Lucky Tan argues for the need for anonymity in the social media
http://singaporemind.blogspot.sg/2012/09/reasons-for-anonymity-on-internet-among.html
I take a middle ground. Each person should be registered, but is allowed to use a pen nam
http://singaporemind.blogspot.sg/2012/09/reasons-for-anonymity-on-internet-among.html
I take a middle ground. Each person should be registered, but is allowed to use a pen nam
e. By being registered with a real identity, he has to act honestly and responsibly. He cannot defame, insult or tell lies. He can be traced.
Andrew Loh writes with his personal name. Mr. Brown uses a pen name, but his identity is known. My identity is known. We know Lucky Tan by his pen name, and he writes responsibly.
I disagree with the threat of defamation action taken against Alex Au and against Richard Wan (which I consider to be "bullying") and against the university lecturer that was bankrupted. But, I also disagree with the extremely bad behavior of many people who writes irresponsibly under the protection of anonymity.
Andrew Loh writes with his personal name. Mr. Brown uses a pen name, but his identity is known. My identity is known. We know Lucky Tan by his pen name, and he writes responsibly.
I disagree with the threat of defamation action taken against Alex Au and against Richard Wan (which I consider to be "bullying") and against the university lecturer that was bankrupted. But, I also disagree with the extremely bad behavior of many people who writes irresponsibly under the protection of anonymity.
Mr Tan, your middle ground suggestion is quite in line with Lucky Tan's many reasons for not imposing the non-anonymity rule here in Singapore.
ReplyDeleteLucky Tan's most convincing argument is the fact that historically, the ruling party here is just intolerant of any objections or opposing views.
So the PM has to categorically state that "nothing" will happen to those brave enough to put their names to their opinions.
That will be very, very difficult in the short term. Not impossible. Have a nagging hunch that the PM has finally caught a glimpse of the unease among us common folks.
Last time, before the internet, criticisms of the Govt and its policies are easily dealt with immediately, if the critic is in its employment, he is sacked with an obscured reason, if not, he is sued for defamation, bankrupted by Court, or chased out of the country.
ReplyDeleteNow, with the advent of Anoynuity on social media, LHL dun know what to do to fix the critics.
The tea Party conversation for bloggers was to test the waters, before he finally decide to take action, and some bloggers got so honoured to be among the who's who on the list. Hope realization finally dawned on them now, being taken for a ride.
Anonymity gave us Wikileaks. The foul-mouth rants provide comic relief to an otherwise serious discourse. By having a hands off policy, the government benefits from honest feedback. Otherwise they will be shooting in the dark and making more mistakes. If controlling the internet is to stifle dissent, as is the general perception, then nothing can stop the government from exercising its unlimited powers. The backlash against this step, however, will be incalculable.
ReplyDelete