mollymeek (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} mollymeek) wrote,@ 2007-02-04 14:21:00 |
|
The Elite Cloak of Anonymity (The Invisible Men in White?)
Update: Molly happens to share the many of the thoughts of XenoBoy on the same issue. Go and take a look.
-----------------------------
Oh my, oh my! After years of slamming bloggers for hiding behind their cheap Baleno cloak of anonymity (when bloggers really aren't anonymous), our dearest men in white have decided that they are going to get theirelite Gucci Cloak of Anonymity!
Pot: My goodness! Look how black you are, Kettle!
Kettle: Are you racist or what? What's wrong with being black?! BOOHOO!
Pot: You are black!
Kettle: Boohoohoo!! Boo! Boo!
Pot: Hmph! Don't think blackness is exclusive to you. If you are dark, I can afford to be darker!!!
Bah, what's new? Isn't The Straits Times already one of the most famous cloaks of anonymity? There's nothing new in this tactic except the ambition to expand its domain.
Molly already has readers speculating that the Kelly Koh mentioned in the previous post is a ghost writer hired by Mindef. Molly also has had readers who suspect that certain comments left by others were insidiously left by those serving the interests of a particular group of people. I seem to remember that in the Sammyboy forum, there were accusations of MIW infiltration. But these are not to be taken as evidence of anything, of course. While the MIW probably has the legitimacy and prowess to investigate who treacherous idiots like Molly Meek and XenoBoy are, we have neither the resources nor the "legitimacy" to set up an ISD to investigate the MIW.
Comments can get very insidious. According to one article, "The Straits Times quoted Baey as saying that the messages were only effective if they were not "too obvious" lest they resemble "propaganda." Yes, now that the trust people have for The Straits Times is eroding, propaganda resembles propaganda a tad too much. Propaganda should infiltrate your mind as quietly as the MIW have infiltrated blogs and forums.
One easy way to infiltrate Molly's blog, for instance, might be to access the last entry about two letters to Today about the plight of reservists. Instead of an outright rebuttal, the anonymous-MIW commenter could do, "Yes, RT is such a hassle to go through in order to defend the nation." (Fictitious comment) First, this would say something (nothing much, actually) about the hassle of RT, then it goes on to reinforce the notion that it's all for a grand purpose of defending the nation.
Yet, this is why it would seem really stupid of the MIW to something secretly but also tell people that they are going to do it. At least one other blogger, Aaron, doesn't think it sounds too intelligent.
From your own experiences, do the MIW seem to be so unflinchingly transparent?
But, first, let's see what sort of assumptions the MIW have about the people in order for such a move to be feasible. Are these assumptions correct? They have to assume that the people are a mass of uncritical sheep. In short, none too intelligent. Otherwise, no amount of pro-MIW posts in blogs and in forums will have any effect. The MIW still think that they can dispense information as truth for all to absorb. But if you can dispense truth, you might as well dispense with truth.
I think the Internet at its best doesn't dispense truth. When people talk to Molly about the need for a certain sort of balance in perspectives or for the need to convince readers, Molly will often say that these are precisely what she is trying to avoid. Molly doesn't want to convince anyone of anything. Molly merely wishes to provoke people into thinking about the issues she has raised, often reaching different conclusions. I would be no different from the ST if I were to tell you that I'm right all the time and you can rely on me as a premium source of information.
What would be the different sorts of comments posted and tactics used if the MIW invade forums and blogs?
1. Subtle reinforcement of the status quo, with token acknowledgment of the problems. (See Molly's example of the fictitious comments).
2. Quasi-authoritative citing of "facts" and figures to counter criticisms without any boost/damage to MIW credibility.
3. Finger-pointing. E.g. "Why are you always complaining and complaining about the government? Why don't you provide a solution instead of ranting here incessantly?!"
These aren't scary yet. What might be darker is IF they do the following (but Molly is NOT saying that they will):
4. Deliberately incite certain seditious/defamation comments and then go on a mission to arrest people for sedition/defamation. Or post seditious comments in blogs and then arrest bloggers for sedition.
5. Other than just "defending" the MIW, they smear the reputations of opposition politicians, even disguising themselves as opposition politicians to post remarks that would discredit them. (In short: If I can't grow taller than you, I will at least chop off your legs.)
Then it will would be strategically silly for them to come out and tell people how the Internet is going to be managed, wouldn't it?
We know how astute these people can be even if they often say things that make our eyes roll. Think again: "The Straits Times quoted Baey as saying that the messages were only effective if they were not "too obvious" lest they resemble "propaganda". Propaganda cannot sound propagandistic. This is definitely true and if the MIW know this, why would they want to make their move more obvious by announcing it?
Unless the announcement itself is a strategy to "manage" the Internet. To announce their entrance into the world of blogs and forums is also to have alarms going off. "They are coming! We'd better behave ourselves!!" (Of course, one suspects that they have always been around anyway. How else would they know that most people online don't support them a lot?)
