By Arixion / Youth Writer
For a report sub-titled “Challenging Old Assumptions”, it is remarkable that the most important assumption of all is left unchallenged: The idea that the Internet – or New Media – is nothing more than a way people communicate and a place where information is stored. In fact, the Internet is a whole New World in itself.
It is the Web 2.0 technologies that show this fact very clearly. Environments like Second Life offer people virtual land where virtual buildings can be constructed on them. The difference between Web 2.0 and Web 1.0 websites is that the former displays graphically what the latter shows in text.
Hence, our question should be: How to deal with a New World? From the history of the previous New World – the United States of America – there are two main options, which we may call the “Conservative Spain” and “Enterprising England” approaches respectively.
History teaches us that “Enterprising England” prevailed, but the path that the Advisory Council for Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) advocates is the “Conservative Spain” approach.
The Problems of “Conservative Spain”
In the 1400s, Spain was under the strongly Catholic House of Castille. After Columbus discovered America in 1492, the Spanish were the first to colonise the new territory. They did so by porting everything from Spain to America, including the Church, whose presence was cemented in Missions and whose clergy actively participated in politics.
New Spain was directly intended to be an imitation of Old Spain.
Though claiming to adopt “Government Regulation as a last resort” (para 1.15), AIMS promotes in many cases active government intervention. Its analysis of the final stage of E-Participation still gives the government “the final decision-making power” (para 3.42).
One of its key recommendations is to “establish a dedicated central coordination agency for the protection of minors” (para 2.53 heading). While this is a technically sound suggestion, it places the initiative on the government in the offline world, extending the infamous Nanny-State into the New World.
This not only “pollutes” the Online World with offline prejudices, it also burdens the offline government with policing a distant area. A law requiring intermediaries to have “an obligation to take down defamatory content” (para 6.25) would have problems being applied to foreign intermediaries, and also the definition of “intermediaries” needs to be clarified. For instance, if a forum like Sammyboy publishes allegedly defamatory content, is the intermediary considered to be Sammyboy, Delphiforums (the forum host) or both?
AIMS fails to see these issues because it places Internet regulation under the prism of Information Management (censorship) rather than the more-accurate Foreign Policy. A much better analogy than Japan or Korea or Australia would be New Spain.
The New Spanish imported – in addition to resources and population – the Catholic disdain of pagan religions and fear of pagan cultures, as well as the Spanish social hierarchy: Governor (King) and Clergy at the top, followed by the rest in a patriarchal structure; and also Spanish diplomatic attitudes.
The first stunted Spanish adaptation to the New World by depriving New Spain the chance to learn from the ancient native cultures. The second resulted in a systematic dictatorial and exploitative environment that finally erupted in the Mexican War of Independence and the expulsion of Spain from the New World. Spain did not get a diplomatic foothold with the USA until the 1970s. The third prevented New Spain from associating with the other colonies, and hence all its material had to be supplied from Spain.
This dependency caused New Spain to suffer as Spain waned in Europe. The lesson we can gain for our New World is that a top-down approach will result in a stretch of resources and an importation of fears and prejudices which might or might not be justified. For instance, the Sexual Offences Act (para 5.34) sounds like decent legislation to be introduced into cyberspace, but its implementation would bring along with it the societal power relations – the same kind of Spanish patriarchy – that required its implementation in the first place in offline society.
The Internet is a blank slate, and the best option is to prevent the old prejudices that we all take for granted offline from infecting it.
The “Enterprising England” Alternative
The alternative is to emulate pre-1686 “Enterprising England”. Whatever their individual motives, English colonists piggy-backed ships of Royally-Chartered Companies. They were given free rein to live the way they liked and govern the way they liked as long as they provided a stream of profit for the English Crown.
Each group of colonists – Puritans, Catholics, Businessmen and so on – founded their own kinds of colonies and built up their own forms of representative government. They decided on their own diplomatic policy with the natives, and this allowed free trade and good relations between the English and the natives. One colonial chief even went so far as to marry the daughter of a native chieftain!
The English colonists also traded with French and Portuguese colonies, which they later annexed as the USA. Their home country benefited too from the wealth brought in by the colonies’ trade. A similar policy with today’s netizens would involve allowing them to create their own active independent self-governing body.
The important factor is that the government must treat the Internet as a foreign body of equal diplomatic level as itself. This is harder to do than it would have been for the UK in relation to America, as the main difference between the offline and offline worlds is cognitive, rather than physical, but it needs to be done for the sake of our nation’s future in the information age.
Lastly … A Warning
A final word of warning: the strong influences on the web by bloggers and forum administrators should not be shoved to the periphery or. If not, the netizens will become alienated from the offline world and this might result in an online version of the American Revolution and souring of relations for years between the netizens and the offline community.
