This paper seeks to revisit the debates surrounding the nature of information, particularly the intersection of ontology and politics in Wiener's work. It aims to confront these positions with the contemporary moment, as a step toward a "cybernetics for the 21st century." Why should we consider a “cybernetics for the 21th century” ? Firstly, maybe the “21th century cybernetics” is, in a way, already there. It is clear that the concepts and technologies promoted by cybernetics have become more pervasive than ever. The dissemination of the terms "feedback" and "information" is monumental and disconnected from the declining usage of the signifier "cybernetics". In other words, we are witnessing what could be called "a cybernetics without cybernetics", i.e. a diffusion of its concepts and artifacts, but without the outdated label anymore. This brings us to the second reason for considering a "cybernetics for the 21st century," : We may need a “cybernetics for our times”. One significant aspect of reclaiming the term lies in the fact that the original cybernetics produced a real-time critical discourse on these technologies. Cybernetics presents itself as a multidisciplinary endeavor open to philosophical and critical inquiry.The impetus for revisiting and inheriting cybernetics lies in the significance of this inherent philosophical production endogenous to the technical milieu. The third reason that justifies this return to cybernetics is that we find, within this philosophical production, a unique stance regarding the nature of information. Cyberneticians advocated for a non-symbolic, physicalist conception of information, which I refer to as “information-signal” as opposed to an “information-code”. This distinction holds a considerable importance, given that the notion of information is a crucial term of our times, inextricably conceptual and technical. What can we learn from this alternative view of information to critically assess the current digital technologies ? This brings to the fourth and final reason supporting a return to cybernetics: we cannot pretend that the arguments of the first cyberneticians are applicable as they are to the present state of affairs. The time gap between the first cybernetics and our cybernetics for the 21st century is intriguing in its own right, primarily because the mode of science and technology production has undergone profound changes. We must exploit this temporal gap to shed light on the characteristics of the current regime of science and technology.