You cannot stop people from putting prohibited content on YouTube, you can’t do that unless Singapore decides to shut down YouTube, which is not going to happen because the damage for Singapore will be a lot worse than just a repeal of the act.
Chairman, AIMs
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Hi :)
I would just like to commend the “media socialist” for sharing with many of us their proposals for e-engagement.
Its very heartening to note many have taken the time and effort from their busy schedule to really sit down and come up with good ideas.
That was one reason why I made an effort to connect with others in the AIMS forum yesterday.
I am also happy to note TheOnlineCitizen is living up to its reputation as an online leader as it took on many issues raised on the floor during the forum. Personally, I thought the idea of legislating against something which would eventually become obslete was a very compelling case.
I was however very disappointed that the brotherhood once again have failed to deliver on their promise by not even bothering to send a diplomatic troupe as they have promised to do.
Neither have they submitted a single workable proposal. Infact, it could be said even their newly appointed Liaison officer, Singapore Daddy has been sleeping on the job.
Very regrettable indeed. May I respectfully ask the Liaison officer of the brotherhood, when we will get a proposal from the brotherhood? Will we even get one as promised? Toc has done it and so have the media socialist, now you boys will simply have to follow suite.
Brush you teeth regularly.
What hubris!
Hi :)
There is one further question. Who are the media socialist? What do they really stand for? Are they affiliated to the Internationalist Communist Group? Are they trying to establish an online egalitarian community based on Marxist Leninism?
I believe its not only me who is confused. I heard a group of people asking themselves who is this media communist? Do they have links to North Korea and Cuba?
I think, it may be a good idea for either TOC or the Singapore Daily to feature a write up or at least post a brief introductory as to who the media socialist really are.
Many thanks.
And remember, do brush your teeth regularly.
Well they can’t stop people from putting prohibited content onto youtube but they do what they do best. Sue the hell out of whoever put those content onto youtube or even youtube itself
Good Afternoon Dentist Jen,
1. I don’t believe the ‘media socialist’ have anything remotely to do with any oligarchy, hegemony or group that is even affiliated with Союз Советских Социалистических Республик. If anything, it has to be a misnomer. Then again this is none of my business perhaps you can take it up directly with them.
2. As to the second part of your acidic commentary. It is not true to say that we are apathetic about what AIMS is trying to accomplish in our net.
On the contrary, we are monitoring developments very closely on this front.
However, let me just clarify, we don’t believe it is fair for us to impose our views on the rest of blogosphere.
Here we are always mindful. While we have every right to dig a hole in our backyard to plant a fruit tree, but we don’t have a right to do strip mining so as to affect the rest of our neighborhood. This overriding need to respect the sensitivities, space and right to privacy of other netizens is always in the foreground of our planning efforts.
Having said that Jen, rest assured, the substantive content of our proposal is already 99.9% completed. IMHO the ASDF have done a marvelous job.
I can assure, from what I have seen, this proposal will not address many of the challenges of ensuring online vibrancy and security, but it will also be able to deliver all these goodies in a cost effective and workable way to ensure the mutual interest of govt’s and netizens alike.
Allow me to just share with you; what we have been doing. Our planners believe very strongly e-engagement must be structured very much like an online game – ideally, it should be fun yet educational to engage the govt and vice-versa – we don’t see any compelling reason why this should be a dowdy affair.
Having said this, based on the simulations, even at this prototypal stage many of our planers have informed me one of their biggest problem is deconstructing the climate of fear – they see this as the greatest challenge that militates against e-engagement, so a primary thrust of these second stage process is to profile strategies to get on top of these problems. That is why, we are taking such a long time. As in many cases, we simply don’t have the skills sets and are entirely dependant on our foreign channel partners to provide these value added inputs.
To accomplish this second part successfully we need to revivify the whole proposal with the whole idea of edutainment- this I do not mind admitting is new to us, but to many of our channel partners it’s a stroll in the park – this unfortunately is also the most time consuming part as what many of our gaming specialist need to do at this stage is not altogether so different from subjecting a prototype automobile to a barrage of test to ensure safety, operational fitness and customer satisfaction.
I am not trying to fashion excuses. Rather my hope here is to give you Jen, a brief peek into the whole process so that you may understand the reasons for the delay.
At the time of writing this, I have been informed further test will be required for at least 14 earth days with a possible 7 more for further proofing – so we may perhaps only see a roll out of the proposal some time in the middle of next month.
Rest assure Jen we are moving as fast as we can and we are definitely not sleeping.
Thank You Jen,
Singaporedaddy
To the Laison officer of the brotherhood, Singapore daddi.
Thanks for your reply. I was pleasantly surprise. Now that I finally know, we will get a proposal from you people. I want to ask a few more questions on behalf of my friends that has been bothering us.