The Revolution was caused by resentment at England imposing direct rule from 1686 onwards and disregarding the self-governments’ sovereignty. Only after the Civil War did UK and USA resume friendship.
—–
AIMs is attempting to create a New Singapore in online space. In future, there will be an online govt, an online police force, an online security force, online ISA, and whatever offline governmental institutions we now have will be transported online.
As it is, the PAP already has its hands full trying to find worthwhile assignments for its members and this will be an added platform for them to make these members useful. We have already seen them working toward this end with the latest coverage of the three young PAP MPs featured in the ST recently. Are we looking at our online PM, DPM and FAM already? Wait and see.
Anyway, as I have mentioned before, AIMS is made up of government officials, no matter which way you may want to look at it, and it is just another stooge for the PAP govt to work out something to address the online problem it is facing.
The govt ought to take Arixion’s warning seriously if it is attempting to control online space the way it does offline.
How do you govern the internet??? Does it have territorial boundaries?
ted,
The Internet’s “territorial boundaries” are defined by three things: offline governments, ISPs, and domain names/registrars. Ever wonder why you have web “sites” and “domains”, as well as “Extensions”?
Without pretending to speak for the govt, there are always 3 main ingrediants when it decides to go after someone.
a target/victim
Pick one of the more popular bloggers, create a scene, accuse him of something that equates to treason.
a kangaroo court
Next, take the victim to court, make the case bigger than it originally is, and make an example out of him so that others better beware and exercise self-restraint or self-censorship. Send him to prison and make sure he becomes a bankrupt 10 times over.
drum in the fear
Make an episode to air on Crime Watch on how the Singapore Online Security Force was able to nab the online guy who committed treason and for becoming a threat to the stability of the community and country.
In short; pick a guinea pig, find fault, sentence him to jail time with unreasonable damages to be paid, create fear in others and continue to instill this fear with continual ‘correct online behaviour’ propaganda.
modern time hi-tech communists soon we will be into, I supposed!
The Singapore online Inquisition…hmmm
Anyway. They’re just desperately holding onto power. I’m sure that they’re aware that their popularity ratings are all the way down and especially with the youths being more tech-savy and can’t be “controlled” by local mainstream media.
Hi Komnenos,
I sincerely and desperately hope that your sentiment is representative of the larger online youth population. It gives me hope for a change in the political scenery of Singapore.
:)
Interesting write up. The funniest thing about this whole AIMs thingy. Is the people who invested so much into it. Are also the same people who are doing their utmost not to talk, discuss, debate or even add or subtract anything to what Mr Cheong Yip Seng and his pals have forwarded to our government.
I wonder why? I really do. I wonder how is it even possible for a group of people to have done so much and yet remains so dead door knob silent about it when it all washes up to shore. Maybe they already know something all of us dont?
http://dotseng.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/suggested-solutions-for-managing-e-relationships-between-netizens-and-government-part-3-b-the-strategic-initiative-the-final-chapter/
But the American revolutionists could delineate themselves; they, as corporeal people, can live in a self-sufficient spread of continent.
Whereas the Internet, unprecedentedly great as it is, still has tangible ties to the offline world. Granted, you can have an online universe and all, but most unfortunately you cannot consume online food, online water, and online basic needs. We exist in the offline world, and simply put, our liberties on the internet effectively cease once we have no internet connection.
#10,
Well, we can’t consume online food, online water, and online basic needs. But we can order them online, can’t we?
On a more serious note, the Internet society is really a blueprint of a future society. It is a New World, but also the blueprint of one. And the American colonists needed to trade with Europe too, so they couldn’t survive on their own.
Internet Connections and Internet liberties have no link, because data persistence allows your presence to linger on in the net, where after you restore your connection, you can go right back to access.
Good Evening,
“One of its key recommendations is to “establish a dedicated central coordination agency for the protection of minors” (para 2.53 heading). While this is a technically sound suggestion, it places the initiative on the government in the offline world, extending the infamous Nanny-State into the New World.”
The issue is really this; how is the reading habit even rooted? Simple take away the torchlight of a kid away; that would encourage the model habit reader to buy another one and continue reading beneath the sheets through the night.
You see, its very simple really, one of the problems of a dedicated coordinating anything is it will try to “control” – “censor” – “limit’ . But this MAY instead have the reverse effect of transmuting the kosher to the mundane and promote the “undesirable” to the status of the proverbial must- experience-at-all-cost illicit thrill.
How do I know this as fact? Many years ago, Darkness told me, he stumbled on an incredible marketing tool by sheer accident. One day when he posted one of his love stories online, I believe he was pressed for time, so he did not correct it – it was filled with loads of spelling and grammatical mistakes – despite this readership jumped by an incredible 900% overnight -why? Because in that simple mistake, the novel had somehow transmuted reality to even appear as realer than real; readers suddenly gain a new intimacy with what the author was trying to say, bc for the very first time, they believed this could be authentic and even as coca-cola markets it, “the real thing,” it was unpolished, rough and worn –something like stone washed jeans.
