Voice of the Future
Recently there has been a lot of discussion about the potential of blogs as a force to be reckoned with; both at present and in the future. Mostly, advocates emphasise that the relative ease of blogging, along with the difficulties for authorities to track and censure, ensures that blogging is a supremely potent 'weapon' for the individual.
While the potential of blogs as an unprecedented outlet for freedom of expression certainly has grounds for optimism, there are still a number of practical forces which will stunt or limit its 'capabilities'. Indeed, the points put forward towards as evidence of the potential of blogs can be similarly used as evidence against their potential.
The ability of an individual to establish an identity on the internet is of course not a new phenomenon. Back then, a little more effort was required to create a 'homepage'. While it caught on among more technically attuned individuals, the framework of a static home page was more suited for a corporate entity rather than an individual. Of course, when blogs made an appearance not only did it facilitate easy establishment of one's presence onto the internet, it created a whole new revolutionary 'community' within a community on the internet. With blogging, a great new chapter in the social revolution of the Internet was established.
Consequently, its relative ease of usage and access means that many people can easily jump on the bandwagon and share facets of their lives. This extends towards opinions on more 'sensitive' common topics such as socio-political issues. Right-wings fear that the lack of checks and balances with regard to the content of blogs will result in 'anarchy', as readers may be misled by 'inaccurate and inappropriate' news sources. They call for measures to be put in place to 'process' blog material, censoring it if necessary. Liberalists of course assert that this is a violation to civil liberties. They anticipate that the blogging revolution will indeed create a revolution of sorts, one where the oft-suppressed voice will be heard, where the underdogs stand on equal footing with the supremal powers. One where alternate non-mainstream viewpoints can be aired, digested and the consequent action taken, which will have profound repercussions on the socio-political climate.
I suggest that such optimism is unfounded, mainly on the premise that the very foundations of its supposed beneficial property (ease of use) is also its bane. When it is so easy for one to air one's views, there will be too many 'indian chiefs', all with their own thoughts and ideals, all lacking a focused direction and purpose. When there are so many differing agendas, ideals and opinions to sift through, a reader has to make best use of his limited resource of time to choose only those he thinks are 'worthy' of notice. Traditional mediums, with their 'professionalism' and procedural requirements, will still have primary influence simply due to reputation. Ultimately, individual blogs still represent individual ideals compared to traditional mediums which represent a collective, or rather, a more influential voice as compared to individual blogs. Indeed, the requirements to set up traditional mediums are the very 'checks and balances' which give these mediums credibility and influence, and also limit the number of such entities. In economical terms, this gives rise to an 'oligopoly' [Cf virtual monopoly in Singapore's situation] rather than 'perfect competition', which is certainly a qualify balance for a functioning democracy. No doubt, a democracy would normally impute that everyone should be entitled to their own opinions, but there is a reason why laws and norms are designed to curtail civil liberties in various aspects. Certain groups may wish to pursue their own 'unholy' agendas which as a matter of public policy is undesirable to the majority interest. The proliferation of blogs will merely result in 'perfect competition', with no individual blog making a large or significant impact. The only difference is that a decentralised collective impact will similarly not make a significant effect either, primarily because they are all attuned to different, individualistic causes, and the hill of difficulty to acquiring a common ground of support and reputation so as to have a voluminous and influential voice is a steep one.
As such, I suggest that any authoritative crackdown on political blogging will not be worth the resources devoted to it, as the difficulty of tracking is high and the 'risk' of allowing the sites to operate is negligible. Yes, there have been one-off cases whereby blog contents have caused drastic actions to be taken, such as exposing scandals, but these occur because they are further amplified by reports in traditional media. Additionally, these are rare occurences, which is why they are newsworthy and hence reported. Unless blogs can hold their own fort and exert as much influence as traditional media, they will always remain inferior and their voice, inconsequential in the wider scheme of things. Should the nature of blogging be left to evolve on its own natural path, without interference from both sides, the censors and the pro-activists, it will only lead to continued impotence. To be sharpened as a (socio-political) tool, there has to be conscious, organised effort taken on the part of the participants (bloggers, readers, blog service providers). I fail to see this happening. (See below for reasons why this is unlikely).
