Daw Phyu was not impressed by blogging when it first appeared. She also did not like chatting when internet chartrooms first appeared decades ago. She did not like to share her innermost thoughts with strangers; at the same time, she did not want to talk about others too. She was, of course, aware of the power of the Internet when she was introduced to Janet for sending and receiving articles for two very serious magazines that she worked on in mid 1990. However, for the next two decades, she was dismayed to witness many abuses of the Internet for propaganda, false information and bullying. Digital divides among people and among nations worsened the situation for decades. The worst crime was that SOME self-seeking, dim-witted twits _ endowed with generous grants from well-meaning liberal-minded institutions _ have been allowed to rewrite or distort SOME histories and preach millions of the gullible and the equally stupid. They were/are as bad as spin-doctors from despotic regimes.
However, millions others are now fully enjoying digital renaissance. Ordinary people from almost all corners of this world are now allowed to do what the privileged few have been doing for decades. More and more people are talking about themselves and about others. Daw Phyu is happy to see so many truly intelligent and wise bloggers as well as commentators, especially from her old country and beyond. There are not only sponsored voices on the Internet. Many with divided opinions are discussing political, social and economic issues noisily and openly among themselves. The others are presenting the world whatever research they are working on; it is no longer the priority for many students to collect or buy just degrees or diplomas. This is the time to share others with how much they actually know. Many students are actually learning. Daw Phyu who is an ex-teacher, is full of joy. And many old and young people are also expressing whatever they like freely and openly. The Internet is truly coming of age.
Readers are now allowed to send online comments with a lightening speed on almost all what they have read on the Internet. A false report about the fall of a city in a conflict zone will be rebutted immediately by a resident in the area with a smartphone. If this false report is repeated several times, the credibility and the integrity of its source will be damaged beyond repairs. Now the power of the Internet is truly in the hands of ordinary decent folks, most of whom were silent for years. The source, no matter how powerful it is or how much it is protected, cannot erase its unprofessionalism and deviousness forever; some readers may already have printed its false report before its deletion; digital footprints are also stored in several servers all over the world. If any false report causes an escalation of a conflict resulting in massive loss of life and properties, people now understand that the source is guilty of the crime against humanity as much as rival warlords. The only way to restore the source's integrity is to apologise the readers at least A HUNDRED TIMES for its professional foul _ in THE LARGEST PRINT for at least a month to prevent further bloodshed and to remove these reports from the brains of infected readers or viewers. It is also recommended that those who are responsible for this internet media weapon of mass destruction be removed from office for good.
Despite her harsh recommendations, Daw Phyu fully promotes freedom of speech on the Internet. Daw Phyu no longer fears mass-brainwashing from all sides. She does not like to see the deletion or censorship of some comments on some media sites or YouTube sites. Some are worried that these comments will incite hatred or violence. What are the criteria to assess which comment is to be deleted and which is to be allowed? It is OK to show the same footage of causalities in a conflict _ hundreds of times within a few days, possibly resulting in a further vicious circle of extreme violence among divided peoples; at the same time, some comments should not be allowed while some are as long as they are NOT made public.
There should not be any censorship on the Internet. Any attempt to whitewash or coverup false reports or images when its duplicity is made public or to snub out true reports should not be encouraged. At the same time, do not police the others while you cannot police yourself! You may commit professional fouls as many as you wish if you are not ethical enough. This will allow the public to see what you really are. Let the public see what others are like too. So do not delete false images and false reports uploaded by dimwits and the devious. The increasingly media-smart public have the right to see warts and all (of you as well as of them)!
