
Singapore issues first correction order under 'fake news' law - raleighm
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Singapore-issues-first-correction-order-under-fake-news-law
======
Jonnax
The term "Fake News" is an interesting one.

It first described how news sites would pop up and spread totally false
stories that would get social media users outraged to share it to their
friends.

However those that benefitted from the "fake news" realised that they could
have all the advantage by calling those calling them out by saying "no u"

Fake news in the context of dangerous lies like "You can make a more effective
cleaner by mixing bleach and ammonia" is easy to call out.

But political "fake news" is tricky. Those that are the beneficiaries of the
fake news are often those in power and/or also have an influence on the media.

So a law like that can easily be used to silence opposition.

It's like anti-terror laws being used to go after vandals. It just becomes
another tool.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I find it interesting for a different reason. At the risk of sounding like
these fake news peddlers, I see the problem like this:

    
    
                 BULLSHIT SCALE
       |[------]----------[---------------]-->
       |    |                        |       |
       |   the range people think    |      fake news
       |   news publications         |
       |   operate in               the range
       |                            they actually
       |                            operate in
      as close to truth
      as one could get
    

That is, "fake news" is only a little bit worse than the stuff mainstream news
publishes. It's different only because it dares to make that one extra step,
cross the line and detach completely from reality. The goal of both is the
same anyway - to drive ad impressions. To me, news publications writing about
fake news is like pickpockets getting all outraged about muggers, who don't
engage in the fine arts of trickery, and instead just hit their victim and
take their wallet. They're just angry because they have competition.

And I don't buy the argument that the contents of news is just innocent bias,
and that everyone has one; when one publication makes a square look like a
circle, and another makes it look like triangle, then that's taking it a bit
too far.

Evidence for my view is evident if you add up all the little things HN readers
encounter regularly. For instance, it's a rare news article posted on HN (or
in other relevant communities frequented by experts) that doesn't get
thoroughly ripped apart when someone posts the original source behind it, or
when someone who knows the topic first-hand or second-hand chimes in. Gell-
Mann amnesia is a known phenomenon. The fact that you should always review
articles quoting you prior to publications because journalists will misquote
you, making you look like you believe the opposite of what you do, is a well-
ingrained cultural meme, speaking to the ubiquity of the problem. Etc.

~~~
dopylitty
Anonymous comments like this undermining trust in the media are actually
similar to fake news. One of the Russian government propaganda machine's core
missions is to sow distrust of media and government institutions in the west.

[https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-
features/russ...](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-
features/russia-troll-2020-election-interference-twitter-916482/)

~~~
TeMPOraL
I'm not anonymous, I'm not Russian, and I provided the reasoning with which I
arrived at my conclusions, so that anyone can evaluate it for themselves.

~~~
dopylitty
Providing reasoning is not the same as providing evidence. If I reason that
the earth is flat because it looks that way to me I'm still wrong. Reasoning
that (all?) journalism is one step from being bullshit is not really backed up
by anything in your comment other than a claim that other people also think so
(or were they also anonymous commenters?).

And to be sure I'm not accusing you of actually being one of the accounts
mentioned in the article I linked and I have no way of proving you either are
or aren't (or that I am not).

Overall people should be aware of how anonymous opinion is impacting their
worldview and that's the crux of the argument in my article as well as the
article below which is linked from that article.

[https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/students-
need-l...](https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/students-need-learn-
how-trolls-and-bots-stir-online-divisions)

~~~
TeMPOraL
I wasn't trying to enumerate all evidence - I only provided an algorithm that
others could use to seek out the evidence that justify my belief for me. I
still maintain that my conclusion is self-evident if you just look around and
start paying attention - but of course everyone is free to disagree with that.

(Also, I drew my diagram the way I did for a purpose. It does not claim "all
news is one step from being bullshit", just that "almost all news operate in
the range from 'a lot of bullshit' to 'pretty much complete bullshit'".
Imagine drawing a normal distribution such that +/\- 1σ lines up with [ and ]
characters.)

Also, consider Occam's razor. You don't need Russian disinformation campaigns
to make people distrust the news; news media do a good enough job of that for
themselves.

------
forgingahead
This is great -- American journalists who have been beating the drum for
"protection against hate speech online" have a real life test case of what
happens when this is implemented, and _someone they don 't always agree with_
holds the keys.

~~~
frockington1
I've never understood hate speech laws. Why would American journalists who
largely hate the president want to give the government more power to restrict
them?

~~~
otterley
Hate speech laws would not proscribe criticizing the President as an
individual. They generally proscribe attacking people or groups of people
based on protected characteristics such as age, gender, race, sexual
orientation/presentation, etc.

~~~
ptaipale
> Hate speech laws would not proscribe criticizing the President as an
> individual.

People often advocate hate speech laws while being under the illusion that
_they_ are the ones who get to define what is hate speech and what is not.

~~~
otterley
There are lots of thorny First Amendment issues in the U.S. around hate speech
anyway. It's unlikely that hate speech _itself_ can be proscribed except where
there's a call for imminent lawless action (e.g. rioting, see _Brandenburg v.
Ohio_ ).

