#Internet can measure inefficiency & corruption in the government

#62.
Inspired by Ben Parr's post.
His post has pushed me into thinking. It is true,  we have a parallel world now. One which has no bounds. One which is defined by ideas that are tested in the physical world. The internet goes by ideas. I am not talking about tech but the people. It is the perfect place where one can present his idea to see the reaction without actually bringing it up in the real world. Its the perfect simulator.
The Egyptian revolution was largely influenced by the social media. It acted as a perfect space for people's voices. The revolution showed a clear overlap between the two worlds. The ideas being discussed online were being executed in the real world. There was better synchronization and understanding. There was a need for discussion and Facebook was there when a platform was required. Amazingly, there is scope for anybody to grow in this world. Even people who dont exist in the real world. Fake profiles.


How should an ideal world be? According to me, it should be a place where ideas are valued first then comes the person. This really does not happen in the physical world. No, not always. Suppose you have a revolutionary idea which you think has the potential to bring world peace. If this person was me, the question will be, whom should i meet now? The president? What are the chances that the president will have time to listen to a 18 year old guy who thinks he can bring world peace?
Look at this place. I can write about it and if i find someone who believes in my idea, this will trigger a chain as he will start spreading the concept. I can present myself as a 60 yr old guy or a 2 yr old kid. People will value the idea first. 


This place will remain the perfect place till it is free. I read an article recently about some government trying to screen content on Facebook. Some people called this a negotiation with the Right to free speech and some called this bugging of private space. There was a reason given for this appeal to FB. 'There were pages which clearly posted anti government content and stuff that could cause instability.'
According to me the governemet should not try to shut it down but involve in this. This is the right place to interact with people. Nobody is going to come and present his anti government views before the president coz that option is not easily accessible. These groups have a reason why they post such stuff. They might be unhappy about something the government is doing. Government, instead of shutting them down, should try to understand why these groups exist. If possible, government should try to interact with these communities.
Lets see it this way, suppose we have a group which is putting up abuses on traffic police. The government sees that this group or page is connected with 20000 people. A dumb government will try to shut this page down but according to me, the government sould try to interact with people in this group and identify what is wrong with the traffic police and address this issue. Its the perfect place to gain trust. People are not dumb to start such pages for fun. They have a problem in mind. These social platforms are a boon to any government if they use it wisely. Its the perfect place to show the people that the government is functioning properly. 


Now the question of national security. Is this group a threat to the government and how?
If there is an issue which gains a lot of attention in the virtual world and people start supporting it, the government should address this. If you say something like an enemy nation will start a group against the government then you shouldnt be worried because, if their point is not valid then people will not support it. If people fall for such groups then it is the responsibility of the government to explain the reason. Shutting down pages means hiding from the problem. If you believe in democracy, these problems will show up in the physical world during elections as there is an overlap. 


Why will a government try to shut down pages instead of addressing the issue?

• If the government knows that the virtual world is a direct projection of people's ideas then it is confident that it will win the election even if the problem is not addressed which says only one thing. There is inefficiency and corruption. How can the government be sure to win votes if it knows there is a problem. A government's attitude towards internet shows the degree of inefficiency existing in the system.
• Or, the government is well aware of the issue being discussed in the group and is not capable of solving it so it wants less people to know about this issue. It wants to cut the chain. So it will shut down the group.
• Or, the government thinks there is no such problem in the system. People are doing it for fun. And people will derail the government just like that and it wants to cut this crap. If the government binds the internet, it will never know the problems. 
• Or, someone has exposed something which is a threat to the nation's defense in which case it is right to shut the group down. The government has failed to protect its secrets which again exposes inefficiency. People will obviously be interested in secrets and they will spread it causing more damage to the nation.

P.S easy on grammatical errors and typos. This is just a personal view.