While the Internet certainly provides an avenue for voicing alternative views and obtaining a wide range of alternative sources of information on anything, its actual effectiveness is still questionable and opinions glorifying the internet - like those of Stanley Koh - are more Utopian than real.

In the 1999 general election, some believed that the Internet would, for the first time, exert its influence on the result - to the opposition's gain. But come the 2004 election, with greater Internet penetration, the outcome more or less went back to status quo before the 1999 election.

If you accessed the anti-war websites that I regularly access, you would have thought that US President George W Bush was going to lose the US presidential election big time. But that didn't happen.

The Internet, after all, is just a medium and while there are alternative opinions available on the Net for those who want to access it, there's lots of mainstream opinions there too, and at the end of the day that's what people want to access.

Regarding 'Anwar' and his comments on Screenshots, he was foolish to have used an offensive comparison in relation to Islam Hadhari, which gave an opportunity for his opponents to act against him and Jeff Ooi.

I believe that if 'Anwar' had merely made his point that Islam is Islam and there can't be different versions like Islam Hadhari, there would have not have been the same kind of response.

Let's not get carried away by the myth that cyberspace is some ideal place where there's absolute, unfettered freedom to say whatever one likes.

The reality is that the powers-that-be or interested political factions can come after us in any space, so let's be smart and not give them a chance.