As time went by, the formula stuck.
I suspect all this will be lost on great minds such as Cheong Y S and his motley crew all they have really done in my opinion is exacerbate the problem to new heights.
Thanks
SD (internet liaison officer of the brotherhood)
Just a short clarification about the recommendation to “establish a dedicated central coordination agency for the protection of minors” (para 2.53 heading).
The idea is not to extend “the infamous Nanny-State into the New World”. In fact, AIMS recognises the many notable and commendable efforts – private as well as public; and within Singapore as well as overseas – already contributing towards this objective. (paras 5.50 to 5.71)
What is being proposed is to bring together the disparate efforts to jointly work towards the common goal. Given the scarce resources available for such an important task, it makes eminent sense to pool together whatever resources available and bolster one another’s efforts instead of each party working on their own and re-inventing the wheel each time.
The national coordinating agency proposal is only one of the recommendations in this chapter of the report. Another key recommendation is to establish an annual fund for the protection of minors. The annual budget needed should be “co-funded by the Government as well as the private sector, with the State providing the bulk of the resources.” (para 5.73 a) This cannot be a solely government effort. participation by the community and commercial sector are equally vital – if not even more so – in making this work.
Suhaw,
The key point is that the Government is the one leading the initiative. Whether the Nanny directs directly or “co-ordinates”, he/she is still acting in the role of a Nanny. The Nanny can always rope in other people to help; the whole point is that the final decision lies with the Nanny, not the various other “community and social sector”.
So yes, pooling together of resources must be done, but under an independent “community-led” authority, not the Government.
Similarly an independent ‘community-led’ authority will still lead to regulations as to what can be said and what not, but the only risk you run is maybe ostracization. So you don’t kena defamation cases, but aren’t the principles similar?
Secondly to #13, what ‘common goal’ are we talking about? How do you define a ‘common goal’? If the ‘common goal’ is Government-led, then is this a ‘common goal’ at all? Stop equating the Government with Singapore, it is a huge fallacy we should stop making.
Arix,
I am happy to note that we are in agreement on the end-goal: to pool together resources that are now working on making the Internet a safer for children.
The AIMS report is a set of recommendations to the Government on what it can do. It certainly does not preclude the Community from seizing the initiative and creating a coordinating body far superior to anything the authorities can come up with.
There is a leadership void waiting to be filled. Imho, it would be ideal if Netizens can rise up to the challenge. One of the many successful examples of such community-led initiatives is that of the most passionate and highly talented ladies who founded MNet (http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/index.cfm).
Regardless of who eventually steps up to the plate, I hope you agree with me that the education of children (and parents) on the pitfalls (and potentials) of New Media is too important a task to be left languishing as we (or others) bicker over whether it should be Community- or Government-led.
:) Arixion
I agree and disagree with this.
“this might result in an online version of the American Revolution and souring of relations for years between the netizens and the offline community.
The Revolution was caused by resentment at England imposing direct rule from 1686 onwards and disregarding the self-governments’ sovereignty. Only after the Civil War did UK and USA resume friendship.”
I feel for one things between the online and mainstream is so bad now that its highly possible they cannot be effectively bridged. Just look at the amount of anti YPAP in TOC. As soon as one even declares support for the official line, one is almost ceremoniously given a dunking. :)
Singaporedaddy,
You see, its very simple really, one of the problems of a dedicated coordinating anything is it will try to “control” – “censor” – “limit’ . But this MAY instead have the reverse effect of transmuting the kosher to the mundane and promote the “undesirable” to the status of the proverbial must- experience-at-all-cost illicit thrill.
How do I know this as fact? Many years ago, Darkness told me, he stumbled on an incredible marketing tool by sheer accident. One day when he posted one of his love stories online, I believe he was pressed for time, so he did not correct it – it was filled with loads of spelling and grammatical mistakes – despite this readership jumped by an incredible 900% overnight -why? Because in that simple mistake, the novel had somehow transmuted reality to even appear as realer than real; readers suddenly gain a new intimacy with what the author was trying to say, bc for the very first time, they believed this could be authentic and even as coca-cola markets it, “the real thing,” it was unpolished, rough and worn –something like stone washed jeans.
See your point. But I wish to disagree. Some control is necessary in my opinion. And that may not be such a bad thing.
As for Darkness had he thrown his full support behind the whole idea of community moderation instead of fighting it tooth and nail. I think all the problems we regularly see in the internet would be over very quickly. As it is, he was certainly very persuasive in his case, but even you cannot deny Singapore. He may have squandered one of the greatest opportunities to make our internet a better place for ourselves and our children.
Lei Kit,
<>
This is because the official line has not been so “democratic” towards the net so far. As long as the official line stresses control coming down from the government, this is not going to be welcomed by netizens, many who came online to escape that control in the first place.
