Good write up (‘PAP now wants to do battle with social media‘).
Anyone in marketing will tell you that a key difference for social media marketing is the dialogue. A consumer who is able to tell you his needs, also has more affinity to your product. And by some estimates, 80% of contents will be online by 2015.
A Singaporean who goes online for news and information is not only there to consume, but also to produce. His production is his comments. And in that production of writing, not only is he sharing, to be understood, but he gets to understand through feedback and replies to his comments.
You cannot do that with print media. Now, they have tried to capture the essence of social media by setting up REACH. But politics in social media has always been subversive, as the author points out, it is raw. It is unvarnished and a ‘pure’ play, with little editing, and driven primarily by the audience. Unlike the way MSM likes to do it, which is to define a ‘performance’ area, so that the spotlight just needs to shine on that area, no distraction, a scripted or controlled ‘performance’.
But in social media, the performance areas are diffused, the threads turn into other threads, and move in multiple directions.
Given that we are one of the most highly connected societies, and that ICT is an economic driver for us, I don’t think the government is stupid enough to dampen usage of social media, what it seeks is to try to control it through the law.
And if they do it enough, and drive certain contents underground, will that help their politics?
I don’t think it will make a difference. Social media politics, first of all, has traditionally served as a counterweight to mainstream politics, secondly, the reason people go to social media for news is they don’t trust the MSM, and finally, social media by its very nature of exposing unpleasant reports/news that MSM would not, entertains and provides third party perspectives.
It is an indictment on our government that they see it fit to try to curb online news. They may say that the contents are not affected. They say it is to prevent foreign influence. What are the foreign Chambers of Commerce advocating, if not for foreigners? What they mean is that only they can be influenced by foreigners.
The government, by doing what it does, is reinforcing the distrust that is already prevalent, and alienating themselves further from an increasingly progressive citizenry. Instead of engaging, they construct more walls, but in that process, when they look out through their windows, they will see, it is us who are free, and they the prisoners.
BK
* Comment appeared in: PAP now wants to do battle with social media