The Illusion of Chasing Online Credibility

I just have 15 minutes to spare before I gear off for a spot of cycling – so we’ve going dive in straight into the deep end on this one – Question: Is it reasonable to even expect the internet to be credible?

 

I don’t know. Though judging from the way policy makers seem to go on and on like a broken record online credibility seems to be very important  – they seem to be almost single minded in reminding us that we must be responsible for what we write and present online – its hard to know who believes what these days, but no matter; lets not sweat the small stuff and just go with the flow on this one.

 

Have you ever considered; what’s really behind this obsession about online credibility? Why should policy makers even feel the overwhelming need to insist that online discourse should be credible? Let not even go into the broader area of how they’re insisting that we’re all credible, as that’s a whale of a subject – let’s just focus on this one topic.

 

One clue accounting for this oddly naïve insistence that the internet should conform to some acceptable form and structure stems largely from an acute anxiety on the part of policy makers; the internet may be some sort of mysterious wonder weapon like the ark of the covenant – for one can be weaponized with remarkable ease even by monkeys – and its effects can even be far reaching spewing out digital death rays in every direction with impunity.

 

It’s easy to buy into this sense of urgency when the internet is hung in the rogues gallery besides Dante’s seventh level of hell; and to some extent; myth even manages to eclipses reason; when one considers how the internet was often touted as the l’enfant terrible that dealt the ruling Barisan Nasional the proverbial kiss of death in the last Malaysian general elections, reducing the Malay elite to a bunch of shambolic mumblers; though I suspect what may have actually tilted the balance in favor of the opposition may also have been good olde fashion slip shod governance, slow mail, sms, petrol vouchers and the ubiquitous underwater sound quality DVD porno – my point is simply this; despite the ongoing preoccupation with the latent powers of the internet, a lot of it still remains the stuff of princesses kissing croaking frogs, alchemy and black magic – how much impact the internet may have on the politics of the day, or to wonder what conditions must first be obtained if they it is to have an impact; still remains a question of endless speculation – and even if the experts disagree on many things; all remain unanimous how the dystopian net may win the day is still a matter of considerable debate.

 

The hubris of having to deal with an “unknown quantity” is what I suspect to be at the bedrock of anxiety – and this is manifested in why policy makers continue to insist no end the internet should at least have the decency to conform to some semblance of understandable order – the dissertates range from Ah Liu’s recent condemnation of the netizens and how none of us could muster enough heart to avail Ah Seng – to the ongoing game of you-must-behave-yourself-otherwise-I-don’t-fren you strategy that is currently pursued. In every single case the underpinnings are clear: the internet is the nail that sticks out; it must be hammered down!

Its precisely that departmental attitude towards the internet that’s a source of pain to most thinking folk; and its exacerbated recently when the custodians are increasingly speaking a language of panic and treating online credibility not as one of many competing values but as the one value that trumps all others.

 

The problem is this diffusion of nervous energy is missing one vital ingredient; a genuinely alarmed public. Truth remains most netizens care about credibility mainly in the abstract whenever they blog. I am not saying everyone is terminally ambivalent about coming across as sane, mature and worth reading in cyberspace; only most netizens don’t really see the need to buy into the idea of credibility anymore than people who have real hair need to buy a wig. I’m no exception – and that’s one reason why when I hear toe curling commentaries about how the government should only respond to “credible” voices online – I find that not only does it put my character in a false light but a kind of appropriation of self is even going on; one where I even have to consider self censoring my thoughts should I wish to be taken seriously; but what if I don’t wish to assume that mantle; what if blogging isn’t a way to change the world as it remains a reliable way to preserve something valuable; and that thing being preserve could well be memories of my averagely miserable childhood to perhaps something more important like a critical way of viewing life as it unfolds – I am reminded when people blog; a sort of alchemy is going on in their heads; a man may be Christian, heterosexual, drive a Japanese car, Manchester united supporter, stir his coffee anti clockwise – but which one of these wins over the rest when he decides to hack away at his keyboard? People are complicated; and my feel is it doesn’t pay to expect them to conform to a set of ideals; not if all it does is level the field of possibilities further by forwarding the binary view one is either switched on or off, successful or a failure; scholar or peasant; chosen on or damned, credible or just plain rubbish and not worth engaging – how might that sort of reductionism serve the greater imperative of building a diverse and vibrant net? Well it cannot.