Suhaw,
1) Yep.
2) No, of course it doesn’t. However, the AIMS report is one of the “filters” that the government uses to look at the universe. The issue is that this filter emphasizes government involvement too much, and throws community-led initiatives to a distant second.
3) What we need is more than a Media Awareness Group. What we need is an independent government body for Cyber-Singapore, complete with whatever a standard offline govt body should need.
4) I agree that education on the pitfalls is important, but it must not end up turning the Internet into a horror movie. One of the pitfalls of the AIMS report is that it focuses too much on the negative aspects, and does not seem to cover the positive in any detail. Not to mention that the relationships online might differ somewhat from relationships offline, granted the different social interaction environment.
Good Morning Ong LK
Let’s not complicate matters. This is really common sense.
Tell me (and you can even poll this if you want); do you drum it into the head of a kid that the world is a dangerous place and its best to be suspicious of everything under the sun; bc there are pedophiles, terrorist and horrible people lurking in every corner of the internet?
You see if you look carefully that is precisely what the MSM has been doing for the last 5 years. And what is the result = zero; infact, its a reversal = the allure of the internet has not diminished.
Or maybe a smarter way of broaching this matter would be to inoculate children by empowering them with the power to think critically and if possible even laterally; so that they may be best equipped to winnow the truth from the lies thereby giving them reliable life tools to work things out for themselves.
But here you must allow them to experiment; its like riding a bicycle; they may even fall down from time to time
I think there is ALWAYS a danger that if we task governments to do anything; there is a real danger it MAY slip inadvertently into the territory of indoctrination instead of just seeding awareness; it MAY even become instructional instead of just remaining suggestive; that IMHO may not be a very intelligent way to get on top of this problem.
You don’t need to a honorary member of Mensa to figure this out. If you look at the vast majority of the problems in this world; you can more or less trace out only one thing; most of them can be resolved, if only people bothered to work things through calmly in their heads.
The way I see it most of these deadenders; have never ever been given the OPPORTUNITY to master this single most important life skill; and here I have to be crystal clear, we are not talking about intelligence as it remains the capacity to make sense of information to facilitate UNDERSTANDING; never forget some of those dummies who ploughed into the WTC in 9/11 even had Phd’s.
My point is if folk are NEVER given the chance to work things out for themselves (even if they get it wrong, by trial and error); you will always be fighting to break the cycle of ignorance and that simply means they are just prime meat for exploitation by either selling them as drug mules; suicide bombers; terrorist etc. You know why, bc if you really look carefully at the histories of these losers; at no point in their life were ANY of them ever given the opportunity to work things out in their heads; they just listened to someone who told them this is good; this is bad; is it such a wonder they ended up strapping a bomb and blowing themselves up in the name of Mickey Mouse – believing after that their souls will be magically transported to some garden where they are 71 virgins waiting for them. But the sad thing is, if any of these losers were empowered to think; maybe they would even question the status quo; perhaps some of them may even ask, hey! if the deal is so good, why don’t you go first man? Or what if those 71 virgins happen to the 91 year old nuns from the order of perpetual chastity thrown in with a few penguins?
Now you understand this is hardly a play-play issue, its jugular even.
You think abt that, I need to go for another conference call now.
SD
I think the govt is outdated and old-fashioned.
Singaporedaddi
A few points of clarification, if you please.
(a) Do you dispute in the very enlightening report, you ppl have compile.
http://dotseng.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/suggested-solutions-for-managing-e-relationships-between-netizens-and-government-part-3-b-the-strategic-initiative-the-final-chapter/
Some of you may have perhaps heightened and amplified the fear factor prematurely? One reason why I mentioned this is. During my brief foray into the internet. I have seen very little regulation of the SG internet by the authorities. You can even say comparatively. There is more freedom of speech in the Singapore online community, than lets say Malaysia or Burma. So if you dont mind me saying. Why is the report you people compiled weighted so strongly towards the assumption, there is even a fear factor?
(b) The second ob. Both I and my colleagues registered after reading part 1,2,3 and 4 is the last segment of the report where a one country two system template was recommeded as the suggested solution. This could be my imagination. But I dont think so. As many of my colleagues share the same belief.
Significant chunks of it are missing. By this I mean. It is as if someone deliberately masked off the suggested solutions by removing key vital steps which would have made those solutions useful.
I was subsequently informed when I asked around this is how you people ordinary go about doing things. And there was a kind soul that even forwarded me this, that was written by whoever.
———————————————————–
October 06, 2008 3:59 PM
Great site,
I believe the Part 2 may already be out as well on the bp report to aims.
I don’t have any misgivings many of the proposals forwarded by the ASDF of the brotherhood to our gahmen will work brilliantly.