It is well known some of you didn’t want to get involved in this whole aims thing from the very beginning.
What accounts for the 180 degree change of heart?
My question is, while you ppl keep demanding that the govt furnish us all a comprehensive explanation as to why they wish to pursue e-engagement and connect with bloggers, but nowhere have you even so much as clarified your position as to why there is now a sudden change to help the govt.
I believe the term one of your writers used was, “if they want to build a BBQ pit and invite a few friends over, that is their business…we do not want to get involved.”
I dont want to sound blunt, but are you ppl trying to sell them stuff? Like space stations, satellites etc. I believe many ppl want to know whether you ppl have a hidden economic agenda to do the things you do.
We all know the blogger 13 and the media socialist are driven by mainly altruistic goals to make our blogosphere a better place.
But even, you have to admit, your motivations to do all this is less than clear. You should clarify yr position.
Secondly, I dont see anything so complicated about e-engagement that it has to be compared to a car. Infact, I think the media socialist did do a very good job of recommending that the charter or ruling preventing civil servants from blogging about their work should be lifted. Isn’t this, the equivalent of a comprehensive strategy? So what can you people who regularly invade imaginary planets, govern imaginary territories, mine imaginary minerals, transport them on imaginary space ships and trade them in imaginary markets possibly offer in the way of a real solution. Forgive me, but I distinctly remember the PM mentioning in his ND speech / something to the effect, “you cannot vote for an avatar, we live in the real world, that is how things should be done. ”
Added to that, I do believe since I have done alot of investigations on you ppl, the brotherhood don’t even have a good reputation in the virtual gaming scene, you ppl are often seen as oppressors and occupiers very much in the way, the Romans or the Nazi’s were often seen by the local populace, so tell me what can you possibly bring to the table.
I think, if you want to prove anything. Some of you should step out into the light first. That would be a very good start. Anonymity breeds not only mistrust, but also contempt and it offers absolutely no basis for building a solid foundation based on mutual trust and respect.
Step forward!
Thank you for another charming post Jan.
“What accounts for the 180 degree change of heart?” Its really quite simple Jan. Even today, there are many of us who still believe what AIMS is trying to accomplish has nothing to do with us or even greater blogosphere.
Admittedly, these are protectionist sentiments.
However, AFTER the ASDF (the think tank) of the brotherhood conducted a preliminary impact analysis on e-engagement – many of us realized. Hence the change of heart.
We realized, we may have to take equity in the process. As this is not simply a case of our neighbor building a BBQ pit as you mentioned.
Whether we like it or not, we may have to reconcile ourselves to certain fixed assumptions.
(a)blogosphere is anticipated to grow exponentially, it will also exert a gravity strong enough to attract social and political interest.
(b)Govt will not be able to ignore (a). They need to take equity in modulating its growth and direction.
(c)They have every right to project.
From this cursory analysis – the BBQ pit now looks more like a thermo nuclear reactor so whether we like it or not, we have to take a interest. As e-engagement is anticipated to have a profound impact on the demographics, trajectory and cultural attributions of our net – having said, they have every right to project into blogosphere. Nothing precludes us as friendly neighbors from knocking on their door with a fruit basket and asking them, “hey man, how’s it hanging man?” Or asking questions like; btw is this build on a fault line? Has the air traffic being diverted? Can we have a look at your safety and contingency protocols?
Somewhere in this exchange; its conceivable, we may even throw in a free tour of Russia where in the itenery, we may even arrange for a tour of Chernobyl.
The question in your mind Jan is why are we doing all this? The answer is very simple; we don’t believe e-engagement can be conducted in a haphazard manner; not without causing more harm than good at least; so it’s incumbent for us to take equity in the whole process by pursuing a strategy of constructive engagement to ensure our long term security and business interest in the net.
Going back to our analogy of the nuclear reactor again; we may or may not suggest alternatives to resolving the power needs of your neighbors; but if they decide to commit on a nuclear initiative, always remember, we cannot stop them – its within their sovereign rights to do so, but that doesn’t prevent us from engaging them to ensure our long term security and business interest; if lets say, we see a 747 on a radar changing course suddenly and barreling towards this nuclear reactor; what do you expect us to do? Naturally, we will alert them, but if nothing happens, then let there be no doubts we will shot it down. After that we all gladly go to the UN, but shoot it down, we will first.
Understand? We have no illusions here. We are not stupid people.
(2) “Forgive me, but I distinctly remember the PM mentioning in his ND speech / something to the effect, “you cannot vote for an avatar, we live in the real world, that is how things should be done.”
Well the short answer is the PM is dead wrong; and if I were him, I’ve seriously consider packing off all his tech advisors to the Singaporean meteorological institute based in Siberia to do a lifetime Phd on the mating habits of Russian bears – they gave him lousy advice.
