Suhaw permit me to reiterate my original statement “AIMS has clearly stated unequivocally that community moderation is not viable.”

I used simple and standard English in the construction of this sentence which part of it do you not understand?

I vehemently object to your interpretative gloss over my statement as no where in the structure of attitude and reference did I so much as a raise anything resembling a “crux” and even less of a “tangential argument” as you mentioned.

That would only be possible if either you or I advanced a study concerning inflection, emphasis and stress to anything mentioned in principle by AIMS concerning the issue of community moderation – I never once did. And from my reading of what you wrote neither did you.

I was merely trying to correct the error in your statement when you mentioned rather rashly in your post on September 8th, 2008 3.10 pm,

“the consultation paper does NOT mention “community moderation” SPECIFICALLY. But silence does NOT necessarily mean opposition.”

My purpose in linking the video link was merely to establish statements were not only EXPRESSLY made by Tan Chen Han but even he gave an exhaustive account (which I consider to be a very decent and influential account) why community moderation was not such a good idea presently.

My second point is I disagree emphatically with your follow up statement; where you mentioned

“The two key points made in the above quote are:
1. Community moderation should be given time to evolve.
2. There are many different views about community moderation that needs to be reconciled so that we all attain a common understanding.”

Disagree Madam. These were not the key points as much as obiter (by the way) statements; though I can well imagine how such an error may have been made by those who are unaccustomed to the elegance and precision that logic imposes on the process of understanding; please go and review the video again and you will find Tan Chen Han highlighted the salient unequivocally when he took issue with the “legitimacy” concerning community moderation (see 1.05 @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3llbMhVDQEk and subsequently even questioned not only the “viability” (as I mentioned – see @ 1.25 of the same video link ) but even took issue with the conceptual efficacy of community regulation when he highlighted how it may be diametrically opposed to the whole idea of supporting the idea of new media in a normative sense. Please go Suhaw and review Tan Chen Han’s statements again and tell me how did you miss out the two metric ton white elephant standing in middle of the living room? @ 1.05 and 1.25.

It gives me no pleasure to say this but from what little I have been able to observe; you seem to be only interested in confecting and glossing over statements made by AIMS. And selective cutting and pasting statements made to support many of your remarks. This even suggest you may be more interested in showing off your ESP prowess or prove how you may be a reincarnation of Nostradamus in consistently reading into what was never said written or even expressed, instead of keeping astudiously to the facts and accounts.

Madam it gives me little pleasure to say this, but I find your callous treatment of facts and statements very disturbing as they have the power of authority to not only contort the overall impression of what AIMS may be trying to communicate to the general public, its even conceivable; if this attitude is not checked and rein in; the net result may be confusion rather than soliciting deep spirited understanding on many of the issues advanced by AIMS.

To illustrate what I mean exactly by your “callous treatment of facts and statements,” may I draw your attention to your following statements:

“Making community moderation work is no easy feat. While a few attempts can be considered moderately successful, many others have tried, attained a modicum of success, then failed. Some do not even attain a level that the average person would call success.”

Suhaw can cite us one case study where community moderation was tried and tested on the scale proposed by the blogger 13 when they mentioned: “To further this process, the group suggests that an Internet Community Consultative Committee (IC3) be set up comprising one-third independent content providers, one-third persons familiar with rapidly evolving digital technologies, and one-third regular consumers of Internet content (i.e. regular surfers). Source:[ April 20, 2008 –site locale: Simple is the reason of my heart] – Suhaw you will not be able to find a single case study; and if you cannot do so, then how did you even derive at your supplementary observation” “many others have tried” along with “not even attain a level.”

I realize that what I may have illustrated here is not entirely the thing itself when I say you have been “callous” in your treatment of facts and statements, but perhaps a caricature of your atrocious failure to correlate what was said or written by AIMS to many of the remarks you seem to make with impunity concerning the subject of community moderation along with other subjects – in future Suhaw do keep scrupulously to the media coverage script, try to be accurate, factual and desist from making swashbuckling cavalier remarks which do nothing except raise more questions and suspicion than clarifying the topical position of AIMS – try Suhaw, I pay my taxes, I don’t even expect a seminal amalgam of scholarship or even so much as aesthete in how you people may choose to represent the case of AIMS; but I believe it is my right to insist that you and others adhere to a minimum standard of precision and fidelity.