Firstly, they have been careful to adopt a traditional and orthodox dont rock the boat approach, designed to appeal to people who are basically of the same genre as themselves.
Secondly, it will be effective in placating most if not all of gahmen’s worse fears.
Only one should always be mindful of the ASDF. Firstly, who are the ASDF? Though they number only a few, this small group of Mandarins wield a disproportionate influence over the international gaming community, virtually every aspect of politics, economics, trade and commerce comes under their purview.
They have managed to successfully whirl their way into the upper echelons of RPG by selling brain power to the highest bidder. You could even say for any gaming community to gain ascendancy, they would do well not to be in the bad books of the ASDF.
As a result, they operate one of the largest gaming extortion syndicates second only to the Russian mafia. Every gamer is forced to pay tribute to the ASDF as a retainer. The joke is the call it a retainer fee. If one doesn’t pay, one cannot even gain access to the simplest stages of playing the game. They would not even be able to transverse the infinity of space. As the ASDF have all the houses who have monopolized space fold under their thumb screws. If one refuses to pay, one may be bullied into submission. As the ASDF has a right of veto in the Internationale Confederation (the UN of the gaming world). There are some estimates that the ASDF to date is one of the wealthiest family in the gaming fraternity.
As interplanetary power brokers. The ASDF of the brotherhood sell themselves as “valued advisors” and counselari’s. They are especially fond of presenting their patrons space stations, but what they don’t tell you is, you would also have to buy ONLY brotherhood manufactured space ships as all their cargo bays are only designed to fit their space ships. You will also have to buy into their operating system as all their communication platforms are commoditized. And you would also have to be signatories of their interplanetary treatise, which allows the stationing of a garrison of brotherhood troops in your territory. In effect, they will own you!
If gahmen buys into their logic, I don’t doubt for one moment it will all work wonderfully to produce all top drawer results. However bear in mind, that brotherhood plans are rarely structured from A to Z. Instead they are deliberately designed strictly along a turn key logic, that is to say, you will always need them to return again at the completion of each phase to move on to the next.
This is what I call the 1 step foward, 2 step back shuffle ultimate con job which they have perfected to a veritable science. It is during the mature stages when they are needed most that they will begin to manifest their true colors. They will send their guilds to talk to you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSV9S2Ol3bc
Then they will begin to demand terms and concessions by turning the thumb screws. Neither are they coy about it. If they dont get their way, they will seized it by force of arms.
By this late stage self determination and emancipation would dissolve into a distant memory. In short, you will be so wholly dependent on them that they will own every aspect of your destiny and more.
I wonder should our gahmen even be dealing with this people? You all have absolutely no idea who you are dealing with. I rather take my chances with the devil any day! The way I see it, hell looks like a five star hotel compared to where the brotherhood are taking all of us.
To most of us, it is just a game, but to these people, I cannot tell you how real it is.
brotherhood squirmer
——————————————–
I just wish to ask singaporedad. was the part 4 deliberately masked and how true is this statement made of the 6th Oct? Many thanks.
Btw I am not part of either the YPAP. Our for that matter a member of the Lazarus hit squad who I happen to know has been out to hunt you people down since you came to TOC. I am just a terribly curious soul, who wants to live and learn. I hope you will oblige me Singaporedaddy.
Thanks again.
Good Morning Mr White,
You have asked me, two question. The first, I can certainly supply with an answer without too much fuss, but I now have to go in for a conference call to discuss certain matters with the German govt. I will have to respond latter.
The second question IMHO is wholly inappropriate to the whole discussion here. Allow me to share with you why; the last time I checked the sign board, toc happens to a social political blog and the question you have asked me relates specifically to the fairytale affairs of space ships and ray guns.
Question: in what way does this add value to the whole discussion in either this article or thread?
As I have stressed many a time here; its ALWAYS important to segregate our gaming interest with what’s happening here and in toc. If we don’t do this, then we may not be fair to the vast majority of readers here.
My fear is if we muddle the two; this may not only confuse many readers, but it will also cause them considerable distress as they wouldn’t even be able to make up head or tail.
SD
Good Afternoon Mr White,
Let me just say this; I don’t think anyone really denies; the internet is a domain that would benefit considerably from some form of OBJECTIVE and IMPARTIAL education.
Just like maybe compulsive gambling or substance abuse.
Since we are dealling with kiddies, we do however need to be very mindful that we don’t slip inadvertently into the realm of indoctrination and brainwashing of the type that we frequently see from the MSM when they repeatedly broadcast the trite message; the internet is a feral and brutish place where nothing of value can possibly emerge from. Or that it’s only an indolent pastime for washouts; where lies and disinformation proliferate no end etc etc.
I think we can all agree that approach brings nothing of value to the table.
Neither can we see how continuous streaming of negative propaganda will in any way benefit, kids, parents and citizenry in the long term. To me it just seems like a great way to dumb down a nation that leads to the dodo hall of fame.