 

My point is simply this; government may simply have to reconcile themselves with the idea if the goal is build a better net; then instead of trying to funnel the online community into a way of thinking – what they may need to do is to simply let go. I know the idea sounds incredulous and even a trifle dangerous – but that logic isn’t so different from how the big cities of this world manage to consistently winnow the real winners from the losers; for one none of them subscribe to the ideal of zoo keeping as reliable way of seeding the good and driving out the bad.

 

In fact, the paradox of big cities like New York, Tokyo and Paris isn’t so different from the social landscape that makes up our internet; though its often fingered for its rudeness, its arrogance and along with its moral turpitude – resentment may yet be the highest form of compliment a city can receive; and it precisely because of this mish mash between good and bad as it tries to work its way out – that its serves as lightning rod to attract the brightest and smartest; who even see feral and even brutish city life as the best way to reinvent oneself – only don’t ever buy into the belief for one moment, New York can be New York – Paris can be Paris; if no one ever bothered with the wisdom of tolerating the bad, in the great hope the good would somehow be able to win the day – that is really the linchpin of this essay – the tao of letting things be; instead of thinking you’re Mr Know it all.

 

It worries me therefore that what seems to be playing out these days (look closely and you will see it) is something that I can only describe as a sorry state of sovietization – the idea as LSL recently lay on in prosaic terms as:

 

“But even in the Internet, there are places which are more considered, more moderated where people put their names down and identify themselves. And there is a debate which goes on and a give and take, which is not so rambunctious but perhaps more thoughtful. That is another range.” Lee.S.L Feb 2009

 

 

Despite my best efforts to find something redeeming about this whole idea – I cannot, only because when one boils down these statements to crud; its not so different from the idea of scrubbing streets clean and making sure all the picket fences are ram-rod straight and everyone can be counted to sip and not slurp their soup – for one it smacks of zoo keeping; one that even suggest if there was ever such city that was ever so sanitized and gutted out to make everything just right for the government to dip its porcelain feet into – it never even once existed in real life except perhaps in the deepest firmament of some fairytale; not even Disneyland despite its zing and panache for the surreal can gut out the human condition these days; when the average internet savvy kid these days knows only too well the evil decepticons has vaporized snow white and as for the seven dwarfs –they’re probably languishing in some virtual salt mines eking out make belief gold for the triads in China – as I said, it doesn’t pay to buy into the illusion of a credible net, not if it comes at the cost of reducing everything to binary logic.

 

Life doesn’t work that way; never did and never will – and it may be wiser for government to just take the net for what it is, to paraphrase, this is as good as it will ever get.

 

The perverse effect of this great diffusion of energy to build an online Pyongyang by attempting to instill the necessary quotient of credibility online – only means, all of us can expect government to behave like some auntie with a nervous tick; as if it’s an urgent matter to understand who though what and to award them good and bad marks for their ideas; may yet yield the opposite result; instead of online engagement which is of a deep spirited kind where issues may be brought to light with the force of reason; what’s likely to be played out is a rendition of more of the same – where despite the best efforts of government to connect with the online community – all they would have done is recreate the very sameness that once provoked so many to migrate online in search of something that doesn’t cause pain to thinking folk – its suggestive it may even sharpen the already acute sense of estrangement further as one can really only bear so much perfidiously happy faced hear only the good stuff without puking over the cat.

 

Now you don’t have an excuse to say; no one told you; so if that bullocart gets run over by the blogo-train – don’t look at me as I will just say; you may need to work on your credibility.

 

Need to hit the road now.

 

Darkness 2009