Do try to take this as constructive feedback – this is after all the most influential lesson either you or I will ever learn from the whole idea of e-engagement.

Good day Madam.

SD

The above quote – I believe – is the crux of where we have been arguing tangentially.

Let me repeat the sentence that you seem to have difficulty with:
“I doubt if anybody has anything against community moderation.”

You see: While I was addressing the concept of community moderation and its ideals, you were addressing its viability

The concept of community moderation is a desireable ideal that we should all strive towards. How wonderful it would be if the online community can police itself without the need to invoke the strong-arm of the law. It would be a much more civilised community and very much in line with the ideals upon which the Internet was built.

The problem isn’t so much the concept but its viability.

Making community moderation work is no easy feat. While a few attempts can be considered moderately successful, many others have tried, attained a modicum of success, then failed. Some do not even attain a level that the average person would call success.

Allow me to now turn to the YouTube video you cited. In it, AIMS Deputy Chairman Prof Tan Cheng Han noted that community moderation means many things to different people. He also raised many other issues about community moderation in the nascent New Media that AIMS grappled with in our discussions.

Then at about 01:41 into the video, Prof Tan said:
“We do not rule out that there is a greater role for community moderation, whatever that may mean. But this is something that we think should be given a bit more time to evolve so that – you know – it reaches a more mature point.
“We’re just not sure that at this point in time, our society necessarily knows what really is community moderation, in any event.”

The two key points made in the above quote are:
1. Community moderation should be given time to evolve.
2. There are many different views about community moderation that needs to be reconciled so that we all attain a common understanding.

Community moderation is not some textbook formula that anybody can just invoke and conjure out of thin air. For the above two points raised by Prof Tan to come to fruition, brave and dedicated souls must expend much time, energy and resources to investigate and construct community moderation models and rally fellow netizens to dissect, enhance and support them.

And over time, trials and errors, we hope to see a viable community moderation model emerging. A model that we can all depend on to prevent the excesses that we sometimes see on the Internet.

As alluded to in my earlier comment, community moderation is something for the community to decide. While we may raise questions about its viability, and whether we have the same understanding of the term, AIMS is not against the concept. And frankly, why should anybody want clamp down on it should it eventually surface ? Who would benefit from such clampdowns, if they ever happen ?

In the meantime, until the community moderation model proves to be a viable alternative, the existing rules surely should remain to safeguard the rights of individuals and afford aggrieved parties a recourse should things get out of hand ?

BUT know,Y is PAP call us to STOP,so set LAW AGAIN FREEDOM SPEECH??
so disappointed,,!!hai..

(1) With due respect Suhaw. May I respectfully re-submit my original question posed to you for the second time – where @ suhaw on September 3rd, 2008 6.15 pm. You represented the following:

“I doubt if anybody has anything against community moderation.”

As you can clearly see from my post @ singaporedaddy on September 7th, 2008 9.32 pm. I even attached a link with numerous websites which conclusively proved beyond doubt – there was indeed significant “opposition” to the whole idea of community moderation. Contrary to what you represented very rashly.

I provided you with not only the evidential basis for my supposition but I also clearly illustrated many examples of resistance to the whole idea of community moderation.

So again, from the top this time; can you show me any evidence pointing to the contrary as you suggested?

(2) I never disputed AIMS strongly endorses the need for the community to get involved. Show me where I said that?

However let us not confuse the term ‘community moderation’ with community led initiatives. I believe the definition of the term community moderation is not only very specific but it was also clearly elucidated by both the blogger 13 and it was even expressly rejected by AIMS as a idea which was not viable – please refer to the second segment of the video link where this was clearly explained by AIMS in (4).

(3) “ I presume singaporedaddy is under the mistaken impression that AIMS is against community moderation.”

