I'm Online, I'm Immune

Note: This is sort of a continuation of the "no offense" post.


For some reasons, whenever someone writes some incendiary content and receive criticism, we always see claims which sound like this:

This is my blog, I have the right to write / do whatever I like. If you don't like it, just don't read it, shut up, and leave my blog!

This sort of defense is abundant in the blogosphere, people see it all the time in Xiaxue's blog (Disclaimer: NO, I don't read her blog), and some reader wrote it in defense of Kennysia's (in)famous article containing contentious photos of an accident.

Seriously, what gives these people such warped sense of ethics? What encourages bloggers to condemn criticism, and feel so righteous as to make the assumption of ethical immunity? Is it wrong at all to criticize one's public post at a public place? Is one's blog really one's personal sanctuary for one to bask in adulation and denounce criticism ethically?

In my humble opinion, such claims for moral immunity and the concept of "personal sanctuary" is totally unwarranted. A blog is as much public as it is personal - while it allows great freedom for authorship, it is also subject to public scrutiny as with any other publication material. Some people have a false sense of security while hiding behind the mask of anonymity, but as we increasingly integrate the virtual environment with our real lives, the maintenance of "it's all safe and sound when there are no sticks and brawns" is no longer valid. Your words and actions online are subject to as much examination and burden as your in-person conversation, speeches, gestures and charades.

So, it's best to be as tactful online as we would in real life.