The Internet and propaganda

Playing the online game “Darfur is Dying” was a requirement for my international studies assignment. The crux of the interactive simulation is to give participants an idea of the challenges Darfurian refugees face to survive. Each player takes on the role of a refugee and has to leave the camp to forage for water.

He or she then navigates through the terrain while avoiding capture by the brutal Janjaweed militias. While a novel idea, the online simulation doesn’t do justice to the horrors Darfurians face; it trivializes the terror in Sudan just like Scrooge McDuck makes a case study against thrift.

Nevertheless, the “Darfur is Dying” Web site is a powerful example of how the Internet has truly changed the dynamics of social and political advocacy. These days, anyone with Internet access can partake in signing online petitions, communicating via instant messaging about political rallies and social movements, sharing political videos, playing online simulations, blogging about issues and, very importantly, donating to causes. The ways social movements can utilize the Internet is nearly limitless. The scary part, however, is that anybody can use the Internet to propagate his ideas whether substantial, spin or completely warped.

Take the Tibetan independence movement. Heavy campaigning started during the lead-up to the summer to strategically leverage on the Olympics in Beijing. The Tibetan independence movement embraced the Internet to pitch separatist ideas, create hype and bring awareness of their cause to the world.

The question is, however, how much of the information portrayed is prejudiced? How many actually understand the long history between China and Tibet? What would be the repercussions if Tibet were granted independence? Tibet does not have the luxury of foreign funding or military defense, unlike Iraq with American support.

Another case in point: the massive South Korean people’s protest against the U.S. beef imports. What resulted from young Koreans bonding over the ideas shared through the Internet on fears of U.S. beef imports manifested into widespread and violent protests against the South Korean government. Many Koreans were caught up in the camaraderie of the protest under the opinion that their government was weak and making “too many concessions to Washington.” “Anti-Americanism” and “teenage angst” were also motivations for protest, according to a report from UK’s The Times.

These are the kinds of problems the Singapore government wants to avoid. The young democracy sees the mainstream media as a collective organ of the government, helping to shape positive beliefs and attitudes of the people. Hence, the government has received, particularly from the UK media, criticism on its freedom of expression. The Internet, however, has altered the way the young Singaporeans consume their news and discuss information about local politics.

In the light of how terrorist fundamentalist groups, KKK and other cult-related propaganda can have a free zone to spin their twisted, absolute trash, it is arguable that Singapore has to try to maintain regulation of its media, especially because of its precarious position as a non-Islamic state surrounded by predominantly Muslim states that don’t like its status as a regional powerhouse.

In spite of its negative ramifications, the Internet has set the foundation for more open societies everywhere. 2008 can be remembered as a watershed year for Internet activism, most notably during the general elections. Under the Obama campaign, political activists harness the indispensable power of the Internet to win over the hearts and minds of young voters. The Internet as a tool for social and political advocacy is here to stay, and trying to curb the flux of warped news is nearly impossible. But a new framework for educating young people about the dangers of the Internet is also needed.