Hello Petr, Thank you for this interesting question. Just some thoughts... My view is that in the EU policy strategies eEurope 2002, eEurope 2005 and iSociety 2010, the EU a) on the one hand stressed the importance of liberalized and commodified ICTs/digital economy and b) formulated a normative wish list of an inclusive, participatory European information society. It wanted to become "the world's most competitive" information sociey/economy until 2010 and failed in doing so. All three plans were basically neoliberal policy strategies, aiming at a largely commodified European information society. The normative vision of having an inclusive and participatory information society is contradicted by the focus on markets, competition, capital accumulation and commodification, but the European Union never realized this. This is my argument in this paper: * http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a919192441~frm=title... * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCNi5reW8Jk * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKbBH-tH-aI&feature=watch_response * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_M1_jnZxDg&feature=watch_response In the Digital Agenda 2020, the neoliberal dualistic strategy seems not to have changed. Ggoal: "The overall aim of the Digital Agenda is to deliver sustainable economic and social benefits from a digital single market based on fast and ultra fast internet and interoperable applications.". "sustainable information economy" = commodified, deregulated, privatized = contradicts the goal of "social benefits" for all With such policy visions, we will also in 2020 have a class-strucuted information society, not a participatory one. The new crisis of capitalism does not seem to have created many cracks, fissures and holes into the neoliberal policy vision. So there is no difference if the EU talks about "information society" or "digital society" - the ideology behind it (neoliberalism) has not changed. The question if there are small policy differentiations in the policy documents over the past 10 years is secondary, the primary issue is the larger concept of society framing it. Also one should once more question if we indeed live in an "information society" or "digital society" or any other prefixed society that implies the dominance of knowledge or ICTs. The prefixes "information", "digital", etc imply that IT and knowledge are the major characteristic of contemporary societies, which they are not. IT and knowledge constitute one of many aspects, we at the same time live in information capitalism, finance capitalism (as the finance crisis shows), hyperindustrialist capitalism (as the reliance on oil and nuclear energy and the Fukushima crisis show), a global war society/imperialistic capitalism (as the various wars fought by the West in the past 10 years show), etc. The claim that "information", "digitization" etc is dominant is simply wrong - first and foremost we live in a capitalist society, which is multidimensionally contradictory and many-faced. Best, Christian Fuchs -- Prof. Christian Fuchs Chair in Media and Communication Studies Department of Informatics and Media Uppsala University Kyrkogårdsgatan 10 Box 513 751 20 Uppsala Sweden christian.fuchs@im.uu.se Tel +46 (0) 18 471 1019 http://fuchs.uti.at http://www.im.uu.se NetPolitics Blog: http://fuchs.uti.at/blog Editor of tripleC: http://www.triple-c.at Book "Internet and Society" (Paperback, Routledge 2010) Book "Foundations of Critical Media and Information Studies" (Routledge 2011)