“(a) How much do you know about the cost of Internet regulation (or policing it)?
(b) How much is the cost?
(c) What are the possible lengths that certain people will go just so that subversive or dissenting conversations / voices can be put away?”

Firstly, I don’t know the cost – do you? You cannot compare Mynamar with us – what’s the percentage of Myanmar’s population who is online? And so their cost of regulation will be significantly lower.

My idea of ‘cost’ is accounting cost + opportunity cost, with the latter playing a major role in calculating it – the govt could have spent resources policing the Net on other expenditure needs.

For question (c), for this ‘certain people’ you’re referring to, I doubt it’s the govt. My view is that the govt has more things to do than wasting time and resources regulating cyberspace. Can you enlighten me on ‘more surprising things’? I’m really unsure of this, seriously.

Many Singaporeans are clueless about how they should deal with comments that are in disagreement with their views. Haven’t you noticed how debates are kept at the JC-level and we rarely see debates (be it political or non-political issues) involving adults on television?

So when they find no ways of coming up with a decent way of rebuttal, they will either shout you down with thinly-veiled personal insults or simply remove your argument — no matter how valid it may be.

In short, Singaporeans are hopeless when it comes to debates / discussions.

(In this regard, I should give Aaron some credit for not removing comments wily-nily unlike many other famous bloggers that we know.)

Double standards happen all the time. Not everyone has the guts to stand by what they declare. I call for freedom of speech and I stand by it (unless they accidentally get caught in my spam filter, which can take a while to de-spam because I don’t check the filter often). Check out how many comments there are on this blog accusing me of being part of the PAP or claiming I’m anti-PAP. Pretty interesting.

“But what I’m referring to is that the cost of Internet regulation is heavier than the benefits accrued.”

Three immediate questions spring to mind:

(a) How much do you know about the cost of Internet regulation (or policing it)?
(b) How much is the cost?
(c) What are the possible lengths that certain people will go just so that subversive or dissenting conversations / voices can be put away?

In addition to China, I also mentioned Burma and the government’s fairly successful regulation of the Internet there. Is Burma a rich country with deep pockets who can afford the “high cost” of Internet regulation?

“Like what Aaron said, we should trust people to have the common sense to judge what’s nonsense and what’s not. Most netizens contribute in a sensible manner, like what they would do in real life, even though they are anonymous, as cybergoddness said about the lure of the Internet.”

I think I have given Aaron some considerations about how (un)common common sense is.

“The govt may criticise the chatter here, but they aren’t going to forcefully regulate it.”

Is that your assumption then that the Government “aren’t going to forcefully regulate it”? More surprising things have happened, I think.

“I’ve indeed made an assumption, and it’s an assumption I thought was safe enough to make. I would be really, really sad to find out this assumption isn’t true.”

Ever come across the statement about how uncommon common sense is?

“With regards to Hitler, you have a point but I think Hitler could take advantage only because Germany was economically ravaged at that time.”

Aren’t indications almost everywhere pointing towards many economies being ravaged in the near future? And…

“It is my belief that when people are desperate, they’ll can and will resort to anything to get out of their desperate situation.”

So there you go. You’ve made a fair assumption but history might prove that your assumption may just be too ideal. Never expect people to do smart things when they are desperate.