On the same front, using a blog to advance a socio-political agenda is only as good as any other traditional methods open to a citizen in a true democracy (eg peaceful protest, unions, human rights groups). Which is why it is actually can make a significant difference in a nation like Singapore, since there is hardly any scope for 'alternative' methods of getting one's voice heard.
As such while currently its 'natural impact' is weak, it is one which is of increasing importance and relevance to Singaporeans and therefore Singaporeans should 'wake up and take notice'. I suggest that there are ways to make blogging more consequential, more influential, more voluminous. Certain well contented blogs have a decent following, but so far there are none I have detected (in a Singaporean context) that have a voluminous voice AND an agenda, which gives a blog its necessary direction and purpose to make an 'impact'.
Someone has to take the role of a 'political blog' 'aggregator', someone who already has quite a fair bit of fame in the blogosphere. The aggregator will locate and provide links and descriptions to the various blogs out there, linking the sites, uniting them within a networked community and have an effective centralisation. Bloggers who wish to have a voice will have to band together, share ideals, find common ground, maybe even a common blog, to air their views, not unlike forming a political party, for there is strength and unity in numbers, and the influence will spread from there. Why not even a political party founded with its roots on a communion of bloggers? [Think K-mart vs small provision shops. There is no way small provision shops will triumph K-mart, also taking into account that the small provision shops cater only to a specific niche market (neighbourhood area).] While practically infeasible, should these provision shop owners band together to form a rival Supermarket, they will have more chance of competition. The icing is that the technical properties of the internet means that unity of bloggers is NOT as practically infeasible as would be in the real world.][But Query: Would a centralised nature make it more susceptible to censorship?]
'The Singapore Young People's Republic' is one example where a step has been taken in the right direction, only if there was more motivation and purpose in its implementation. While admirable one cannot help but think that a spur of youthful idealism is what made most of the 'contributors' inclined to 'enroll'. (There is virtually no participation from most of the parties, mostly done by one or two main parties, its founders). Such half-heartedness is understandable as participants have other obligations, compared to traditional mediums, in which those involved are usually employed in some capacity in the traditional mediums. For blogs to make an impact, one has to become a 'full-time' blogger (devoting sufficient resources, time and effort towards maintaining its content). Again this impracticality works especially against individual bloggers who treat blogs as a leisurely ancillary pursuit (which would encompass most people).
Of course, one must not forget that in our societal climate, there is tight governmental control. Should such an advent turn into a potential 'threat', there will be countermeasures taken. However, the technical framework of the internet means that it is now impossible for absolute censorship*, which again highlights the added importance of using the internet as a tool for freedom of speech in our context.
*Of course, the technical character of the internet actually allows for a theoretical possibility of the opposite, ie, absolute regulability.
So are blogs the revolutionary tool of the individual of the present and future? Indeed, it is a worthy tool, but perhaps not as potent as its supporters purport it to be, unless pro-active measures are taken to ensure it is so. Given our social climate, it would be prudent for would be activists to take action to harness this tool– before its too late.
Summary: The current individualistic regime of blog culture is weak due to its decentralised nature. For the phenomenon of blogging to be potent, active measures must be taken towards unity and localisation. In a restrictive socio-political climate such as Singapore's, active measures to ensure optimal exploitation of this tool may be well warranted.
While the potential of blogs as an unprecedented outlet for freedom of expression certainly has grounds for optimism, there are still a number of practical forces which will stunt or limit its 'capabilities'. Indeed, the points put forward towards as evidence of the potential of blogs can be similarly used as evidence against their potential.
The ability of an individual to establish an identity on the internet is of course not a new phenomenon. Back then, a little more effort was required to create a 'homepage'. While it caught on among more technically attuned individuals, the framework of a static home page was more suited for a corporate entity rather than an individual. Of course, when blogs made an appearance not only did it facilitate easy establishment of one's presence onto the internet, it created a whole new revolutionary 'community' within a community on the internet. With blogging, a great new chapter in the social revolution of the Internet was established.
