We hold public figures and politicians to scrutiny to be accountable for the power they wield in society. It is my humble opinion that the blogging community should increasingly become more transparent as they become more empowered in influencing public opinion as well..

As you have correctly said, we need to be collective in our efforts to have some fundamental changes in our current situations here. Some of us are best in doing small things, some are best in doing bigger things. We need to know our limits and work within our limits to change as a collective. One simple effort can be multipled as we go along. We will be collective in time to come.

We do not have to prove to anyone and answer to anything that goes nowhere at the end of the day. Please remember that some people cannot handle the truths.

When the fund donors of kidney patients realised that their money is very badly managed, they did only one simple thing collectively: stop giving. It is the truth that triggers the collective response.

We need to do simple things collectively, in the world of blogosphere.

And I can tell that they are concerned when they saw that we can be collective, after the truth become very clear.

in beating the anonymous ‘someone’ to manipulation of the Net – personally, that is something we should live in fear of as well. I hope the politicians realise that there are some things they cannot put an iron grip on, because the more they attempt to, the stronger the backlash is going to be.

Case in point would be when Deep Throat exposed the spies on the Net. I’ve written about it. So have you. So has most other bloggers who have something more to say than what happens every day.

As for us, we have to remain commonsensical. Ideals are good, but without an everyday rational look at things, we will be following Nietzsche and his Superman soon. Common sense is the best way to counter manipulation, unless someone introduces subliminal programming into the Net…

Most of the most important internet developments were not created by corporations, but by private users like us. While e-commerce is an important element, it is not the most significant factor in the development of the internet, nor should this new medium of communication be laid at the feet of corporations to exploit to bring the “truth”.

If Aaron Ng wants to play a big part in the new media, I’m pretty sure sitting on the fence is not going to be a viable strategy for revolution.

First off, it takes 2 hands to clap. I am assuming that it was true that Microsoft paid money. On that assumption, why are you blaming Microsoft and not blaming wikipedia? Is the problem the corporation, or that some elements of new media allowed themselves to be corrupted by corporations? If you are not even clear on this, your argument falls apart.

Secondly, youu are cherry picking examples to prove your point. You claim SPH, MDA, Temasek and GIC are profit seeking entities that are not democratic internally. Can you make a similar claim for Hyflux, Creative and UOB? Are you telling me that the latter 3 organisations do not seek profits? And, can you say with the same degree of certainty as you speak of SPH, MDA, Temasek and GIC that these organisations are “democratic”? And, since we are on the point of democracy, please define democracy. Whose definition of democracy are we talking about? And, what makes YOUR definition of democracy the correct definition?

Lastly, on what basis can you claim that I am pretending? Further, on what basis can you claim that I want to change the face of Singapore politics. And, on what basis can you claim that I have no idea what an activisit role is? How do you know we are in a digital democracy age? Just because some people said so?

Anyway, thanks for trolling. It was a good piece for exercise for me to practise meta-philosophy by taking apart your arguments completely.