Usually where we see it come up is as evidence of a particular malicious
intent or hate-based motivation for a violent crime like assault, mayhem, or
murder, that increases the sentence applied as a result of a conviction.

------
hellofunk
Lame. The party being criticized also controls the law that allows them to
legally attack those who criticize them.

There are some things to like about Singapore, but many to worry about very
seriously. There is no checks and balances there to combat government
corruption, and these laws and policies that are generally against free speech
and investigative journalism will have long-term devastating impacts (and
already have had a nontrivial impact on the culture).

~~~
9nGQluzmnq3M
While I don't much like the law either, Singapore has actually been clambering
back up the slippery slope and politics is nowhere near as red in tooth and
claw as it used to be. Previous opposition politicians who said things the
government didn't like have ended up bankrupted or detained without charge for
23 years.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chia_Thye_Poh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chia_Thye_Poh)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._Jeyaretnam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._Jeyaretnam)

------
DyslexicAtheist
this makes me feel uneasy.

> _" The law also imposes penalties on those found to be purveying fake news
> through the use of false online accounts. Individuals can be fined up to
> 100,000 Singapore dollars ($73,000), jailed for up to 10 years, or both,
> while companies can be slapped with fines of up to SG$1 million."_

SG is a small country which can easily be policed, so this probably works for
them. I wonder how they deal with meme and parody accounts. (will making fun
of people this way now be criminalized?)

~~~
mozey
Easy, parody and satire doesn't pretend to be the truth?

~~~
arethuza
It can be very difficult to tell the difference between 'truth' and parody
online - (AKA Poe's Law)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law)

e.g. I do find myself wondering in some discussions on HN whether people
honestly believe what seem to be rather extreme views or are simply parodying
those views.

~~~
rat9988
If there is a difficulty to tell the difference between the truth and the
parody, then the parody should tone it down.

~~~
michaelt
What about parody that a reasonable person would recognise as such, but a
small number of fools might not? For example [1] or [2]

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM)
[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWfKdKWJEkM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWfKdKWJEkM)

~~~
TeMPOraL
Both videos could be clipped differently, to reveal the fact that we're
dealing with parody by e.g. stating so in the opening and closing seconds. It
wouldn't ruin the joke. In fact, the only reason not to include clear markings
is when you're hoping people will get confused about it.

~~~
michaelt
Of course one could add a disclaimer identifying them as parody - but that
response dodges the question of whether those videos should be illegal _in the
absence of such a disclaimer_

------
frereubu
I get the reasoning behind this, and in some ways I quite like the idea as
long as it's in a country with a truly independent judiciary. But my concern
would be what kind of legal remedy is open to a small publisher when up
against the government. If it's like a UK small claims court, where the idea
is to keep legal costs to a very bare minimum, and which allows people to
represent themselves in a way that doesn't cripple them financially or
legally, then that would be reasonable. But if that's not the case - perhaps
someone here can clarify? - then just the threat of legal action could be
enough to stifle the publication of politically inconvenient facts.

~~~
mytailorisrich
In the UK (and I'm thinking in most jurisdictions) being sued for libel is
very expensive to defend. Defending criminal charges is also expensive.
Neither is similar to the small claims track, which is really only aimed at
small and simple money disputes.

Anti-"Fake news" laws seem to create a new criminal offence and I thus expect
that the costs associated with defending is similar.

~~~
frereubu
Libel laws in the UK are terrible, so much so that they lead to "libel
tourism" where rich people try to sue others in the UK courts because the law
is more favourable to the accuser than elsewhere, and as you say it's
expensive to defend yourself.

My reference to the UK small claims court was simply because it seems like a
sensible way of settling differences with as little friction and cost as
possible, and I could see that format working to level the playing field
between a government and a publisher. It seems unlikely, because that's not
usually the way things go, but it would be an interesting way to actually
tackle this kind of problem without huge legal fees, rather than just throwing
our hands up in the air and saying "free speech!"

~~~
rwmj
Used to be terrible. They were reformed[1] in all nations except Northern
Ireland, so now NI is the main libel tourism destination.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013)

~~~
ptaipale
Don't you normally say "countries" (England/Wales, Scotland, NI) instead of
"nations"?

(Just curious of terminology.)

~~~
rwmj
I was thinking of the Home Nations
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Nations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Nations))
but apparently you're right that they are more normally known as the countries
of the United Kingdom.

