Online is the new political playground ….

Do you not think that those questions require an answer? Surely they do since they constitute what is really at issue here.

I agree that Nas raises some interesting points, but regardless, it is still disingenuous to extol the internet’s egalitarian potential without allowing it to flourish yourself. It’s a non sequitur.

How can we have a serious debate without recognising this?

Ultimately, whichever way you frame it, whether through parallels with the government or other institutions of power, if you don’t desist from imposing your will over another’s then the net is not a world of infinite possibilities, it is a conflict zone of me vs you.

You are making a point regarding freedom of speech and that moderating a blog contradicts that freedom. There are more questions here than answers, but there is not good enough material to make me want to scroll that far down, so I will probably not start that discussion. Suffice it to say that I see where you’re coming from.

Nas, as I understood, is making the point that forums operating under the pretense of being democratic end up immitating our not so deomocratic reality. I find that very interesting and thought provoking as to why that is.

One more thing that Nas indirectly points out to is the question of : Here’s total virtual freedom, what are you going to do with it?

I also find the analogy of governments to forums interesting, and I allowed my mind to wander while reading, and found there to be more similarities.

What happens if the forum absolute rulers are told behave a certain way by the site owners??? The people who control the money. Is there any similarity between funding a site and funding a country?

Naseem, sorry, but you shouldn’t look too far or expect much. This is a chronic issue that has been choking us for ages. At school, we are taught that if you stick to the rules, in fact, if you obey and worship your teacher, then you get a gold star. At university, you are taught that if you argue, or try to discuss anything with the instructor, chances are, that instructor will take revenge by flunking you the course. If you argue a policeman, for let’s say, speeding, or perhaps forgetting your ID card at home; chances are, you will be framed for something graver, just so that you spend at least one night in custody. If you disobey your father, chances are you will be disowned. This is Jordan, where obsessive-possessive behavior is the norm. I mean, not long ago, a Gay blogger and a political one were banned from an aggregator, and my point was, that perhaps the Internet is our only breath of true freedom of expression in Jordan; so why practice self-censorship? But khalas, it’s an empty cycle, and the same way such behavior was imposed on us, and passed on to us as children, now we are passing it on to the next generation?

Who wants to break the cycle anyway?

The issue in question is not your ‘rights’ to do what you will with the material, it is the implications of you exercising those rights vis-a-vis freedom of speech, agency and democracy, since these are the issues that lie at the heart of your original post. The individual vs the collective, if you will. So, on the one hand you can say, “It’s my prerogative, I don’t want this or that to stay up.” But, on the other hand, what does making that choice signify for the topics mentioned above?

It means that while you are exercising your right, you are conversely denying other people’s i.e. the right to be heard. If you’re pro-democracy, how do you reconcile and justify that? It’s a tricky question.

You may well respond by saying “But it’s my choice, my blog, my voice, my opinion, my right etc.” Granted, but then why write a post that ostensibly champions the cause of democracy in cyber space while correspondingly undermining it?

a blog is almost a special case in the online world. not all blogs depend on interaction. some blogs do not allow discussion all together. they can survive as opposed to discussion groups which are by default of their name solely dependent on that engagement.

i do allow discussion on this blog, in the same way i invite friends over to my home, but given that it is my personal space i exercise the ability to manage the shape and form of the discussion, rather than the content. if we were on a discussion forum then everyone involved in the discussion, by virtue of their participation as members of that society, are fit (and have the right) to judge what it is constructive and what is not, instead of say, an appointed moderator making that decision for them.

in an open society, members of that society should have the right to dictate speech and certain inalienable freedoms. in one’s open home they are free to do what they like.

in any case, as i said before, this wasnt a comparison between blogs and discussion forums. i merely mentioned the former because i was speaking from a personal space at the time, by way of saying ‘i am more comfortable’ using this instead of that.

I guess the bottom line is don’t leave the doors of your house open if you don’t want unwanted visitors. Personally I don’t understand why you would want people to give “a piaster” for their thoughts if you suffix the invitation with “No spamming, no profanity, and no flaming. Inappropriate comments will be deleted outright.” I agree that certain postings are not a constructive addition to the debate, but shouldn’t your readers be the judge of that? Or should you dictate to them what they should or should not read? I think it detracts from the debate and goes against the principles of freedom of choice and any other notion of democracy. Isn’t that, after all, what you’re fighting for?

Best,

Dan

i’m trying to look at the whole structure, the phenomenon, the way we operate. the way we pick faults in an external system we cannot control, yet are unwilling to make things right in a system that we CAN control and directly influence.

a blog in relation to the internet, particularly forums and such, is more like what a home is to the greater society. a blog is about what freedom I have as an individual within my OWN home, to talk about. The greater society outside these doors is completely different. I am not saying blogs are better as a “political structure” on the internet, I am saying from a personal perspective they are more comfortable for ME. The same way I feel more comforatble at home, in my own room, as opposed to the greater society.

thus i am not comparing a blog to a forum, in the same way i am not comparing a home to the bigger context of a society. they function in completely different way.

my focus is on the latter, and how it operates online in relation to real life.

i hope you understood my point this time around. if not, then we can just resort to calling each other names in hopes of getting some entertainment out of it.

