Community Moderation as an alternative to Internet Regulation in Singapore

Community moderation is an alternative solution to Internet regulation as compared to the heavy hand approach adopted by the authorities (particularly in clamping down matters with law enforcement too quickly). I sketch out a few arguments to support the advocacy of this solution and present the summary of the proposals by the group of 15 bloggers led by Alex Au and Choo Zheng Xi who will be submitting a set of recommended proposals to the Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts within the next few days on the subject of Internet regulation. 

• Technology and Social Practices employed by Netizens makes it totally impractical for the state to play the role of master moderator or regulator. Unless in extreme situations where issues concern religion and race comes into the play, legislation and state intervention can come into play. Otherwise, legislation and state intervention are not good solutions in dealing with the emerging complexities arising from the Internet.
• Community Moderation provides both educational and legitimate arguments for the State to intervene if necessary. Besides watching over the establishment, the community of bloggers can also watch over each other. In such a scenario, the community abides by a set of rules or standards, where the checks and balances can be made clear as an FAQ to ensure that bloggers follow the code of conduct and editorial standards. If a blogger has behaved contrary to proper net etiquette, the community can issue a statement to condemn his or her behaviour and that might be seen by a younger audience who are more exposed to the Internet as compared to their parents.  Consequently, if the situation has gone beyond the point of no return, the state can intervene together with the legitimacy of the community who has already issued a warning or condemnation to the blogger involved. If all else fails, government intervention can be used as a last resort to deal with a controversy in the blogosphere when the net activity has disrupted the constitution, particularly on the race and religious issues.
• Community Moderation ensures more debate and growth of social political maturity in Singapore: Contrary to the views of the mainstream media and the establishment, the Internet itself has become a neutral platform that do not have the capacity to shape views. Instead, the Internet is a reflection of public sentiments (particularly in the social political blogs) rather than to shape people from a pro to anti-establishment viewpoints unless there is a ground swell of other forces in the offline world, for example, people are unhappy with the rising costs of living and a bad economy. The  2008 Malaysian elections happened not because of the Internet, though it played some role in amplifying the ground sentiments. Instead, to allow community moderation on some issues particularly, criticism on the government on issues based on rational discourse ensures more people to participate in the debate and also enhanced the growth of social political maturity of Singaporeans as a whole.
• The disadvantage of community moderation is that every blogger can have the choice whether to abide by the rules decided by the majority. Community moderation is not a perfect solution and I do not profess that it can solve every problem arised in the Internet. I also outline the disadvantages. There is possibility of politics that divide the bloggers into several factions and hence there might be no consensus if a scandal or controversy broke out in the blogosphere. However, we must put faith on most bloggers who agree that freedom of speech and responsibility are not mutually exclusive principles that they adhere to.

The debate on media policy in the internet is often about whether there is a need for real regulation or we should allow everyone to say whatever they like. The answer is never on either extremes but lies somewhere in the middle. That middle ground is achieved on the premise that freedom of speech must come with responsibility. We need to address society's legitimate concerns about the abuse of free speech outside the formal regulatory system.

Author's Note: The author is among the group of 15 bloggers, I have gone on board the project as a volunteer (not under any group blog he is involved with, for e.g., Singapore Angle nor being invited by anyone on the project). The picture is credited to Alex Au aka Yawning Bread's article, "Prosecute or Nothing".

Summary of the proposals submitted by 15 bloggers led by Mr Alex Au and Mr Choo Zheng Xi:

1.  All regulation of speech should be platform-neutral, given the steady convergence of various platforms as a result of the digital revolution. There should not be different rules for different media.

2.  Platform-neutral regulations should be harmonised to be as minimal as the current freest platform, if not even freer.

3.  What rules there need to be should be narrowly tailored and should serve clear social purposes. 

4.  Rules should take the form of unambiguous laws, and in extremis, violators prosecuted, rather than take the form of licensing, bureaucratic discretion and administrative penalties as currently is the case. The various licensing schemes and the Media Development Authority's powers to fine and ban should be
dismantled.

5.  Shielding a government from criticism is not a legitimate social purpose. Restraining political content is unjustified in principle and unrealistic in practice, and the attempt to do so impairs Singapore's maturity as a nation.

6.  The group notes that there are plenty of laws that need to be amended or repealed to give effect to the recommendations, such as the Broadcasting Act, the Parliamentary Elections Act and the Films Act. As this may take time, the group proposes that in the interim, there could be an Internet Freedom Act that sets out clear guarantees for Internet freedom, over-riding the multiple (and sometimes conflicting) restrictions in all these other laws, regulations and codes of practice.

7.  The group advocates a much bigger role for community moderation and in fact sees an ongoing trend wherein site owners themselves ensure a responsible use of their digital space. To further this process, the group suggests that an Internet Community Consultative Committee (IC3) be set up comprising one-third independent content providers, one-third persons familiar with rapidly evolving digital technologies, and one-third regular consumers of Internet content (i.e. regular surfers). They should not have any legal powers, but serve as a regular meeting point for citizens concerned with the free and responsible use of digital media.

8.  Controversies relating to Internet speech should as far as possible be resolved via community moderation. Only when public safety is at serious risk should the law and prosecution be invoked.

---

Comments

[Louis zietsman]

My small (and i mean small) input is that i fully support the the views of the above, and a state controlled internet is not what the internet was meant for.(and this is coming from a law enforcement agent)you guys and and girls just keep at it. someone has to listen.

[watcher]

that's the way to go. :)

but it will spell the dissolution of powers by the state and eventually, if we dare take this further into other legal matters, it would mean more accountability from the wealthy and powerful

you are just scratching the surface but on the right track ;)

will they lose their grip or stronghold? and whether the larger community will be comfortable being 'regulated' by these few bloggers is another issue.