03 Aug 2007, ST
By Aaron Low
WHENEVER I read the latest buzz on online forums, I never fail to be amused and annoyed at the same time.
Amused, because some forum participants have a sharp and wicked sense of humour that cuts right to the nub of an issue.
Annoyed, because to unearth such gems, I often have to sift through hundreds of junk posts that say nothing of substance.
Worse still, I am astounded because these junk posts are sometimes so malicious that you wonder whether they were written with an agenda to maim.
Going by what South Korea has experienced, words can indeed hurt more than sticks and stones.
Earlier this year, two South Korean celebrities committed suicide after being the target of 'cyber-bullying' or online harassment.
To deal with this ugly phenomenon, the South Korean government passed a law requiring people to state their real name and social security number when they post on major Internet portals and websites.
The law, which came into force in June, requires these sites to log the information and produce it for the courts if there is a lawsuit against these forum posters.
Advocates of free speech decried such a move, saying the new law is an over-reaction and one that curbs individual liberty.
Indeed, there is much value in anonymity, especially when it comes to being able to speak out without fear.
Whistle-blowing, for one, relies on anonymity.
Nobody would be whistle-blowing if he had to submit his identity card number every time he exposes wrongdoings by his boss or others.
A case for anonymity can also be made in oppressive societies, where it is one of the few tools which enable individuals to criticise the establishment.
Some also argue that what is important is the message, not the messenger.
On the other hand, as shown by the South Korean example, anonymity brings out the worst in people.
Being faceless emboldens them to do things they would not otherwise do because they are not accountable for their actions.
Most of the rubbish posted on popular online forums here are usually written by anonymous participants hiding behind a pseudonym.
They regularly mock and satirise public figures with colourful language, sometimes alleging that politicians here practise cronyism and engage in corruption.
There are hardly any dissenting voices in these forums when such attacks get going, because they get drowned out and attacked as well.
Would the solution be to adopt South Korea's example to weed out such influences?
This would not only be extremely difficult to enforce, but also be counter-productive.
For one thing, many sites and forums are based overseas in the United States or Australia. As such, a law, even if passed, would be difficult to enforce.
Secondly, it is precisely because these voices are anonymous that they do not lend credibility to themselves. They hide behind masks so they are not accountable for their views.
But because such voices do not stand by what they post, and claims are sometimes short of ridiculous, my view is that most people will take such comments lightly.
Third, there is already a section of the online community moving away from anonymity and revealing themselves.
The blogging community here has many people who run blogs with their names proudly displayed.
And why not?
Some of these blogs are intelligent, insightful and well-researched.
If they have put thought into their writings, and have facts to back their arguments, they should be prepared to stand by what they say and identify themselves.
One example is the Yawning Bread's Alex Au. He openly champions gay rights and is unafraid of voicing opinions that are critical of the state and its agencies - and yes, he is still blogging.
More bloggers have recently followed his example and put their real names and biodata on their blogsites.
Blogs like the Singapore Angle and theonlinecitizen have short write-ups about each of their contributors.
This shows a certain growing maturity in the blogosphere, as bloggers become more confident of themselves and the medium.
My hope is this will mark the start of a trend that eventually leads to a broader unveiling of those who engage in the online community.
An open debate, face to face, can only add to the weight of the exchange and the credibility of those involved. As has been increasingly shown by others, there is no need to hide behind anonymity to mask who you are.
By Aaron Low
WHENEVER I read the latest buzz on online forums, I never fail to be amused and annoyed at the same time.
Amused, because some forum participants have a sharp and wicked sense of humour that cuts right to the nub of an issue.
Annoyed, because to unearth such gems, I often have to sift through hundreds of junk posts that say nothing of substance.
Worse still, I am astounded because these junk posts are sometimes so malicious that you wonder whether they were written with an agenda to maim.
Going by what South Korea has experienced, words can indeed hurt more than sticks and stones.
Earlier this year, two South Korean celebrities committed suicide after being the target of 'cyber-bullying' or online harassment.
To deal with this ugly phenomenon, the South Korean government passed a law requiring people to state their real name and social security number when they post on major Internet portals and websites.
The law, which came into force in June, requires these sites to log the information and produce it for the courts if there is a lawsuit against these forum posters.
Advocates of free speech decried such a move, saying the new law is an over-reaction and one that curbs individual liberty.
Indeed, there is much value in anonymity, especially when it comes to being able to speak out without fear.
Whistle-blowing, for one, relies on anonymity.
Nobody would be whistle-blowing if he had to submit his identity card number every time he exposes wrongdoings by his boss or others.
A case for anonymity can also be made in oppressive societies, where it is one of the few tools which enable individuals to criticise the establishment.
Some also argue that what is important is the message, not the messenger.
On the other hand, as shown by the South Korean example, anonymity brings out the worst in people.
Being faceless emboldens them to do things they would not otherwise do because they are not accountable for their actions.
Most of the rubbish posted on popular online forums here are usually written by anonymous participants hiding behind a pseudonym.
They regularly mock and satirise public figures with colourful language, sometimes alleging that politicians here practise cronyism and engage in corruption.
There are hardly any dissenting voices in these forums when such attacks get going, because they get drowned out and attacked as well.
Would the solution be to adopt South Korea's example to weed out such influences?
This would not only be extremely difficult to enforce, but also be counter-productive.
For one thing, many sites and forums are based overseas in the United States or Australia. As such, a law, even if passed, would be difficult to enforce.
Secondly, it is precisely because these voices are anonymous that they do not lend credibility to themselves. They hide behind masks so they are not accountable for their views.
But because such voices do not stand by what they post, and claims are sometimes short of ridiculous, my view is that most people will take such comments lightly.
Third, there is already a section of the online community moving away from anonymity and revealing themselves.
The blogging community here has many people who run blogs with their names proudly displayed.
And why not?
Some of these blogs are intelligent, insightful and well-researched.
If they have put thought into their writings, and have facts to back their arguments, they should be prepared to stand by what they say and identify themselves.
One example is the Yawning Bread's Alex Au. He openly champions gay rights and is unafraid of voicing opinions that are critical of the state and its agencies - and yes, he is still blogging.
More bloggers have recently followed his example and put their real names and biodata on their blogsites.
Blogs like the Singapore Angle and theonlinecitizen have short write-ups about each of their contributors.
This shows a certain growing maturity in the blogosphere, as bloggers become more confident of themselves and the medium.
My hope is this will mark the start of a trend that eventually leads to a broader unveiling of those who engage in the online community.
An open debate, face to face, can only add to the weight of the exchange and the credibility of those involved. As has been increasingly shown by others, there is no need to hide behind anonymity to mask who you are.
No comments:
Post a Comment