[...] As we discussed earlier, just as many efforts are being expended on closings as these openings, cajoling and coercing them in various submissive ways and generally blocking possibilities. The digital commons is certainly a new frontier for struggles over commodification.[83] The main challenges to these creative forces emanate from state-security apparatuses and commerciallegal apparatuses. The main challenges to these creative forces emanate from state-security apparatuses and commerciallegal apparatuses. We have covered some of these closings, but here we want to restate the importance of open versus closed conventions of the Internet. Much has been said about Facebook, Flickr, Google, Tumblr, Twitter, and YouTube and their activities for tracking the conduct of people for advertising revenues and collecting big data. Let us emphasize that among one of the most important reasons that both state and corporate apparatuses are able to do this is because these are designed as proprietary and closed conventions. Unlike open conventions such as WordPress or Wikimedia, these conventions require submitting to end-user licences and user contracts that not only severely restrict actions but also appropriate their results as data. There is a massive difference between the digital commons created by open-source code and its increasing zoning, appropriation, sequestration, and enclosure through closed conventions. [...] Let us remember that cyberspace is a fragile if not a precarious space. This makes its protection as an open-source digital commons a political question—a question that those who are making digital rights claims are enacting with increasing effectiveness but also with urgency.