RAND_MR1382

users, of course, is the fact that it allows them to dispense with the traditional “filters”
for news, including reporters and government officials. It allows users to self-select
information they are interested in and retrieve data in far more detail than available in
a newspaper or, certainly, a television program.
This same lack of structure, however, can present dangers, allowing for wide and rapid
dissemination of information that is factually incorrect or propagandistic, including
material that is racist, sexist, or otherwise hateful and incendiary. 84
In the case of Burma, the problem of false or malicious information from SLORC was
discussed above. Our research came up with no instances in which the prodemocracy
movement in Burma and its international supporters took a major action or made a
major announcement of policy based on information that later turned out to be false.
Much appears to depend on the level of sophistication of the Internet user. As Rep.
Rushing said of information, “Early on, you have to get it through your head, the fact
that it is coming through a computer [does not] make it real, true.” But, he added,
“People pretty quickly tell you [if] something’s not true…. I’m comfortable [that] the
system’s self-correcting.” 85
Access to the Internet is not equal and may highlight divisions between information “haves”
and “have-nots.” Not all who wish to play a role in the campaign for change in Burma,
or in Burma’s future generally, have access to the most modern tools of communication,
including computers, modems, and the necessary telephone lines or other means to
connect to the Internet. As already noted, access to encryption methods that allow for
more-secure communication may be limited.
Our Internet activist survey found that English is far and away the language of choice
for Burma activists. While few respondents said that language was a barrier to their
participation, it may be that those for whom it is a problem simply are not online at all.
There has been growing use of special fonts that permit the use of Burmese-language
scripts on the Internet, but English still dominates the Internet discussion.
Thus, the discussions are dominated by non-Burmese activists and those Burmese who can communicate effectively
in English. As organizing and development of leadership revolve more and more around effective use of the Internet,
those who cannot write fluently or persuasively in English risk becoming marginalized. 86
Like language, funding is also a major issue here. Those exile groups that are better
financed (usually by Western nongovernmental groups or charities) and are located in
urban centers, as opposed to jungle border areas, may have more access to the Internet
and more chances to shape the opposition to SLORC. The concerns of Burma’s many
minor ethnic groups may go uncommunicated and unaddressed. 87
The Internet cannot replace human contact in lobbying and other campaign activities. This