Comments on AIMS paper

Really really late, thank to the new addition to my family... :) But better late than never, says that old one. So, the following was what I posted on the AIMS forum. I think I did it out of pity, really - nobody seems to be commenting on the forum.

* * * * *

Just to drop a few lines to give my two-byte's worth on the paper.

My view is that it is generally well written, with many issues surfaced. However, some critical segments might be lacking in terms of their inability to reconcile with themselves. This leads to self-contradiction at best, and an alarming lack of understanding of online communication and social engagement at worst.

Political expression and e-engagement were studied separately, and rather different 'solutions' considered for each. This should not be the case, as harnessing the people's political expression online must be part of e-engagement. We cannot deny that the political process has a huge effect on our everyday lives through the implementation of policy. To evaluate them on separate terms risk disconnection between the people and this papers writers - both in terms of what society wants and needs, and the very basic understanding of social discourse.

E-engagement has been viewed in mostly marketing terms on behalf of the 'knowledge owners' to disseminate information to the people. That is erroneous, as it ignores the fundamental two-way communication and debate that typifies online communication. The 'crisis' that we have today is the belief that someone holds all the truth, and others are mostly misguided or do not have all the right information. True engagement must come with both a sense of humility and subjectivity, an understanding that information is only as true as what the reader wants it to be.

There is also an issue with the proposed panel of experts who would be called to decide on who transgresses boundaries of fair online political discourse. Such a panel, unfortunately, can only play an enforcer role within conditions that are set for online expression. Besides begging the point on who sets these parameters and how this defers from the current judicial system, questions should also be raised on how this panel hopes to be a credible voice, minimally to the online community, in such disputes, when the Internet remains a limitless space that have communal rules that are impossible to be subject to any one definition.

I am also concerned about the follow-up on this paper. It might come as some dismay, if you cannot feel the sense of irony, that all the conversations going on about this topic are happening in other blogs and forums. To that extent, there were probably more comments in hardcopy newspaper forum pages than on your online one. It does not speak well of this consultation paper, nor bode well for what is likely to be propose in the final analysis, as it shows a disconnect or disregard for and from ground sentiment. People not talking to you usually means they are talking about you. Don't host a forum for forum's sake. Try to do more by pulling in articles or posts, reaching out to be part of the conversation, which is 24/7 with no foreseeable cut-off date, whether we like it or not. Minimally, it shows a willingness to be open to alternative ideas and discussion that are not necessarily on your own terms - that itself is the true plague of e-engagement today. N