On the contrary, we see the internet as a fantastic opportunity where individuals can express both their creativity and innovation to add considerable value to society’s value system in terms of knowledge, the brotherhood of man, global peace and understanding.
I personally don’t think funding for this initiative will be an issue. You will not have problems finding support from us. It’s quite straight forward. What I really like about it, is its even tax deductable.
Most businesses from my experience don’t have ANY trouble perceiving the strategic value of the internet on young minds – they know its important if kids are to develop confidently; they need to learn how manage conflict, think on their toes etc. So the internet is not something to be FEARED, but rather UNDERSTOOD and if possible if powers even HARNESSED productively.
IMHO businesses seem to have a very good feel where the line should start and end.
My feel it should be left to firms instead of govt to drive this. Govt’s should just take a back seat.
SD
Good Afternoon Mr White #22
“Some of you may have perhaps heightened and amplified the fear factor prematurely?” Do you have an empirical evidence to support this statement Mr White? I think not.
Let me put it this way; knowledge is a great treasure, but there is one thing higher than knowledge, and that is understanding.
And that is what the ASDF tries to do; they try to UNDERSTAND things; they’re are gamers so its not unusual for them to study competitive scenarios; it could be the US or Malaysian general elections or maybe two chicken rice vendors fight it out to win in a food court; but please have no doubt; if they are to remain gainfully useful to everybody concerned; then they must be given the right to call a spade a spade without fear or favor.
And while we are on the subject of USEFULNESS, Mr White; you need to ask yourself ONE question.
How is it possible for AIMs to have compiled a 200 page report on the internet and yet not even see the wisdom of spending one chapter; one paragraph or even so much as a single sentence broaching the subject of the climate of fear?
WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND. And we consider this a very serious omission. Bear in mind, they are spending tax payers money.
In the opinion of the ASDF, this is a bit like writing an excerpt for lonely planet about touring Egypt and never ever mentioning the pyramids of luxor; Or going to Paris and never even writing a single paragraph about the Eiffel tower; you can of course say; it was not within their remit to investigate the corrosive effects of the climate of fear; WE DISAGREE. We consider that to be central, fundamental and jugular even to the whole calculation at hand, if the imperative is to remain USEFULL.
As I said, if the imperative is to profile EFFECTIVE solutions; then we have to be able to simply call a spade a spade; if people are not happy; they are always free to take off their shoes and throw it at us; no big deal to us; as for us we simply do not see the value of wasting time pussy footing around and saying nice things which all amount to the sum of zero; we do not have time for that; there is nothing subversive or malicious here.
You must understand Mr White, there is no way to say this diplomatically.
I am so sorry Mr White.
I hope we are clear now.
Thank you and do have a very nice day.
SD
“The difference between Web 2.0 and Web 1.0 websites is that the former displays graphically what the latter shows in text.”
?!
#26 (Seth),
“sites” in “websites”, as well as “domains”, emphasize different places, therefore when you “Surf” to a website, you are actually going to a place, rather than just snatching a page out of a catalog.
Web 2.0 like Second Life display the 3D geometry in their landscape.
Mr white,
I have answered your question. Now would you be so kind to answer ours?
“How is it possible for AIMs to have compiled a 200 page report on the internet and yet not even see the wisdom of spending one chapter; one paragraph or even so much as a single sentence broaching the subject of the climate of fear?
WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND. And we consider this a very serious omission. Bear in mind, they are spending tax payers money.”
Go tell Lazarus and his twenty or so lizards, that I cannot understand why despite taking so many pot shots at me – he and his friends has not been able to land a single one on my head – they must have taken at least a dozen shots at me since I stepped into TOC – and not a single one – how is that possible?
[---deleted---]
You have to be kidding me right. LOL
SD
Comments edited by moderator.
SD, please. No threats.
Singaporedaddy,
Apologies but promotion of books – or any other products – are not allowed in the comments section. Comments should only have relations to the articles.
However, we are open to helping promote the book if you would send it to us through email.
Thanks.
Regards,
Andrew Loh
TOC I made no threats as you mentioned. If I did infact do so Mr white is free to exercise his statutory rights and lodge a police report. And we will gladly take it from there.
On the contrary, I am the one who is regularly threatened here. And I must have a right to defend my case vigorously even it means demolishing his position completely.
I for one cannot understand what is the purpose of allowing comments such as 22) Mr White on December 17th, 2008 10.18 am to even go through.
The second part of his question had absolutely nothing to do with either the thread discussion or the essay. So why was that allowed to go through?
If book sales publications are not permitted on threadline. That is fine. I did not know abt that then. Now I do. And will adjust accordingly. I understand.
SD
“32) theonlinecitizen on December 17th, 2008 9.10 pm Singaporedaddy,
Apologies but promotion of books – or any other products – are not allowed in the comments section. Comments should only have relations to the articles.
