Evaluation of current state of affairs
How can internet activism be a force of good?
To highlight important but oft overlooked social issues, highlighting controversy and encourage people to join in on the debate and becoming informed on the subjects, enacting positive change. (ACTA/SOPA)
To raise awareness and sensitivity on social issues, health, and human diversity.
How can it be destructive, detrimental to the goal of a free internet, the center of information exchange and hope of interconnectedness with a global humanity?
The quest to becoming viral - how to design a purpose that can generate maximum momentum involving minimum education of context and facts? (KONY2012)
Should the internet be regulated to protect its vulnerable users?
Proponents of internet reform consider safety of vulnerable users to be paramount issues in such a powerful tool as the internet. But quite frankly it is such a daunting task that no individual, organization, or government that exists today can reasonably manage. And without direct intervention, the internet has been steadily evolving into a more integrated and personalized experience for all its users, to their benefit as well as their risks. Censorship is the death of freedoms, both figuratively and literally. Legislation must never be rushed in response to public outcry. (We only need the reminder of the Patriot Act)
However we must not ignore the distinction between a justifiable cause and a need to do something... anything. The fact is cyberbullying is a derivative of bullying, which most studies find to be present in just about any society and any circumstance. The problem therefore lies primarily in bullying and NOT the unregulated internet. Cyberbullying creates relatively few “new” victims, but effectively prevents victims from having an escape or temporary sanctuary from bullying. This can exacerbate psychological and physical damage. Further, can become a cultural “norm” that is so commonplace that it is considered acceptable, social behaviour. A close monitoring of internet behaviour patterns is necessarily but a knee-jerk reaction to a cause célèbre is not what we need.
This then becomes a question of moral decision-making. Is a lynch mob really the best route for social justice? This is most certainly a complex issue, one that involves much more than an individual's opinions. But we must accept the reality that complexity is not necessarily a vice - that within the discovery of its complexities we may hope to become more engaged and embodied in our understandings and our responsibilities.
The fact is, most if not all online vigilantes don pseudonyms or hide behind complex proxies which ensure their own anonymity. It is to protect their work, and to amplify its role as a deterrent, for an offender can only imagine someone, somewhere, and at some time is watching.
Online vigilantism is without a doubt a powerful movement, empowering people by bringing strangers together through the vision of a common moral outcome. While it provides the masses the strength to move mountains, do they provide sufficient knowledge and context to their cause? The danger in online vigilantism is not the increased mobility of the population, but the trigger of a provocative headline – the fuel of a vindictive blurb of text or media, and the volatility of an outraged mob.
One should never light a fire and not know how to put it out. Once it reaches the internet there’s very little anyone can do but watch the subsequent events unfold.
Internet vigilantism is mob justice. It will be swift, and it will be without mercy.
But will it be righteous?
To highlight important but oft overlooked social issues, highlighting controversy and encourage people to join in on the debate and becoming informed on the subjects, enacting positive change. (ACTA/SOPA)
To raise awareness and sensitivity on social issues, health, and human diversity.
How can it be destructive, detrimental to the goal of a free internet, the center of information exchange and hope of interconnectedness with a global humanity?
The quest to becoming viral - how to design a purpose that can generate maximum momentum involving minimum education of context and facts? (KONY2012)
Should the internet be regulated to protect its vulnerable users?
Proponents of internet reform consider safety of vulnerable users to be paramount issues in such a powerful tool as the internet. But quite frankly it is such a daunting task that no individual, organization, or government that exists today can reasonably manage. And without direct intervention, the internet has been steadily evolving into a more integrated and personalized experience for all its users, to their benefit as well as their risks. Censorship is the death of freedoms, both figuratively and literally. Legislation must never be rushed in response to public outcry. (We only need the reminder of the Patriot Act)
However we must not ignore the distinction between a justifiable cause and a need to do something... anything. The fact is cyberbullying is a derivative of bullying, which most studies find to be present in just about any society and any circumstance. The problem therefore lies primarily in bullying and NOT the unregulated internet. Cyberbullying creates relatively few “new” victims, but effectively prevents victims from having an escape or temporary sanctuary from bullying. This can exacerbate psychological and physical damage. Further, can become a cultural “norm” that is so commonplace that it is considered acceptable, social behaviour. A close monitoring of internet behaviour patterns is necessarily but a knee-jerk reaction to a cause célèbre is not what we need.
This then becomes a question of moral decision-making. Is a lynch mob really the best route for social justice? This is most certainly a complex issue, one that involves much more than an individual's opinions. But we must accept the reality that complexity is not necessarily a vice - that within the discovery of its complexities we may hope to become more engaged and embodied in our understandings and our responsibilities.
The fact is, most if not all online vigilantes don pseudonyms or hide behind complex proxies which ensure their own anonymity. It is to protect their work, and to amplify its role as a deterrent, for an offender can only imagine someone, somewhere, and at some time is watching.
Online vigilantism is without a doubt a powerful movement, empowering people by bringing strangers together through the vision of a common moral outcome. While it provides the masses the strength to move mountains, do they provide sufficient knowledge and context to their cause? The danger in online vigilantism is not the increased mobility of the population, but the trigger of a provocative headline – the fuel of a vindictive blurb of text or media, and the volatility of an outraged mob.
One should never light a fire and not know how to put it out. Once it reaches the internet there’s very little anyone can do but watch the subsequent events unfold.
Internet vigilantism is mob justice. It will be swift, and it will be without mercy.
But will it be righteous?