Consequently, its relative ease of usage and access means that many people can easily jump on the bandwagon and share facets of their lives. This extends towards opinions on more 'sensitive' common topics such as socio-political issues. Right-wings fear that the lack of checks and balances with regard to the content of blogs will result in 'anarchy', as readers may be misled by 'inaccurate and inappropriate' news sources. They call for measures to be put in place to 'process' blog material, censoring it if necessary. Liberalists of course assert that this is a violation to civil liberties. They anticipate that the blogging revolution will indeed create a revolution of sorts, one where the oft-suppressed voice will be heard, where the underdogs stand on equal footing with the supremal powers. One where alternate non-mainstream viewpoints can be aired, digested and the consequent action taken, which will have profound repercussions on the socio-political climate.
I suggest that such optimism is unfounded, mainly on the premise that the very foundations of its supposed beneficial property (ease of use) is also its bane. When it is so easy for one to air one's views, there will be too many 'indian chiefs', all with their own thoughts and ideals, all lacking a focused direction and purpose. When there are so many differing agendas, ideals and opinions to sift through, a reader has to make best use of his limited resource of time to choose only those he thinks are 'worthy' of notice. Traditional mediums, with their 'professionalism' and procedural requirements, will still have primary influence simply due to reputation. Ultimately, individual blogs still represent individual ideals compared to traditional mediums which represent a collective, or rather, a more influential voice as compared to individual blogs. Indeed, the requirements to set up traditional mediums are the very 'checks and balances' which give these mediums credibility and influence, and also limit the number of such entities. In economical terms, this gives rise to an 'oligopoly' [Cf virtual monopoly in Singapore's situation] rather than 'perfect competition', which is certainly a qualify balance for a functioning democracy. No doubt, a democracy would normally impute that everyone should be entitled to their own opinions, but there is a reason why laws and norms are designed to curtail civil liberties in various aspects. Certain groups may wish to pursue their own 'unholy' agendas which as a matter of public policy is undesirable to the majority interest. The proliferation of blogs will merely result in 'perfect competition', with no individual blog making a large or significant impact. The only difference is that a decentralised collective impact will similarly not make a significant effect either, primarily because they are all attuned to different, individualistic causes, and the hill of difficulty to acquiring a common ground of support and reputation so as to have a voluminous and influential voice is a steep one.
As such, I suggest that any authoritative crackdown on political blogging will not be worth the resources devoted to it, as the difficulty of tracking is high and the 'risk' of allowing the sites to operate is negligible. Yes, there have been one-off cases whereby blog contents have caused drastic actions to be taken, such as exposing scandals, but these occur because they are further amplified by reports in traditional media. Additionally, these are rare occurences, which is why they are newsworthy and hence reported. Unless blogs can hold their own fort and exert as much influence as traditional media, they will always remain inferior and their voice, inconsequential in the wider scheme of things. Should the nature of blogging be left to evolve on its own natural path, without interference from both sides, the censors and the pro-activists, it will only lead to continued impotence. To be sharpened as a (socio-political) tool, there has to be conscious, organised effort taken on the part of the participants (bloggers, readers, blog service providers). I fail to see this happening. (See below for reasons why this is unlikely).
On the same front, using a blog to advance a socio-political agenda is only as good as any other traditional methods open to a citizen in a true democracy (eg peaceful protest, unions, human rights groups). Which is why it is actually can make a significant difference in a nation like Singapore, since there is hardly any scope for 'alternative' methods of getting one's voice heard.
As such while currently its 'natural impact' is weak, it is one which is of increasing importance and relevance to Singaporeans and therefore Singaporeans should 'wake up and take notice'. I suggest that there are ways to make blogging more consequential, more influential, more voluminous. Certain well contented blogs have a decent following, but so far there are none I have detected (in a Singaporean context) that have a voluminous voice AND an agenda, which gives a blog its necessary direction and purpose to make an 'impact'.
Someone has to take the role of a 'political blog' 'aggregator', someone who already has quite a fair bit of fame in the blogosphere. The aggregator will locate and provide links and descriptions to the various blogs out there, linking the sites, uniting them within a networked community and have an effective centralisation. Bloggers who wish to have a voice will have to band together, share ideals, find common ground, maybe even a common blog, to air their views, not unlike forming a political party, for there is strength and unity in numbers, and the influence will spread from there. Why not even a political party founded with its roots on a communion of bloggers? [Think K-mart vs small provision shops. There is no way small provision shops will triumph K-mart, also taking into account that the small provision shops cater only to a specific niche market (neighbourhood area).] While practically infeasible, should these provision shop owners band together to form a rival Supermarket, they will have more chance of competition. The icing is that the technical properties of the internet means that unity of bloggers is NOT as practically infeasible as would be in the real world.][But Query: Would a centralised nature make it more susceptible to censorship?]
