"Netizens" ≠ internet citizens

Too much is made of the rage of Chinese "netizens". "Netizens" are not citizens of the internet - they're not even citizens of their country.

I launch this diatribe because too often recently the "netizens" of China have been getting accorded with the significance of the citizens of China. But there's a difference between the rantings of internet users of China and Chinese public opinion, for reasons that should be quite obvious.

China has, by liberal estimates, 250 million internet users. Now, anyone who might read this is an internet user. What percentage of you post to bulletin boards?

Given "you" are probably a foreigner, let's not impose cultural norms on the Chinese nation. They do many things their own way, and there have indeed been waves of rage poured out on Chinese bulletin boards - maybe the Chinese actually have a real affinity for these things.

So never mind that 90% of the "netizens" i walk past daily in internet bars are occupied with either games or instant messaging chats. Let's just presume the other 10% of Chinese internet users madly post to bulletin boards. Let's double it for good measure - perhaps, every so often after they've bashed the keyboard for a few hours defeated gamers let off their steam in short, fuming diatribes on bulletin boards. So we'll say 20%.

Now 20% of 250 million is 50 million - a lot of angry little flag-wavers, when they can find time outside their busy schedule of slaying orcs (or busting out phat-ass hip hop dance moves with combinations of the num-lock keys.)

But even using these ridiculously liberal estimates, the mood of the so-called "netizens" can't account for the mood of than a tiny fraction of the population. Moreover, the non-gaming "netizens" are a very particular fraction of the population. What sort of fraction?

I really hate the word "Netizen". It seems to imply that it's something to do with citizenship. Sure, one definition of citizen is simply "inhabitant". But when people talk about "netzens" they often are according them a kind of solemn significance - something harking back to the days (ancient or imaginary) of the "public sphere", with well-informed 'citizens' debating current affairs and government policies in city squares with fountains, cafes, libraries and newspaper letters pages. Here, being a citizen presupposes having a fixed identity in engaging with others, some kind of "rights and responsibilities" shit. On the contrary, internet chat rooms and message boards are places of rumours and throwaway, knee-jerk, semi-anonymous responses (even if you use your real name, especially in China where huge numbers of people share common names, you're probably not going to meet the people who read your 'opinion').

To me the identities people assume on the internet are a new thing, unique to the medium and the era. For one, they don't share the common background "netizen" implies. Discussion between 'citizens' implies both some level of mutual understanding (if not background) and expression of rational opinions that are pinned to one's public identity.

The only mutuality between most of the world's so-called "netizens" is that they use the internet. Sure, there are small corners populated by semi-permanent 'identities' (what a great word, probly should thank Mark Drummond or someone at The West for that) from different real-world backgrounds who engage each other anyway. That's great. But in the case of Tibet and the Torch relay the discussions take place mostly among 'citizens' of China, or the UK or "the (globalised) west".

Where people share common background. So between, at times, citizens of various nations or cultures. Not citizens of the net.

The sporadic ongoing comment wars between Chinese and foreign "netizens" about Tibet, the western media's coverage of Tibet, and the olympic torch protests illustrated the consequences: in most cases where Chinese and foreigners have engaged each other, it's been as though the two sides were from different planets. (If you care, read the other "SchizOlympics" posts on 'Mutant Palm'.) But overall, while the internet does facilitate some great discussions, most of what it facilitates are throwaway opinions one makes anonymously and holds no responsibility for.

That's because on the internet you can be and do just about whatever the hell you want, anonymously. And that goes for China. That's not being a citizen of the internet, that's being free to do and say whatever the hell you want. It's great for many reasons, and one of those is it lets you vent your spleen without being held responsible for what you say. The novelty of it is it's both anonymous and semi-permanent - i.e. quotable. More often than not what is said in online chats is a throwaway opinion, and shouldn't be treated the same way something written on paper would be.

This is made clear by the difference between the online rage and the continuing hyper-friendliness of everyone i talk to in the street.