The paradox of social media

The revolution all started with Social Media, which is the root of Human Media. This might look like a reverse process, a paradox, as it is generally assumed that social communication should come out of human interactions. Maybe this has been the mistake: using technology and social media as a means of communication to select , categorize and label communities, that is to say, people. We often forget that this connection should be made based on human values.

Allow me to point out that when you listen, understand, respond, build relationships and connect emotionally, you are being human, not social. The social media challenge is to get back to human nature.

It seems that Social Media is about technology, APPs, platforms and Tools. Let’s be clear, all of this is brilliant when it humanizes processes and creates connectivity in the real world; when it supports the backwards transfer from 2.0 to 1.0 and vice versa. What I mean is that Social Media, as it is, won’t change the history of humanity, but it’s very probable that what’s happening with the help of Social Media, could actually bring about change through human interactions.

What say you?

Not only there is control of information media in Singapore.

Singapore is also controlling the entertainment media in the country.
Where they monopolized the entertainment for their exclusive profit. thru Starhub TV & Mio TV by Singnet.

That's why they do not allow satellite in Singapore.
Those who have worked or lived in other countries before will know that many countries that allow satellite to be used, the citizen can enjoy hundreds & thousands of TV channels FREE depend on the country, the satellite & the decoder that you have bought.

In Singapore we only get a pathetic 6 channel with full censorship

If I believed everything that I've read...
I would say foreigners are more valuable than Singaporeans

its all about $$$$...nothing less nothing more....just see facebook

In all systems of Goverment, be it democratic, socialists or communists, the rich owns or control the medias. Nothing much you can do about it.

Even after a revolution. Go read your History.

Lol!

Soical media should help to level the playing field for all political parties in terms of news coverage as traditional media is directly or indiretly controlled by the ruling party.

Social media should have been an important and influential instrument that serves as a check and balance in the sociopolitical sphere. It helps electorates analyse and judge better the process of governance, and from there, shape their political choices.

Social media itself has its pitfalls because it is open to abuse. However, I beg to differ that social media is paradoxical in any general sense. Instead, in Singapore's sociopolitical environment, social media is made to look paradoxical.

The social media is the platform for long suppressed dissenting voices in Singapore. With the increased use of social media, people like us should have been able to express our opinion and hopefully help shape political discourse. However, this is not the outcome here in Singapore.

With PAP still in prevalent control over the media, including increased forays into trying to 'regulate' the cyberspace, social media and its usefulness in helping suppressed dissenters to find a voice has come under threat. On an almost regular basis, online forums such as even this Yahoo! forum is infested with cyber trolls who seek to discredit those who spoke up against the PAP establishment, attempt to whitewash our sociopolitical history by glorifying the PAP at the expense of the opposition, and attempting to spread propaganda espousing the 'virtues' of the PAP.

Recently for example, the 'new' Temasek Review (now TRE) sociopolitical blog, which is since defunct after its founding members were said to be hauled in for investigation, suddenly transformed overnight into an altogether different platform. Perhaps due to a 'secret deal' reached between its current moderators and the PAP, or perhaps due to a sudden change of political orientation, this platform has since attempted to be 'moderate' but a lamely-disguised attempt at that. It has since become a new platform for PAP to slam the opposition, and lost its original purpose as a platform where displeased Singaporeans can candidly voice opinion without PAP interference.

The original hope is that social media can be an alternative avenue for suppressed voices in Singapore to express displeasure against the PAP, since the mainstream media is already monopolised by the PAP. However, with the silent but steady penetration of PAP into the social media, it seems that social media is in fact a paradox in the Singapore sociopolitical landscape, unless concerned netizens can collectively band together to secure the sociopolitical space that is rightfully ours.

Or perhaps, the paradox of social media here in Singapore is nothing to feel strange about. Remember LHL's earlier calls to tackle 'online cowboy towns' and his promise to 'engage' the cyberspace? Read between the lines, you'll find that his and PAP's idea on countering online dissent is pretty much clear.

And therefore, PAP's promise to change its style of governance? It's all just an empty talk.

Don't subscribe to SPH news unless it's press freedom ranking is within the top forty. right now is ranked 135.
It's a shame!

What ever media that is free & not controlled is very just .The citizens of our country share their veiws & comments so that their feeling are better understood & necessary chages should be done to improve their lives .Singapore is for Singaporeans & citizens should come before any GDP . Isn't GDP meant for Sporean & its goverment its civil servant ?

