internet idiocy: let’s all call each other out, lah
“I will kill you, you asswipe!”
“I will kill you and your mother you swine!”
“I will kill you, your mother and your dog!”
And so it goes. I thought we were bloody civilised. At least, those of us who pretend to have an existence on this planet - let alone the internet - should act with some measure of decorum. But you know something? Acting like a child is not restricted to bad posters, commentors nor to script-kiddies intent on showing off l337 skillz. Promising damnation for perceived hurts against communities you don’t actually care about, for content you couldn’t arsed to think through, really is the shits, brothers and sisters.
Aiyah, I’m not going to bother talking about racists and ‘good men’ and hunting down anonymous strangers on the internet lah. Others more eloquent and more attuned to the situation are much more able to do that.
What I’m starting to notice is how the experience of being sued for comments and posts on site are starting to change how people operate their blogs. I mean, check this out: someone gets sued for comments made on their site not one month ago, and now everything’s in an uproar. You spew potentially libelous comments and you get your ass kicked in 12 different places.
Eh, HARLOW, do you see what the hell is happening? Jeff Ooi turns obnoxious and bashes commentators who state anything that does not have ironclad, irrefutable proof of claims, Mack Zulkifli and Peter Tan go on a witchhunt against a racist commentator — heck, for fear of repercussions, Peter Tan took down his blog for a day or so — and now Mack Zulkifli humbly requests that Lim Kit Siang take the lead in stamping out ‘racist commentators’. Oh, and on the latter point, he calls out LKS to pursue action against said racist commentators and ‘not just political opponents’, viz.:
We don’t want people to think that our Parliamentary Opposition Leader is practicing double standards, reserving his police reports against political enemies only.
You know, the implication is this: if Lim Kit Siang does not lodge a report against the said racist, “we don’t want people to think that our Parlimentary Opposition Leader is practicing double standards”, but actually that’s what people might think. And such a rhetorical statement in fact does induce people to draw the conclusion that if LKS does not lodge a police report, then he’s nothing but a hypocrite.
So, really, dude, how much have you contributed to damning LKS’s reputation? Fellas, so many damn things cut two damn ways, lah.
Come on, let’s stop dragging anyone into the dirt along with us. It’s not fair, and it’s pretty damn uncalled for.
Yes, the threat is real, and that’s what so many have been saying: that the threat is real. But instead focusing on what this threat means, all the ants are scrambling around headless without their queens.
We’ve got to recognize there are idiots out there who will post potentially libelous bullshit, but to censor and not castigate them in the medium in which the comments are found and instead take recourse to the law is to give up far too much. You know what? Now that I see this fear of the prohibitions in the content code in action, I change my mind: blog and website adminstrators must not be held liable for the contents others have posted.
You wanna sue anybody? Sue the damn commentator. If you can’t trace the commentator? That’s your damn problem.
Hey, check this out, you authoritarian nazis: get on IRC and check out the racist, sexist, obscene, licentious, violent, hateful rubbish spouted there. Legislate that!


Hey I agree with you that commentators (or authors) should be the ones held responsible. I also agree it’s ridiculous to allow to hold website administrators, and forum moderators responsible for what goes on there.
Imagine you own a club in Jln P. Ramlee, and someone walks into the club and starts spewing all manner of hideous racist remarks, pushing people around and eventually ends up in a bloodied bar brawl, police arrests and hospitalization for some.
Do you hold the bar owner or bouncers responsible for what happened inside his bar?
Comment by totoro — Friday, 16 September 2005 @ 7:24 pm
You know, all of this is just so kafkan I’m just shocked to be witnessing this in Malaysia of all places. This is what Kundera would call the accused seeking his offense, only this time by proxy.
Comment by xpyre — Friday, 16 September 2005 @ 9:51 pm
Er. I don’t see how this relates to my blog entry.
You know, the one you trackbacked to.
Comment by T-Boy — Saturday, 17 September 2005 @ 1:40 am
T-boy> I’m trying to see the bigger picture, here.
When you start using the tools that others use to silence you, you are complicit in the actions they have taken. That is what I believe, anyways. To pursue action against this ‘racist’, whether true or not, is something they may choose to do, but they’ve got to realize the consequences of their actions.
If they are complicit with castigating a fellow netizen by methods employed in the real world, they’ve allowed authorities an implicit permission to act without protest.
I’d rather we came up with better ways to deal with the problem.
What’s worse is having ‘named personalities’ making damning decisions to tar people with a certain stripe of opinion as ‘wrong’ or ‘wrong-headed’. That’s what the authorities have done with the content code, and the content code is sufficiently broad to be construed in many ways.
It’s not just having respect for the law, it’s having respect for what is to be understood as an opinion. Unfortunately, characterizing a ‘racist’ as ‘nazi’ or some such related derogatory term is playing into the hands of people who would like to label us into categories and by doing so, have expedient reasons to bar some or all of us.
Damn it, it’s not just commentators who need to watch what they say, it’s the owners of blogs or web administrators who need to watch what they say *and* do, especially if they have as much exposure as they do.
Comment by xpyre — Saturday, 17 September 2005 @ 1:51 am
I still don’t get it. My objection to Mack in that post was purely on craft grounds, in which his use of Nazi analogies essentially taints his ideas with what can be consider ‘semiotic poison’, thus reducing the effectiveness of his argument.
My only opinion about it so far has been to distance myself away from racist commenters, and to publically distance any belief of legitimacy of the ‘freedom of speech’ defense.
I admit that I worried about the ramifications of Peter and Mack’s actions; I am, however, watching with interest to see how the government reacts to what Mack and Peter have done.
You, on the other hand, seem to be speaking out against what Mack and Peter did. I honestly don’t know if they did the right thing—having had experience with trolls, personally the idea that those bastards get what they’ve been dodging for years pleases me, but I certainly cannot deny that that feeling comes from my otherwise unpleasant personality, not reason.
Comment by T-Boy — Saturday, 17 September 2005 @ 10:31 pm
Oh, actually, I wanted to add something else. It’s generally a good idea to only trackback to entries that you already linked. Adding trackbacks to blogs who you don’t link at all in your blog post body generally confuses the hell out of the posters whose post you trackbacked to.
Comment by T-Boy — Saturday, 17 September 2005 @ 10:33 pm
I’m sorry you don’t see it.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and Mack’s argument the way you’ve dissected it is precisely the way the government would like to characterize online personas who speak out against them — by calling them unpatriotic, comparing them with unsavory dissidents, etc. A case in point, though not online, would be a situation in Singapore sometime in the 1980s when a group of people were accused of being ‘Marxist’ for their opinions.
I’m sure you can appreciate the irony of an alternative news blog acting in the same way the incumbent does. If you still can’t see it, delete the trackback.
As far as trackbacks are concerned, I think it’s usually the idea of linking to posts that discuss the same topic and/or theme, and not just because said posts were the subject of one’s own post.
Comment by xpyre — Sunday, 18 September 2005 @ 11:20 pm