You presume wrong Madam, AIMS has clearly stated unequivocally that community moderation is not viable – pls refer again to the video link in (4).

(4) You mentioned Suhaw “One of our four key principles clearly states: “Community participation is key – to quote from the paper: The sheer amount of content available on the Internet makes it impossible for any one agency to monitor and regulate it efficiently.”

May I reiterate again for the benefit of readers who may be following this, this does not in any way connote that this is community moderation in the sense stated in (3) once again you are confusing it with the whole idea of community led initiative.

You also mentioned the consultation paper does not mention “community moderation” specifically. But silence does not necessarily mean opposition.

Again we consider this to be a misrepresentation of fact; may I draw you attention to the initial 45 sec of this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3llbMhVDQEk where there was neither “silence” or as you mentioned a lack of “opposition” – I believe the video clip is clear, unambiguous and unequivocal, although this was not specifically mentioned in the press session – tell me Suhaw are we to treat the press session and the report as separate and mutually exclusive? How do you think reasonable people would form an impression of event? Surely you do not expect them to exercise their ESP powers to figure out what was mentioned in the press session had absolutely nothing to do with the report release? Or is it otherwise Suhaw?

(5) You also mentioned – “make no mistake, we are for community involvement and participation. If not, we would not have opened the paper for public consultation, nor engaged netizens on this blogsite and elsewhere.” Once again we take issue with you on the point that we never once disputed this contention; however we would like to reiterate again; your statements made have no bearing whatsoever to the issue of community moderation as we have elucidated in point (1) (2) and (4).

The question stands Suhaw – we thank you and hope to get a reply to our questions.

Reg

SD

I presume singaporedaddy is under the mistaken impression that AIMS is against community moderation.

One of our four key principles clearly states: “Community participation is key”

To quote from the paper: “The sheer amount of content available on the Internet makes it impossible for any one agency to monitor and regulate it efficiently.”

While the above quote may seem to be written with the the Protection of Minors chapter in mind, it nevertheless reflects our views of New Media issues in general.

Admittedly, the consultation paper does not mention “community moderation” specifically. But silence does not necessarily mean opposition.

Make no mistake, we are for community involvement and participation. If not, we would not have opened the paper for public consultation, nor engaged netizens on this blogsite and elsewhere. And that, imho, is the key principle behind community moderation.

Why then, did we not address the community moderation issue more thoroughly ? Permit me to respond by asking the following questions:

* Isn’t community moderation – by definition – something to be decided upon by the community ? In AIMS an appropriate body to comment on the specifics of this issue ?
* Aren’t there examples of community moderation that went awry, just as there are successful ones ? Isn’t then the question of whether community moderation is appropriate a function of the situation it is applied to as well as the way it is eventually implemented ?
* Have the Singapore authorities shown any opposition towards community moderation ? Isn’t the “light touch” approach evidence of the regulators’ desire to have the community (and industry) take a more active role in community moderation ? As with the point made earlier in this post: Are you mistaking the silence on this issue as opposition ?

As I see it, community moderation is a voluntary activity that remains wholly within the netizens purview. Only netizens can bring this idea to fruition, nurture it or even kill it.

Perhaps after the community moderation process is put in place and applied in real issues, AIMS may put in our two cents worth. Until then, we stand by our call for greater community participation.

“I doubt if anybody has anything against community moderation.”

Suhaw we regret to inform you, that we disagree with your statement under the strongest possible terms.

Can you share with us how you derive at that conclusion?

We would really like to know.

Meanwhile maybe we can share with you why your statement may have been incorrect factually amounting to a misrepresentation of fact.

http://dotseng.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/find-out-whether-aims-is-screwing-the-right-hole/

Pls try to be accurate next time Suhaw, you can be wrong on yr opinion, but I dont think, you have the leeway to misrepresent the case factually – always remember Suhaw there are too many half truths and lies in the internet and we should always try to be as accurate as possible – what will people say Suhaw if we did otherwise?