The announcement might also spin off a kind of paranoia that will result in truly unproductive comments involving blacklisting. "XYZ is a new user. All his 5 posts are ro-MIW. He must be working for the MIW! Let's ban him!" (But, come on, expert propagandists won't be found so easily. Even when they are found, they can come back with a new ID. The wonders of the Internet.)
Plus, by announcing that they are posting anonymously in blogs and forums, the MIW are again dealing the transparency and credibility card. Of course, they will say that they are there to clarify and rebut unfair comments. And people might believe that that's that. But who is to say that, in this dark world of politics, they don't use the 5 sorts of comments/tactics Molly has listed above? Even if you do not believe that they are just "clarifying" things, what evidence do you have of any sort darker activities? No, there's no evidence. Only paranoid suspicions. This is power.
There really isn't any harm letting us know that they are coming incognito. Neither need it be a bad move on their part. It is a mind game.
At the end of the day, the question is: should we worry?
No, we should laugh unless we think we are going to lose this mind game because our minds are inferior.
Perhaps Molly has already lost but using the "we"/"them" dichotomy which they are so good at propagating. Or perhaps Molly is just being playful as usual.
Mind game? Mind your game. Concentrate on doing things for the people to safeguard your votes instead.
S'pore's PAP rebuts online critics anonymously--daily
SINGAPORE, Feb 3 (Reuters) - Members of Singapore's long-ruling People's Action Party (PAP) are posting anonymous messages in Internet forums and blogs to rebut online criticism of the party, a leading daily reported on Saturday.
The postings were an initiative driven by two sub-committees under the PAP's "new media" committee chaired by Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen, the pro-government Straits Times said, citing unnamed sources.
A government spokeswoman contacted on Saturday declined to comment.
The two sub-committees, made up of politicians and some technology-savvy party activists, were formed after the May 2006 general election, the Straits Times said. The PAP's share of the vote slid to 66.6 percent last year, from 75.3 percent at the previous election in 2001.
The panels had been set up to express the PAP's views online where there were few pro-establishment voices, the newspaper said, quoting a member of parliament who heads one sub-committee.
"The identity is not important. It is the message that is important," Baey Yam Keng was quoted as saying.
The Straits Times quoted Baey as saying that the messages were only effective if they were not "too obvious" lest they resemble "propaganda".
A PAP activist involved in posting the anonymous messages was quoted as saying that he tracked popular blogs and forums to "see if there is anything we can clarify" on controversial issues such as the impending hike in the goods and services tax.
The PAP, which has ruled Singapore since independence in 1965, has been criticised by human rights groups such as Amnesty International in the past for its curbs on freedom of expression.
Party leaders say tight regulation of public debate and the media in the city-state is necessary to maintain law and order.
Update: Molly happens to share the many of the thoughts of XenoBoy on the same issue. Go and take a look.
-----------------------------
Oh my, oh my! After years of slamming bloggers for hiding behind their cheap Baleno cloak of anonymity (when bloggers really aren't anonymous), our dearest men in white have decided that they are going to get their
Pot: My goodness! Look how black you are, Kettle!
Kettle: Are you racist or what? What's wrong with being black?! BOOHOO!
Pot: You are black!
Kettle: Boohoohoo!! Boo! Boo!
Pot: Hmph! Don't think blackness is exclusive to you. If you are dark, I can afford to be darker!!!
Bah, what's new? Isn't The Straits Times already one of the most famous cloaks of anonymity? There's nothing new in this tactic except the ambition to expand its domain.
Molly already has readers speculating that the Kelly Koh mentioned in the previous post is a ghost writer hired by Mindef. Molly also has had readers who suspect that certain comments left by others were insidiously left by those serving the interests of a particular group of people. I seem to remember that in the Sammyboy forum, there were accusations of MIW infiltration. But these are not to be taken as evidence of anything, of course. While the MIW probably has the legitimacy and prowess to investigate who treacherous idiots like Molly Meek and XenoBoy are, we have neither the resources nor the "legitimacy" to set up an ISD to investigate the MIW.
Comments can get very insidious. According to one article, "The Straits Times quoted Baey as saying that the messages were only effective if they were not "too obvious" lest they resemble "propaganda." Yes, now that the trust people have for The Straits Times is eroding, propaganda resembles propaganda a tad too much. Propaganda should infiltrate your mind as quietly as the MIW have infiltrated blogs and forums.
One easy way to infiltrate Molly's blog, for instance, might be to access the last entry about two letters to Today about the plight of reservists. Instead of an outright rebuttal, the anonymous-MIW commenter could do, "Yes, RT is such a hassle to go through in order to defend the nation." (Fictitious comment) First, this would say something (nothing much, actually) about the hassle of RT, then it goes on to reinforce the notion that it's all for a grand purpose of defending the nation.
Yet, this is why it would seem really stupid of the MIW to something secretly but also tell people that they are going to do it. At least one other blogger, Aaron, doesn't think it sounds too intelligent.
From your own experiences, do the MIW seem to be so unflinchingly transparent?