'The Singapore Young People's Republic' is one example where a step has been taken in the right direction, only if there was more motivation and purpose in its implementation. While admirable one cannot help but think that a spur of youthful idealism is what made most of the 'contributors' inclined to 'enroll'. (There is virtually no participation from most of the parties, mostly done by one or two main parties, its founders). Such half-heartedness is understandable as participants have other obligations, compared to traditional mediums, in which those involved are usually employed in some capacity in the traditional mediums. For blogs to make an impact, one has to become a 'full-time' blogger (devoting sufficient resources, time and effort towards maintaining its content). Again this impracticality works especially against individual bloggers who treat blogs as a leisurely ancillary pursuit (which would encompass most people).
Of course, one must not forget that in our societal climate, there is tight governmental control. Should such an advent turn into a potential 'threat', there will be countermeasures taken. However, the technical framework of the internet means that it is now impossible for absolute censorship*, which again highlights the added importance of using the internet as a tool for freedom of speech in our context.
*Of course, the technical character of the internet actually allows for a theoretical possibility of the opposite, ie, absolute regulability.
So are blogs the revolutionary tool of the individual of the present and future? Indeed, it is a worthy tool, but perhaps not as potent as its supporters purport it to be, unless pro-active measures are taken to ensure it is so. Given our social climate, it would be prudent for would be activists to take action to harness this tool– before its too late.
Summary: The current individualistic regime of blog culture is weak due to its decentralised nature. For the phenomenon of blogging to be potent, active measures must be taken towards unity and localisation. In a restrictive socio-political climate such as Singapore's, active measures to ensure optimal exploitation of this tool may be well warranted.
posted by redrown at 8:38 AM
3 Comments:
The decentralisation itself is a strength. There is no single point of failure, no single point of attack, no way for the system to fail simply because of 1 well-placed strike (by they-who-must-not-be-named).
Aggregation no longer needs human intervention. With the advent of Technorati, various other automated aggregators, and even Google itself, searching for opinions and viewpoints become standard procedure.
oh, and one more thing. Apparently KMart recently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the USA. =)
I'm sure many small towns still retained their local mom-and-pop stores.
In the short run decentralisation is indeed a strength for the reasons which you stated. Such a state of affairs would mean that blogs will always remain on the fringes 'sniping' in at traditional media. I envision a future where blogs ARE the main source in which people gather, share and exchange opinions on issues of interest, marginalising the need for traditional media. One where blogging does not confine to a niche community but to the mainstream audience as well. Right now, the blogosphere still does not hold a candle towards the traditional media even with readerships in the thousands (for the most popular ones such as MrBrown).
Indeed technology has negated the need for a manual system in many ways. But I feel that one of the main strengths of blogging is the personable aspect of blogs. It is far more interactive than traditional forms of media due to the ease of which posts, comments, etc can be made. Which is why a personalised aggregator will definitely generate more and consequently harness more 'interest'. Technology should be used not to replace the human touch but to enhance it. And I am sure the majority of people who get their news from newspapers get them simply because they are present in the papers rather than because they actively go all out to search for them...
Wrt K-Mart, maybe I have used a poor analogy, but I was using the analogy of a big PLC and small personal businesses. Indeed, small towns retain their local stores, but thats why they remain small towns (or rather, if and when small towns grow in size/stature, big PLCs will start to come in, and the small business cannot compete (economies of scale etc) (1)except to a niche community (2)or if they join forces against the PLCs [implausible].
Blogs analogised as the 'small business' should join forces unless they choose only to pander to a niche community – in which case their sphere of influence is largely confined to the niche community. Of course, only if collective efforts are made is there a possibility that the influence can rival traditional media, would this succeed (or else it would be shot down).
As I said, such a situation is unfortunately unlikely to happen at current levels of influence and organisation.
P.S I thoroughly enjoyed your satirical retort to the interviewees comments in the ST. Succintly illustrates how 'moralistic' values are always subjective. Pity that a few persons failed to grasp the ironical content and took your material as an affront to women.
Post a Comment
<< Home