Consider this Jan. Norrath may only exist as flecks of digital dust – surely, that’s just pretend role playing isn’t it? So you say. I mean, you can’t really turn the wheel of life there can you? For one you can’t even earn real money there – besides no one in the real world recognizes the legal of tender of Norrath which they call affectionately “platinum pieces.”
Wrong! Norrath’s real world economic value i.e GNP per capita is $3,105. If Norrath was a country, it would be the 75th most wealthy in the world, just behind Russia.
Now I am not saying Norrath is real in the literal sense. What I am saying is, it would be foolhardy for anyone to discount wholesale what gaming as a body of knowledge can bring to the table when we talk about creating value in the e-engagement process.
What you need to understand is gamers are really gamers as much as they remain real people who have real jobs and real skill sets who can bring value to any debate.
So you will forgive me if I don’t wish to indulge further in clarifying your prejudices. We encourage both you, LSL and your friends to read broadly and stop making stupid comments.
(3) “Secondly, I dont see anything so complicated about e-engagement that it has to be compared to a car. Infact, I think the media socialist did do a very good job of recommending that the charter or ruling preventing civil servants from blogging about their work should be lifted.”
The question is befuddled. I cannot answer it unless you flesh it further. Sorry.
(4) “Anonymity breeds not only mistrust, but also contempt and it offers absolutely no basis for building a solid foundation based on mutual trust and respect.”
Disagree. Anonymity remains an elemental first principle right. You may choose to interact with the net under your own terms, but we don’t believe, you have any right to impose your values on others, not by denying or prejudicing theirs.
Besides contrary to your statement, “it offers absolutely no basis…”. May I remind you that anonymity as an idea, as a theory, a science has a long and illustrious history. In 1776 Thomas Paine wrote anonymously his widely read pamphlet Common Sense which strenuously advocated America’s independence for colonial Britain – there wouldn’t even be such a thing as the United States of America today if it weren’t for the right of individuals to write under their own terms – think about that.
Good Day
SD
Anonymity breeds not only mistrust, but also contempt and it offers absolutely no basis for building a solid foundation based on mutual trust and respect.
Dentist Jen (#6):
With regards to your abovementioned quote, I would like to draw your attention to the infamous Chatham House Rule which states that “”When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.”"
The Rule allows people to speak as individuals, and to express views that may not be those of their organizations, and therefore it encourages free discussion. Speakers are then free to voice their own opinions, without concern for their personal reputation or their official duties and affiliations. It is widely acknowledged as an aid to free discussion.
The Chatham House Rule resolves a boundary problem faced by many communities of practice, in that it permits acknowledgment of the community or conversation while protecting the freedom of interaction that is necessary for the community to carry out its conversations.
Anonymity in the blogosphere is essential the Chatham House Rule redefined in the age of new media.
the infamous Chatham House Rule.? Is that some Inn keepers club?Thank you. But that was not my main point. So I shan’t even take the point up. My point related specifically to the brotherhood, where it can be said, they and only they have elevated anonymity to an art form.
I feel while anonymity may have its uses, its scope for abuse often preceeds the good it brings, so this may not be such a good thing after all and since they are leaders at many levels of understanding. They should seriously consider setting a good example for others to follow.
I strongly feel that anonymity should be encouraged instead of being despised because it is the best way to encourage free discussion without fear, especially so within an environment that has been experiencing fear for the past 5 decades, whether imagined or real.
Furthermore, if anonymity is so despicable or useless, then why do governments and large private enterprises engage in covert operations, spying, eves-dropping, secret telephone tapping and discrete internet intrusions and monitorings?
If certain aspects of government can hide themselves from public knowledge, why can’t the same right be enjoyed by private individuals or organisations?
Why do governments keep confidential and secret files?
Why is it until today, Singaporeans are still unable to know what exactly is our national reserves?
Another purpose of anonymity is for self-protection and preservation, especially for whistle-blowers, who may have to face overwhelming odds, like a David going against The Goliath.
AA
I feel while anonymity may have its uses, its scope for abuse often preceeds the good it brings, so this may not be such a good thing after all and since they are leaders at many levels of understanding. They should seriously consider setting a good example for others to follow. – Dentist Jan (#9)
Essentially, you are being anonymous yourself. Letś put it this way. Anonymity helps a lot in aligning the interpretation of an argument to the logic and reasoning behind it, than rather being associated to a particular person that may have been a victim of a misinformation campaign to discredit him.
the infamous Chatham House Rule.? Is that some Inn keepers club – Dentist Jan (#9)
Chatham House is also known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs. It was founded in 1920 as a response to the Paris Peace Conference. The Paris Peace Conference reorganised itself as the General Assembly of the League of Nations subsequently.