“So one of the problems that we face in online journalism now is that the serendipity factor is always missing. We only got the sites that we like.... It becomes unfortunately a very closed way of looking at the world.”

I stumbled into this article, isn't this serendipity enough....The only local English paper is the ST, so much for printed media offering more choice of "sites" and not limiting our way of looking at the world.

The term "social" itself implied that any interaction will be superficial and fleeting - so what is the concern when like minded engaged themselves thus - to scratch each others back. Instead of doing it at the office pantry or copy machine bay or at the local coffee tiam such activities are now up graded and dignified with a new term via the terminal and screen. From a business perspective, Social Medial is well big business - millionaires churner and dream maker for millionaire hopeful like for example people like Alan Soon and Henry Menon our two friends who is do what they are supposed to do on Social media expressing views and opinion which they are likely aware will be taken with a pinch of salt. Opinion gurus on social media are a dime a dozen - thank goodness it is not a backer's dozen.

Theres a distinction we must acknowledge , there's PAP media and there's people media, guess which one will prevail in the end ?

The Singapore media system is sustained through hegemonic processes. Social theorists
understand hegemony to be a kind of political domination in which coercion is masked by consent that has been manufactured through ideological work.

PAP ideology, which has justified state control of media as an integral part of Singapore’s success formula and a necessary response to the country’s exceptional vulnerability. After forty years of repetition and reinforcement, elements of this ideology appear to have reached supremely powerful status in the Singaporean mind – that of unquestioned common sense – despite demonstrable flaws in reasoning.

But hegemonic domination requires more than a compelling ideology: states also need occasional recourse to coercion. Authoritarian regimes often overdo their use of force, provoking a political backlash that ultimately weakens them.Singapore government’s strategic moderation in the use of force – what I call “calibrated coercion” – is one key reason why its media controls have not unleashed significant moral outrage.

PAP hegemony has not been totalising enough to wipe out all resistance. In recent decades, the most obvious challenge has come mainly from liberal values promoted by Western media. What is largely forgotten in contemporary discourse is the radical history of the Asian-language press. Singapore’s press history contradicts the official narrative, which portrays media controls as being in line with the “Asian values” of harmony and consensus.

Contemporary politics provide evidence that the PAP’s hegemonic project remains incomplete. Although the press is strikingly bereft of any reform movement, other practitioners in Singapore’s creative industries have pushed publicly for more space.

OMG.. I am SO NOT FACEBOOK......... Just refuse to expose my life to every person i know or not know. i have no need to let the world know what i think, what i do, what i not do, what i know, what i not know, who i know. who i not know.

Friends that i know who are in Facebook are friends that i seldom meet for coffee, lunches, dinners or drinks. They already FEEL CONNECTED if they get a comment or e-message from me from WhatsApp, email or sms etc... always too busy to have a face2face (but spend hours on Facebook). Guess who is more anti-social?

Thanks for the technology but no thanks!

THE WORD "crapped" in the last sentence of my earlier posting should be "scrapped".

TESTING ... TESTING ... MY FURTHER POSTINGS WERE REPETITIVELY BLOCKED.

NOSENSE!..singapore is still a gay-conservative society island..it full of sickos and pukes. like those in stomp website..SG puikes still want to be paradox social gay

The article is all abt the potential pitfalls, but then again no media is 100% honest due to the sugar daddies above the head. At the end of the day, it all boils down to whether we're willing to use our brain to think. God gave us one each for a very good reason. And it's not for random fantasizing over banging ur fave chick. -.-'

not much news/info here in sg papers...

The current social media is a lauch pad, if you will, for anyone with view, with or without basis to engage, to attract attention to their comment; it is a heard or seen statement. Coming from my older generation, it is diificult to comprehend the comments from contributors that had no sense of history, culture and relationship. Of course, taking it at face encounter with all parties, it is certainly poles apart to delve into the huge amount of comments for worthy consideration. The message seems to be change, changes and more changes and charge current incumbents as morons and retards and even more severe lanaguage. There is a sense of superiority engaging from anonymousity. Nonetheless, it is a democracy practice as long as one does no harm personally to next person.
Bear in mind, we still have to live our lives as normal and comfortably as we can manage. Be responsible for your own action.