Getting too personal online....

(I) A useful angle to look at these articles is censorship and media literacy. A common argument against censorship by the govt is that the netizens are media literate. By this, it means that:

1)      Content-creator: People online know what to post and what not to, i.e. practise self-censorship

2)      Content-reader: People online know how to judge the info they read online, whether it’s true or false

3)      Even if (1) above is not true, i.e. people continue to post insensitive or inaccurate stuff, we can count on (2) above to be true, i.e. people online who come across such controversial posts will know they are not appropriate, and they may even go one step further to denounce this and castigate/scold the person who upload this info. This can be termed online vigilante, where netizens try to seek justice and fairness by coming down on those who engage in wrongful acts online.

Given the above three aspects, it is argued that the govt does not have to step in to regulate what’s happening online, as the people are mature enough (i.e. media literate) and online space is self-regulating.
But this can become extreme and backfire, as shown in the articles below.  Online vigilantism can become so extreme that the govt may have to come in to regulate online etiquette or behaviour. When netizens go to the extent of unearthing the address, workplace and pictures of the loved ones of the wrongdoer, it is no longer justice but justice gone overboard -- tantamount to cyberbullying. Two wrongs do not make a right!

(II) Another idea worth reiterating is that we behave so badly online due to anonymity and absence of face to face interaction.  Note that the two are not exactly the same.  U can have face to face interaction with another via webcam and this is anonymous because both of u are strangers to each other. Likewise, online interaction need not be anonymous if u r chatting with ur friend (e.g. via Facebook) but there is no face-to-face interaction here. And of course both anonymity and absence of face to face is possible if u r chatting to a stranger using a platform with no webcam.
This lack of Face to face interaction is important as if u cannot see the other person's expression, u r less likely to be able to hold yourself back and will end up saying hurtful, harmful stuff to that person. Being able to see a person's facial expression can act as a useful self-censorship mechanism as u can see at first hand how ur remarks are affecting that person. This is why in some movies when the evil guy wants to kill someone he knows, he needs to avert his gaze or turn his head away. In the case where the person is a stranger (i.e. anonymous), even if he is hurt and you can see, you may not care. This is where anonymity has a role to play. Ok...I know all this is very rambling and unclear, but hey, I'm tired, and can't be bothered to rewrite all these clearly....so if u don't follow, ASK ME!!!



ARTICLE 1: Online vigilantes going too far?


article 1a







article 1b

ARTICLE 2: The cost of getting too personal online

article 2a

article 2b