Internet has become the largest medium of communication ever devised by man. Easy to use, inexpensive, immediate ... there could be news, a view could be debated, a complaint could be distributed smoothly, without constraints, freely and at a speed never before imagined. It was a dream, is still a dream, but we must be careful, we might wake up and discover that what we once had in hand, got away slowly, because of our carelessness and absolute submission.

Internet is scary, for the good and bad. The business models are changing, evolving professions, the emergence of new entrepreneurs, former or adapt or disappear, information is ubiquitous, anyone can take a chance on the Internet, anyone can do anything in it ... even give his opinion, that seems not to like and have been proposed to combat it.

China

A few days ago the media, and of course the blogosphere, picked up a story that came to ratify the pressures from the Chinese government within the Internet so that those citizens who do not agree how to proceed in his or narrate the situation inside the country without complying with the official line may be censored. In this case, censorship was a blogger by shutting down his blog. I would gather here to look our way a few months ago when we learned that Microsoft had pressured China to filter into its management system logger, MSN Spaces, certain words, for anyone who uses a computer provided in the Asian country , could use them. Some of these words were extremely problematic for China and, among others, were freedom, democracy or human rights. Microsoft, like other companies that have bet heavily on that market, agreed to accept from the government what they indicate. A market of over one billion people is too much money to have principles.

U.S.

The Chinese case seems somewhat distant, but the Internet is a borderless and it seems that neither memory. We as Westerners we are accustomed to use the word freedom as something to exercise and defend in, to and from our societies. Argues that by reporting what they assume a constraint on our freedom of expression, not accepting or censure or guardianships and our first objective in our criticisms are still our own governments. But maybe our governments get tired of the criticism ...

Anyone who uses any device or software, telecommunications or other communication in the field all or part of the Internet without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for a period not exceeding two years, or both.

This is an excerpt of the law that George W. Bush signed last week, while respecting the First Amendment of their constitution, but something that might be considered reasonable within a certain context, can be certain extreme. Does it hurt? Can the Bush administration upset that an American citizen using freedom criticize its foreign policy on the war in Iraq? Can annoy a librarian criticizes the PATRIOT Act which requires them to inform the government about what kinds of books are you using? U.S. Can disturb One person said that the chaotic rebuilding New Orleans? On the other hand, what can be considered anonymously? "Anonymous source?

The unnamed sources are a tradition in the U.S., the information revealed by Deep Throat, Mark Felt someone of high U.S. by then, on the Watergate affair that led to the resignation of Richard Nixon proved true and in no case revealed the identity of the alleged informer was identified last year by his own initiative. Does it hurt the information that Deep Throat distributed anonymously to the Washington Post that, lemon, served to override the government of Richard Nixon?

Spain

The remoteness of China and disdain, unjust, we may cause Bush can make us fall into the ambiguity that in Spain, can not be shaken free speech obtained after the long dictatorship. What has occurred are only hints, no formal proposals, God forbid, but we must remain alert, lest misunderstandings and prejudices make the scales fall. Moreover, these cover all the blogs in journalism, though most are far from it (For example, this same). But attacking the blogosphere can be a double edged sword that we must be cautious not to wield.

I do not know for sure with what intention it was written and published the article in The Contra blogs Confidential, but, and of course the buzz in the blogosphere not long in coming. The text attacks the anonymity that full flexibility is exercised by some in the Internet-not to mention the blogosphere is the attack against the network of networks "for journalists claimed the right to report or opinion, asking in turn that are silenced possible voices that arise on the Internet.

The journalists, opinion or information, they are recruited in response to their knowledge, their lights, their way of telling things to their preparation, their sources, their prestige or God knows what, that depends on the criterion of the newspaper. But put on the same page that writes the journalist to any pedestrian, I repeat that in many cases a twisted wretch who only go there to insult, protected by anonymity, impunity and the absence of any filter, it is an aberration That is the destruction of journalism.

The article itself should not be missed, especially since signed with a pseudonym is falling into its own trap.

What you face harder, Inci says one of you: Incitatus also a pseudonym. Of course you do. But a pseudonym (I begin to wonder whether the pseudonym is not, at this point, the real name of the poor Pelanas hardly hides behind the horse) who has been here, stubborn, immovable and steel, and five years, which answers to each and each letter you send, whether friendly or furious, asking forgiveness when wrong, to stand their ground when he thinks is right and that, moreover, welcomed personally in the flesh, to many of you.

The columnist seems obvious that the type of media in publishing was, and is criticized by the mainstream media, that exaggerate against the model of the confidential based largely on speculation and not on the news that half contrasted real communication could offer. And if only this deserve an article, do not do the same Yavannna? (To quote someone who signs a pseudonym) Do not reply to all emails, not greet me when I appeared in Madrid and not correct when they are wrong (When you do so)? The assessment itself is teetering.

Moreover, in another article critical Blogs, blah, blah, but this time published in print media, but positive in its conclusions, with some justification claim that:

A writer friend assures me have noticed the amount of time lost visiting some blogs, possibly induced by the fact that talking about him. But at the same time weary of being at the mouth of people who talk about their books could do it without having read them! The friend complained of the fact that this circumstance was given. One, I said, is three years working on a book and someone starts telling the unknown and you have not read, think about it with impunity.

We might think that everything we publish on the Internet, everything that I post here will be read by someone sooner or later, we can slander with a pernicious effect, and yet not true. The insult compounded, as in the real world is not well regarded. The opinion and the opinion that these journalists flying in their texts are also important in the network, as it forms. If someone signs Caguentuputamadreen a comment like this blog, one of two or delete simply in the sense of not maintaining this blog, or unnecessary kicking everyone could read it laugh at him in unison. Not to make more noise or more coarse and are achieved most deserving wider audience, it is possible that for five minutes, but the effect will dissolve like sugar. It is a law in the world both paper and on the blogosphere.

Suggestions that it should filter what appears in the blogosphere, as published, if is true or not and that can arbitrate it, resembles criticized Audiovisual Council of Catalonia that has attracted quite a few sensitivities in the journalistic world. Hopefully, someone wants to publish something, whether good or bad, we would not take a step backwards.

The place for free expression of the readers was already invented, and splendidly invented: the Letters to the Editor. They each sent as it pleases, with all its data and being responsible for what it says, and published (or not) after a group of people judge their interest, opportunity and certainly eliminate those containing only insults. [Contra blogs]

Too bad the conversation has turned away much of the paper, sorry that freedom of expression is no longer confined by the editorial of a newspaper or half a pity that some journalists were not aware that the information is not them, but eager to tell anyone who tries to be impartial and truthful. The blogosphere is just beginning and has a ways to go, and need not do so precisely on the path of journalism, but I do not in any censorship is the solution for noise.

I do not think that can sustain long practice of anonymity that allows a number of people looking out of a blog with such a degree of impunity, crouching in his pseudonym. There is another phenomenon that should legislate: the use of another firm. [Blogs, blah, blah]

Hopefully journalists retrace the path they have begun and will change this view on the blogosphere.