The hidden dangers of the world of blogs and forums

SINGAPORE: Two controversies involving Ms Wee Shu Min and Mr Perry Tong, while regrettable, serves to remind us of the other pitfalls associated with Internet that is not frequently mentioned. The notoriety of the Net is attributed to the risk of exposure to sexual contents, hate sites, terrorist sites and pedophiles site. However, avoiding such sites do not necessarily 'protect' a Net participant - one who not only reads but also contributes - from any potential harm or controversy.

Blogging had been the rage for the last few years. Where previously one will indulge in coffeeshop talk, now everybody seems to go high-tech. For blogging is simply high-tech coffeeshop talk. Just like the good old coffeeshop talk, what is said on a blog can create controversy. However the difference is that the controversy may come fast, furious and in large numbers because the audience is larger and largely faceless. This is exactly what had happened to Ms Wee. She has forgotten that whatever is written in her blog will read by anybody who chance on it. So although she is essentially writing to nobody, the problem is that everybody else is reading it. That is the hidden danger of blogging which many is not aware or has forgotten. Hence the degree of responsibility while blogging should be at the same level as in real life. Just because the blog is directed at nobody does not mean diminished responsibility. As long as it is accessible, there is the associated responsibility.

In the case of Perry Tong, his problem started after he discovered that his email address was being used by an imposter to register in Sammyboy forum, with some postings made. Perry Tong then made a police report on the matter. This created a controversy as to why a police report was made. Reasons against the police report range from no harm being done, a certain Bernard Soh as admitted and apologised, Perry Tong being petty, to Perry Tong trying to create news for himself. I do not know the real reason(s) for the police report but I think his intention is just to record an incident that somebody has impersonated him by using his email address. This is generally to safeguard himself against any liability at a future date if his email address had been associated with any illegal use. Any other reasons are probably secondary if at all. Likewise, the reverse is also ture, that what is seemingly true on the Net may not be the truth after all. This especially applies to forums and mailing lists.

Reading through the reactions generated by both cases, one will notice that there are a lot of personal attacks and innuendos. Again, most of these caustic attacks will probably not be repeated outside the domain of the Net in the real world. This is because the Net is cloaked with anonymity. Everybody is faceless or so it seems; for everyone is only faceless for as long as nobody wants to identify them. Everything can be traced to the source if there is a will. Everytime a person logs on to a network, he leaves behind his IP address, the calling card. Therefore anyone who thinks that he is protected by anonymity of the Net should think twice before shouting any obscenities.

Another danger lurking in the Net is a direct result of its make-belief or virtual nature. Anything that can be seen on the computer screen is essentially a result of an interaction between the user and the computer. Therefore although I have generated more than 800 visits to my blog in the last 2 days, it is only between the computer and the user. I have no idea who the other party is or what they do. It is simply the interaction between me and the computer. My experience is not any richer over the last 2 days despite the numerous hits to my blog. This is unlike my interactions with my friends, the taxi driver, the hawkers or my neighbours. These real life interactions help to enrich my life and my experiences. Real life experiences can never be replaced by the experience from the virtual world, no matter how 'real' they may seem. In Ms Wee's case, although she received so much brickbats for her comments, she can just run away from it by just avoiding the computer altogether and in the process avoiding any responsibility. In other words, spending too much time with the computer will make one forgets that there is a real world out there that cannot be simply switched off or reset; with no questions of responsibility. This was probably what happened with Ms Wee.

Ms Wee's and Mr Perry Tong's case will probably be talked about for the next few days if not weeks. Two unfortunate incidents had occured and it would be sad if nothing is learnt from these. For Ms Wee, hopefully she will learn that life is not a bed of roses, even if she is privileged; and that the Net can be very unforgiving if one is irresponsible. In Perry's case, that making a police report is not always for the purpose of criminalising or suing someone, but to safeguard oneself, as a form of disclaimer.

When the dusts finally settle, I hope that Ms Wee had learned from this unfortunate incident; that every level of society has something to offer that can only enrich our life experiences; and that life experiences can only be experienced in the real world.