However, we are open to helping promote the book if you would send it to us through email.
Thanks.
Regards,
Andrew Loh”
—————————————-
Andrew Loh TOC, I have com-sat your position to the ASDF controller / they have re-routed to Aurora of the ICG /
This is their reply:
“Inform them (TOC), we are sorry for breaching house rules. (deleted)Promotion of ALL material in TOC for publication has been hereby cancelled. You are to stand down. Pls inform them, this is standard practice for us wherever we go so that they are clear and there is no misunderstandings. We always promote our material wherever we go. (deleted)”
We dont need your help. If we should require your assistance in the future. We will ask for it through the channel which you have specified.
Many thanks and sorry for the misunderstanding.
SD
Mr White,
You come back to me. You asked me a question> i gave you an answer.
Now I am merely asking you for the same courtesy; that is to clarify your statement that we deliberately heightened the perception of fear in our recent ASDF report concerning the internet.
This my question to you Mr White;
“How is it possible for AIMs to have compiled a 200 page report on the internet and yet not even see the wisdom of spending one chapter; one paragraph or even so much as a single sentence broaching the subject of the climate of fear?
WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND. And we consider this a very serious omission. Bear in mind, they are spending tax payers money.”
If you do NOT come back to me on a reasonable time, we will issue a 10 point rebuttal on why we believe your statement is wrong and a misrepresentation of logical fact. And we will just proceed to dismantle and demolish your position.
I am a tax payer. I have a right to demand that public servants who spend public money are accountable by insisting on quality and factual reliability in their work.
Alternatively, I am open to the possibility of detente; if you consider retracting the second part of your statement and annexture that you copied and pasted at #22.
Remember, I did not start this. But as I mentioned. I must have the right to defend our position vigorously.
Otherwise can someone please tell me, why was the second part of #22 even allow to go through unmoderated?
SD
Reading your caustic reply, I did remember smacking my head and even saying to my wife, OMG! What have I done! As what was linked did contain a whole battery of unsavory statements ranging from calling you guys everything from the mafia to devil worshippers. I am sorry. I really am….
Good to realise one’s mistake and take responsibility for it, Mr White. I do not wish to add insult to injury but you ought to have asked the misses to smack your head instead. Those comments were utterly unnecessary and a very lowdown attempt to, in your own words, cast aspersions, on a fellow online citizen.
Like Lazarus and the twenty jumping lizards, it is right that you should be ashamed of yourself.
On the other hand, I am glad you took the trouble to elaborate your position unlike Lazarus who had since disappeared into thin air. Even as I still do not in any way able to figure out the reason for your outburst, I do sincerely hope SD find it in him to accept your apologies, like he always do for those who are truly repentent.
Let’s keep our contributions to the subject matters and not make all these nonsensical attempts to discredit one another. Let’s strive to be more civilised and respectful to one another. (of course, we can reserve and exercise our right to express our ourselves in the strongest manner should we be discredited in any way)
SD & Mr White,
To be true, I hardly understand whether you guys are debating about internet regulation (the subject of this article), or on cyber-gaming. Could one of you please enlighten me?
Gemami
Did I just miss a full retraction? Where did you get that from Gemami? Why was it pulled form toc? Any idea Arix? :)
Why cant we see the full apology?
btw does anyone have any idea how much our government bankrolled Cheong Yip Seng et al for the report?
Any idea?
Gemami
Lazarus and the twenty jumping lizards hahahahahahahahahaha that really made day :) sd seems to be really deadly with the shoe. Look at it this way, at least every thing is on a solid footing now :)
Let’s hope so. SD needs to retrieve those shoes lest he goes around with barefeet.
Arix, I must say you have misunderstood the term Web 2.0, as well as what Second Life is. Might want to try Googling or checking Wikipedia.
Seth,
Wikipedia on ->
Web 2.0: Web 2.0 encapsulates the idea of interactivity and interconnectivity of content.
Second Life: Second Life (abbreviated as SL) is a virtual world developed by Linden Lab which launched on June 23, 2003 and is accessible via the Internet. A free client program called the Second Life Viewer enables its users, called Residents, to interact with each other through avatars. Residents can explore, meet other residents, socialize, participate in individual and group activities, and create and trade virtual property and services with one another, or travel throughout the world, which residents refer to as the grid.
Are you trying to tell me that Second Life is not a Web 2.0 technology?
P.S.: I’m still waiting for my last comment on the other thread to be moderated.
Digg and Wikipedia are good examples of Web 2.0, and they include the interactivity and interconnectivity of content. Users submit Digg articles or write Wikipedia pages, and other users influence such content by “digging” the articles, or further elaborating on Wikipedia pages.