You then go on to write that a blog does not aspire to be democratic; “They make no pretences that they are democracies or even that they are political structures to begin with. It’s mine my precious.”

You later lament and ponder whether the ‘freedom’ that the on-line world imbues the individual is being wasted, suggesting a failure to take advantage of a tool that could shift the status quo created by “governments, leaders and forefathers.”

Yet you’re effectively advocating liberation through censorship and suppression of opinion. Your argument seems to be based on a value judgement i.e. forums are characterised by ad hominem attacks and loathing, in which “democracy deteriorates,” whereas a blog is (artificially) enlightened, progressive, and reasoned. Surely the only reason for this is that it is moderated and controlled by you, the individual. I could persuasively argue that in this case that “individual” and “dictator” are interchangeable.

It’s out and out hypocrisy; you are endorsing and justifying exactly what you’re arguing against.

If you want to talk about a “virtual that gives us the freedom to do anything” then surely you should allow that to happen at home i.e. your blog. If you want plurality and diversity, for good or ill, then you have to advocate it and practice it my friend.

It seems like you, not the forum warriors, are the progeny of what you are battling with.

You sound like a corrupt leader preaching democracy as long as it’s not extended to the vociferous and unruly.

Freedom of choice and democracy bring to the world opinions, beliefs, practices, ideas and convictions that you may not like, but that is the point black-iris.

Discussions forums, bad memories Mr. Moderator? :p

Honestly, what i like about discussion forums and groups is that aside from moderators intervension, you can witness the presence of all sects and political streams.

Everyone fingertip is preserved and shown the way they see it feasible; was it a signature, a song they post or the way they dispaly a topic.

Democracy is not only about THE debate in which rules are followed and a winning team has to come off and the rest of those in discussion should sliently wait the next game. the actually apperance for what used to be a miniority with no real value or wieght in jordan real life are having equal opportunity in the cyber life and actually doing something.

It’s a major sucess to see different streams and colors from jordanian political and social life standing up and putting forward their identity in groups/forums and events, allowing people to view and particpate and perform their version of authority and justice overall.

After a tough 6 years in the online life from discussion froums, mailing groups, blogs and finally facebook groups .. i can seriously assure you that those tools of communication as much as they sound useless, boring and furstrating at points did enrich various skills personally and provided me the chance to connect with interested people locally and internationally with friends in solidarity.

It’s really bizzare everytime i realize that i met online the friends i work with closely in real life over critical democratic/social/political issues. Those friends/ cause partners are basically whom i failed to meet in real life while we were working for the same cause. Discussion groups brought us the chance to meet, and thats what i consider a worthy result for the hours i spent online and energy i wasted on other useless forums and discussions =)

Layla, aka CHE
Take care

http://doctorbob1.jeeran.com/archive/2007/7/258192.html

العلمانييون لايدافعون عن الأصولييون, بل يدافعون عن آخر المقاومين. هل سمعت في أيامنا هذه عن شيوعي يقاتل الصهيونية والإمبريالية في الجبهة؟ هل سمعت بفدائيين قوميين يواجهون الإحتلال والقمع؟ هل سمعت بكتائب العلمانيين توجه ضربات الى فلول الإحتلال؟ هل وهل وهل؟ طبعا لا. اليوم معظم هؤلاء تم شرائهم بوظائف حكومية فهم يطبلوا ويزمروا ويبيضوا وجه القمع والتخلف مثل ايام القمع “الإأشتراكي”

فلم يبقى الا خيارين , وعليك ان تختار في وقت المعركة فيه حامية :

اما ان تقف مع نظام قمعي عربي خائن يساعد قتلة العرب ويعينوه , أو تقف مع تيار قمعي ولكن يواجه قتلة العرب ويدافع عن الأرض والكرامة الوطنية. ولا يوجد بالعالم العربي تيار ثالث ذي قيمة.

لذلك يا عزيزي قبل ان تشتم بالأصوليين وتضعهم في خانة واحدة, اسئل نفسك مع من تقف اذا لم تقف مع الأصولييون او تكف شرك عنهم.

ثم من هم الأصولييون كما تسمييهم. هم ليسو من المريخ ولا زحل. هم عرب منا وفينا ولكن من القهر والذل وفقدان الأمل لم يعودوا يسعدوا بالحياة فبدؤا يحضرون لآخرتهم. وطز على هيك حياة يعيش فيها العربي ذليل كالدابة يأكل ويتكاثر ثم يجر العرباية وبعد سنوات يفطس. هذا حالنا تحت قمع الأنظمة وذل المحتل. اما الأصولييون فهم قمعييون بدون شك ولكن يواجهون المحتل ببسالة غير معهودة في تاريخ البشرية بينما نحن العلمانييون والشيوعيون والتقدميون كما نحب ان نسمي انفسنا سنبقى اما متفرجين او نصبح عملاء الأنظمة القمعية والإمبريالية مقابل حفنة من فائض الدولارات الأمريكية واللتي اوجدها البترول الخليجي الرخيص.