n.d.). The scientific discipline of drug discovery is starting to be more open sourced as well — with India leading the proverbial way (Open Source Drug Discovery, n.d.)
-
A worldwide movement of open science and open scholarship is taking steam. This is something that I personally have a huge interest in, and can spend literally hours discussing. But I will give some examples:
-
Cumming & Jagerman (2016) introduce quantitative research in the context of open science. They go over the usual stuff like confidence intervals, p-values, regression analysis, et cetera. But they also discuss how to think like an amateur scientist, how to use computers to get stuff done, how to plan a research project, the replication crisis (see Open Science Collaboration, 2015) and basically the statistics needed to be a 1337 hacker-scientist
- Speaking of “hacker-scientists,” that’s how one of the authors described themselves in the first volume of The Theoretical Minimum Susskind & Hrabovsky (2014). This book is just amazing if you want to open source all the physics things!
- Though keep in mind that there are some limitations to open science. For example, there is a concern that science may be misused as a political tool and some research will be of low-quality. My favourite example of this is the OpenPsych journals and one of its pseudoscientists: Noah Carl. Carl (2016) published a study where he said that Moslems are destroying European countries and pooled data from (I shit you not) a website called “TheReligionOfPeace.com”. That should tell you everything you need to know about OpenPsych and Noah Carl (who later got b& from his university). There are plenty of examples of bad open science and predatory journals (see Xia et al. 2015), so be “on guard” when being an open scientist should you choose to become one
-
The last open source hot topic that I can think of atm is the maker movement. Sadly, I don’t have enough experience with hardware and computer engineering to confidently give an opinion. But I hear that 3D printed houses are becoming a thing 
From weird to well-liked
We are the ones that created the systems which makes our lives so easy. We are the cool guys now, we are not weird anymore, we have a voice, we are something. Correction we are everything.
This is something that I have mixed feelings about. While I do agree that hackers did a lot to build technology into what it is today, I feel that having a morbidly curious mind paired with an knack for tinkering is not enough to make the greater society “bend to our will.” Individuals like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk are more like businessmen than actual hackers (in fact, Zuckerberg and Musk stole their “ideas” (and memes) from others; see Michels (2009), Bardhan (2022) and Robitzski (2021). User @m242 also noted that “[t]he FAANGS are this efficient totalitarian system, and you can’t change it because no one cares” — which is a self-evident statement that needs no citation 
Again, my partial disagreement with this statement is not substantiated with hard facts or statistics. These are just my personal opinion and feelings based on casual experiences. Take it with a proverbial grain of salt
Autodidactism
Everything is connected, everyone can know who you are on a simple Facebook or Google search (assuming that you use this services). Yes, you can change the default configuration, but how is a kid going to know this if he has never seen how his father opens the cover of his phone to get the battery out.
I do have a tad of personal experience with this. I did not live with my father growing up and lived with my single mum, but despite the lack of father figure, I was able to be self-taught in computers (in fact, I dropped out of community college to re-enrol in a distance learning programme cos my professors were too damn boring lmao). I never used social media until I was an adult (with the exception of a few forums, and I went by pseudonyms in those forums). I think that, despite the propaganda of large companies, people naturally want to learn new things.
Ragnedda & Muschert (2013) have investigated the phenomena of individuals of varying computer literacy (or no computer literacy) and its effects on inequality. You may want to read that if you’re interested in learning more 
Conclusion
Honestly, I could probably write a book fatter than Marx’s Das Kapital series outlining my philosophy of hacking (I’ll save that for when my ideas are more mature). I saw that you came back with a more mature development of your ideas some time later when responding to another user. Nonetheless, both the original and mature writings gave me something to think about. The world is changing and hackers, along with other kinds of people, can hopefully help to prevent it from devolving into a dumpster fire 