Neither include a “3D geometry of their landscape”, nor is an actual “place” like Second Life is. Your original statement that Web 2.0 displays graphically what Web 1.0 displays in text is also puzzling. A site/app can be graphical (and have “3D geometry of their landscape”) while not classified as Web 2.0.
Second Life can pass as Web 2.0, but not just because it is an interactive world, but because of its social aspects and content creation as well. Also, Second Life is largely an online game and entertainment medium, so I do not see the link between it and your topic of Internet regulation.
In any case, Web 2.0 is actually a buzzword, and not at all a technical term, nor a technology on its own. It suggests the move of the Internet towards greater social content and interaction, but such elements have already existed long ago on the web and is not entirely new. In fact, the Internet is still pretty much where people communicate and where information is stored. There is no need to use buzzwords that you don’t really understand to try and say that the Internet is now a whole new world.
Of course, not to say that the rest of your article on Internet regulation is irrelevant. I am just pointing out the, how shall I put it.. The “?!” of your 2nd paragraph.
Seth,
OK I sort of misunderstood what “Web 2.0″ meant. (Then of course, this stuff can be re-defined and is being subject to re-definition all the time.) Perhaps I should have used Web 3.0. But anyhow, I was only using this as sort of a way to connect with people. I like thinking out of the box, and this applies here too; thinking out of the box on what Web 2.0 or 3.0 shows.
I use “Web 2.0″ merely as a tag to help people relate to the topic I have and the metaphor of Second Life. I’m not so interested in what it otherwise connotes, since my main thesis is that people – especially govt & govt supporters like AIMS – don’t understand the real nature of this stuff.
And IMHO, as a second-lifer, I know that Second Life is far more than just a game, and it is rather offensive for you to denigrate it as such. Second Life is an online world, complete with its own games, stock exchanges, shopping centers and even schools and museums and churches. And the whole message is that the Internet needs to be treated as a separate world on its own, therefore the paradigm used for Internet Regulation – if any – must differ markedly from that used for say newspapers. And Second Life is the best illustration of this concept, because of what I described to you above.
Do you have any comments on the rest of the article anyhow?
Like I said, I understand that you have misunderstood the term Web 2.0. No box to think out of here.
I call a spade a spade. Second Life is an online game, and an entertainment medium that simulates life. It is as much of a game as 12 Angry Men is a film. I use game without any sense of derogatory connotations, and I don’t see why you seem to want to avoid that word. Games, like films, can be great art forms and social commentary. There is no need to get defensive here. Personally, I don’t play Second Life, but I do know it is a game. In any case I don’t think you are a stranger to passing judgement on something that you are not part of.
Frankly, I did not read it carefully past the 2nd paragraph and hence have no comments on that. I just commented to point out the glaring misconceptions in paragraph 2.
Seth,
Games have specific goals. Neopets is a game, for instance; in Neopets you are suppose to aim to make your pet the best in its class. Red Alert and Age of Empires are games; you have the specific goal of eliminating your opponent or getting to build wonders first. Just to stretch it, Barbie’s Dress-Up is also a game; because your goal is to create a wonderful robe/dress for Barbie. Games need specific goals because you need to define a winning condition or condition to advance. That is the basic principle of programming a game.
Second Life has neither a game goal, nor conditions for advancement or victory. You can walk anywhere, fly anywhere, swim anywhere, dress in anything (or nothing). You can build your own house, build your own shop, rent house, shop, land, whatever. There is no way to measure your closeness to a goal. Therefore Second Life does not qualify as a game.
And IMHO, I am a Resident of Second Life too, in fact twice over. So I am not “passing judgement over something I am not part of”. And I like calling a Spade a Spade too; that is why Second Life is not a game in my eyes. To me, Second Life is a graphical version of My Space or Facebook.
I’ll issue you a challenge: go and download Second Life (it is free) and “play” it, then find for me one of these 4 things to prove that it is a game:-
-> a specific game trajectory (towards a specific destination or specific target object)
-> A specific winning condition (e.g. money, housing, ranking)
-> A plan for advancement in levels of difficulty
-> A fixed social class hierarchy, with specific rules for social advancement and engagement (user-created social classes don’t count)
If you can find any of these, I will rest my case. See you in Second Life!
Rgds,
Verander Destiny/ Witrin Iredell
By your logic the best-selling PC game of all time is also not a game, and by your description, Second Life is less than a game and more of a toy.
There might not be hard and fast objectives, but there is a general aim to accumulate in-game currency to carry out other game functions like purchasing property, as well as other pursuits to be achieved. If I’m not mistaken, there is no clearly defined objective in Neopets either to make your pet the strongest. Nor are there any clear winning goals for SimCity. Are these not games then?
In any case, I doubt you’d rest your case. When mistaken you say something about thinking out of the box. Okay then, if you buy into Linden Labs’ marketing – Second Life is a 3D virtual world. No, not a game at all. Pardon me while I go play Tetris, a falling blocks simulation.