I hope you understand. Have a nice day

Errr…. can please clarify on what this database you are referring to ? When I did a word search of the paper, the only instance of the word “database” refers to a Korean Age Verification System for the protection of minors.

I trust you are not referring to that database. :-)

Who does it belong to using what funding to maintain and develop?

Can Opposition access this?

Can TOC access this ?

Who can and who cannot access this kind of database?

And then we think and digest the going on.

I doubt if anybody has anything against community moderation. In fact, AIMS strongly endorses the need for the community to get involved: See report extract below.

My question is: Isn’t community moderation – by definition – a creation of the community and its creation should not be tainted by official pronouncements or endorsements by authoritative bodies ?

I believe it was Arun Madhizan who called compared such well-intentioned actions “a kiss of death”, or something like that.

Wouldn’t a more “detailed coverage by AIMS” have caused more harm than good ?

Extract from the AIMS consultation paper:
“(d) Community participation is key
“1.15 The sheer amount of content available on the Internet makes it impossible for any one agency to monitor and regulate it efficiently. The wider community has a role to play in fostering a conducive online environment. A relationship built on trust among all parties is more likely to last than one built on a list of do’s and don’ts. One good example was the former Parents Advisory Group for the Internet (PAGi), a volunteer group of parents that served as a support network for parents to share their ideas and concerns on guiding their children to use the Internet positively.2 Similar volunteer groups should be encouraged and supported.”

where does the money come from to maintain this database?

Should such a resource to accessible to all in the parliment and that means the opposition representatives?

I like to know.

TOC may also like to know? I can only wonder.

Or u got access already? given your very accurate info on your blogs ?

Can we know?

What’s the probability of that happening on a throw without even an AIM?

I frankly believe, the whole idea of Gerald Giam’s community moderator should have been given a detailed coverage by AIMS. Instead it was given only perfunctionary treatment. That in my view remains unsatisfactory.

That is about 20 years at least.

Question, why they say its a new thing?

new is relative.

And I saw most of the panel like they must have a lot of 1st hand history knowledge.

But what is the possibility of this ever happening?

Let call them group ‘B,’ it is well known, they are anti community moderation. They also happen to be vociferous critics of those who propose the idea.

One day group B meets lets say some people from group A during a cycling session.

Group A just happens to be some planners who are responsible for advising a certain govt abt the internet.

Group A knows of Group B. Infact, some people in Group B used to do the work of Group A people. So it is a senior and junior thingy. Many of the boys in Group A eve know Group B are trouble makers and they even live in fear of them. That is how politics is conducted in this monkey land, but they also know Group B only cares about derailing community moderation. They dont seem to care about other things.

So group A says to group B. OK we will give you an iron clad guarantee this community moderation thingy doesn’t fly. How’s that? It’s a very long shot, but some of the monkeys in Group B says, “keep talking.”

In return Group A, wants assurances that Group B will not go through their recommendations with a fine tooth comb. As I said, Group A knows only too well Group B are all trouble makers. Infact, they dont even want any criticism from anyone from Group B. As the planners in Group A really want to impress their bosses and they know they cant do that with Group B picking at their heels.

Group B says, OK but if we dont make any noise, everyone is going to get terribly suspicious. That’s because they all know we are very good at making a racket. And what use are trouble makers if they dont make any noise?

Then one of the monkeys in Group B chances on a brilliant idea; we will just tell everyone, we are boycotting you, that way if we dont make any noise, no one will be suspicious. Group A says capital idea.

They shake on it. They call it a gentlemens agreement. Its a done deal.

What is the probability of all this happening I wonder? Why are the people who can usually be entrusted to make alot of noise suddenly so quiet? Some thing just doesn’t seem right.

Btw this is a fairytale.

Can we ask the government to stop their propaganda shit in TV and MSM, and giving false carrot that use tax-money to promote their own shameful party during “blackout period” as well ?

Why do you think it is called government-appointed advisory council ? Remember the famous Independent Committe of Investigation for Mas Selamat ?

Will a you put a China reference in Olympic when China opponent is competing against those from other country ?