------
namanaggarwal
Singapore size should be kept in mind if and when other countries try and copy
this. This can go horribly wrong if the Government is not honest enough.

~~~
atoav
As a Austrian living in Germany I think we should always keep in mind what our
policies and data collections could be used for by the next fascist dictator.
Democracy is the art of bringing various qualities together: it should be
possible for the people to change who is in power without a revolution if they
want to do so; at the same time it should be incredibly _hard_ to get rid of
democracy in a legal way or to abuse it in a way that hurts minorities in a
nation.

This is a question of resiliance — how good will your system cope when the
executive is trying to get rid of democratic principles?

I think nearly none of the modern democracies is perfect in terms of systemic
rules and procedures when it comes to resilience. In both the UK and the US
you see the institutions struggling and in their struggle the fault lines
become visible. Maybe I am just overly cautious or alarmist, but it is
incredibly hard (and potentially bloody) to get democracy back once it is
gone.

A good system of societal rules _increases_ individual freedoms instead of
decreasing them. A bit like roads force you to take certain paths (thus
decreasing your freedom), but enable more vehicles to take that path and do so
with higher comfort and speed (thus greatly increasing the freedom).

Overregulation can of course negatively impact freedom, but so can
underregulation or the inability to enforce rules.

------
farrelmahaztra
Indonesia (where I live) has been cracking down on “fake news” for a while
now[0], to the point of arrests being made. Concerning stuff.

[0] [https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/indonesian-
police-...](https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/indonesian-police-
intensify-crackdown-fake-news)

------
sudhirj
So I went in thinking this was going to be a massive abuse of power, but it
seems... reasonable. Either because it is intrinsically or because of the
messed up relationship with the truth most politics seems to have these days.

I for one would welcome a mandatory fact check on all political speech, with
clear separation of facts and opinion.

~~~
zpeti
The thing with these things is in theory it sounds great, if you have a fully
independent checker/person doing the checks.

The trouble is we are human, and no one is truly independent. Put that
together with the classic phrase, there are lies, damned lies, and then
statistics. Facts can be shown in a way that manipulates, is that ok or not?

Who decides, is the crucial question?

Are you willing to give the same power you want, to tell us what facts are, to
your political opponents?

~~~
diffeomorphism
How about instead of endless discussions about gray areas and ambiguities we
simply worry only about two categories:

\- Clearly a lie and criminally so.

\- Might be a lie or not, but out of the scope of this law.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough.

~~~
brutt
How you will charge external players for their coordinated fake-news attack on
USA? Local laws are useless in international space, but they still can be used
to suppress local opposition.

Edit: remove "Russians".

~~~
diffeomorphism
Red herring.

~~~
brutt
Fake news at scale are invented by RF, as part of their Informational War on
West. Mentioning of major player in fake news, which produces them on scale
with massive government support, is not red herring, because we have border-
less Internet.

I'm from Europe. We have euvsdisinfo.eu site here, which raises this issue:
[https://euvsdisinfo.eu/why-facebook-is-more-revealing-on-
nud...](https://euvsdisinfo.eu/why-facebook-is-more-revealing-on-nudity-than-
on-russian-disinformation/) . USA just ignores it.

~~~
diffeomorphism
Mentioning "laws are useless because the Russians" is a red herring.

~~~
brutt
Understood, thank you. Comment updated.

------
mcintyre1994
Does anyone know how this law works with Twitter where there's no edit button
and no guarantee (or tbh likelihood) that the correction goes as viral as the
incorrect statement?

~~~
ValentineC
> _Does anyone know how this law works with Twitter where there 's no edit
> button and no guarantee (or tbh likelihood) that the correction goes as
> viral as the incorrect statement?_

The tweet would most likely have to be deleted to comply with the initial
order. If the poster contests the order in court and wins, they'll have to
repost it.

------
tus88
> Opposition politician

What a surprise.

------
est
the obvious fake news don't make me feel nervous, those selectively partial
true ones do.

~~~
jfengel
The obvious fake news makes me nervous because it's so widely believed. I
expect the selectively partial truths to be hard to deal with, but if people
can't even reject the obviously fake stuff, they don't stand a chance on the
hard cases.

------
whack
A fact that needs to be brought up every time this issue is discussed: America
and most Western countries already have laws banning certain forms of fake
news. Ie, libel and slander. We already have legal systems that we trust and
empower to determine whether specific allegations are "fake news", and to
enforce punitive penalties against those spreading these fake news... in libel
and slander cases.

What Singapore is doing isn't completely new - it is simply scaling out laws
that already exist in most Western countries. I have yet to hear an
explanation on why libel/slander laws are good, but generic "fake news" laws
are bad

~~~
Nasrudith
Complete and utter lies. Singapore long has had abuse of libel laws to stiffle
criticism. Stow the anti-colonial "homegrown dictatorship is better"
whataboutism about how it is so unfair that they can't get away uncriticized
for repression.

Civil unknowing defamation is a thing in Singapore law. In contrast US and
others exclude good faith and lack any criminal defamation in the first place.
Even if doing away with them is radical they are sharply limited to prevent
abuse. Public figure abuse? They are covered less such that actual malice AND
harm must be proven. Calling them the same is disingenuous.

~~~
whack
> _Stow the anti-colonial "homegrown dictatorship is better" whataboutism
> about how it is so unfair that they can't get away uncriticized for
> repression._

You're responding to something I never said. I suggest re-reading my post and
responding directly to the part you disagree with.