But, first, let's see what sort of assumptions the MIW have about the people in order for such a move to be feasible. Are these assumptions correct? They have to assume that the people are a mass of uncritical sheep. In short, none too intelligent. Otherwise, no amount of pro-MIW posts in blogs and in forums will have any effect. The MIW still think that they can dispense information as truth for all to absorb. But if you can dispense truth, you might as well dispense with truth.
I think the Internet at its best doesn't dispense truth. When people talk to Molly about the need for a certain sort of balance in perspectives or for the need to convince readers, Molly will often say that these are precisely what she is trying to avoid. Molly doesn't want to convince anyone of anything. Molly merely wishes to provoke people into thinking about the issues she has raised, often reaching different conclusions. I would be no different from the ST if I were to tell you that I'm right all the time and you can rely on me as a premium source of information.
What would be the different sorts of comments posted and tactics used if the MIW invade forums and blogs?
1. Subtle reinforcement of the status quo, with token acknowledgment of the problems. (See Molly's example of the fictitious comments).
2. Quasi-authoritative citing of "facts" and figures to counter criticisms without any boost/damage to MIW credibility.
3. Finger-pointing. E.g. "Why are you always complaining and complaining about the government? Why don't you provide a solution instead of ranting here incessantly?!"
These aren't scary yet. What might be darker is IF they do the following (but Molly is NOT saying that they will):
4. Deliberately incite certain seditious/defamation comments and then go on a mission to arrest people for sedition/defamation. Or post seditious comments in blogs and then arrest bloggers for sedition.
5. Other than just "defending" the MIW, they smear the reputations of opposition politicians, even disguising themselves as opposition politicians to post remarks that would discredit them. (In short: If I can't grow taller than you, I will at least chop off your legs.)
Then it will would be strategically silly for them to come out and tell people how the Internet is going to be managed, wouldn't it?
We know how astute these people can be even if they often say things that make our eyes roll. Think again: "The Straits Times quoted Baey as saying that the messages were only effective if they were not "too obvious" lest they resemble "propaganda". Propaganda cannot sound propagandistic. This is definitely true and if the MIW know this, why would they want to make their move more obvious by announcing it?
Unless the announcement itself is a strategy to "manage" the Internet. To announce their entrance into the world of blogs and forums is also to have alarms going off. "They are coming! We'd better behave ourselves!!" (Of course, one suspects that they have always been around anyway. How else would they know that most people online don't support them a lot?)
The announcement might also spin off a kind of paranoia that will result in truly unproductive comments involving blacklisting. "XYZ is a new user. All his 5 posts are ro-MIW. He must be working for the MIW! Let's ban him!" (But, come on, expert propagandists won't be found so easily. Even when they are found, they can come back with a new ID. The wonders of the Internet.)
Plus, by announcing that they are posting anonymously in blogs and forums, the MIW are again dealing the transparency and credibility card. Of course, they will say that they are there to clarify and rebut unfair comments. And people might believe that that's that. But who is to say that, in this dark world of politics, they don't use the 5 sorts of comments/tactics Molly has listed above? Even if you do not believe that they are just "clarifying" things, what evidence do you have of any sort darker activities? No, there's no evidence. Only paranoid suspicions. This is power.
There really isn't any harm letting us know that they are coming incognito. Neither need it be a bad move on their part. It is a mind game.
At the end of the day, the question is: should we worry?
No, we should laugh unless we think we are going to lose this mind game because our minds are inferior.
Perhaps Molly has already lost but using the "we"/"them" dichotomy which they are so good at propagating. Or perhaps Molly is just being playful as usual.
Mind game? Mind your game. Concentrate on doing things for the people to safeguard your votes instead.
S'pore's PAP rebuts online critics anonymously--daily
SINGAPORE, Feb 3 (Reuters) - Members of Singapore's long-ruling People's Action Party (PAP) are posting anonymous messages in Internet forums and blogs to rebut online criticism of the party, a leading daily reported on Saturday.
The postings were an initiative driven by two sub-committees under the PAP's "new media" committee chaired by Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen, the pro-government Straits Times said, citing unnamed sources.
A government spokeswoman contacted on Saturday declined to comment.
The two sub-committees, made up of politicians and some technology-savvy party activists, were formed after the May 2006 general election, the Straits Times said. The PAP's share of the vote slid to 66.6 percent last year, from 75.3 percent at the previous election in 2001.
The panels had been set up to express the PAP's views online where there were few pro-establishment voices, the newspaper said, quoting a member of parliament who heads one sub-committee.
"The identity is not important. It is the message that is important," Baey Yam Keng was quoted as saying.
The Straits Times quoted Baey as saying that the messages were only effective if they were not "too obvious" lest they resemble "propaganda".
A PAP activist involved in posting the anonymous messages was quoted as saying that he tracked popular blogs and forums to "see if there is anything we can clarify" on controversial issues such as the impending hike in the goods and services tax.
The PAP, which has ruled Singapore since independence in 1965, has been criticised by human rights groups such as Amnesty International in the past for its curbs on freedom of expression.
Party leaders say tight regulation of public debate and the media in the city-state is necessary to maintain law and order.
