
Laws against lies: Asian governments are trying to curb fake news - ValentineC
https://www.economist.com/asia/2019/04/06/asian-governments-are-trying-to-curb-fake-news
======
jeffdavis
One thing has been increasingly clear over the last few years: a lot of people
are basically OK giving large governments more power and relinquishing what I
think of as basic rights.

Not just overseas, but here in the US a lot of people just don't care about
rights and think the government is the solution to everything if you just give
them enough power.

Not sure how to keep rights, honestly. The Constitution and the courts help,
but only for so long.

The only thing I can think of is that it could work in a poorer country (or at
least relatively poorer) because people would self-select to be there for the
freedom, and people who don't care bout freedom would follow money somewhere
else.

~~~
CharlesColeman
> Not just overseas, but here in the US a lot of people just don't care about
> rights and think the government is the solution to everything if you just
> give them enough power.

I think claiming that people "don't care about rights" is being at least a
little uncharitable. Things like fake news and disinformation are real
problems, but citizens have ceded so much power to ever larger corporations;
and those corporations have taken an ever more skeptical eye to the public
good (in favor of focusing on shareholder value); that the only practical
solutions to many problems may involve the intervention of a government.

If you care about _your_ rights, you really ought to want to break-up
corporations like Facebook into little-bits, which would then make many of
these problems more tractable to being solvable by collective action than
government intervention.

~~~
jeffdavis
It's not wise to give up permanent rights to solve a current (and perhaps
temporary) problem.

Governments can solve problems, but we should limit their tools such that our
rights are respected.

If you ask me, a lot of our problems trace back to a lack of identity and
culture. When you don't know who you are, you signal that you're part of a
group by upvoting lies. When you don't know what our country is about
(freedom), you just try to get whatever comforts a politician is promising
you. When you don't have philosphical grounding for life, you are easily
manipulated.

~~~
CharlesColeman
> It's not wise to give up permanent rights to solve a current (and perhaps
> temporary) problem.

It's also not wise to let a problem fester because you're too unwilling to
take any action against it (or all the actions you're willing to take are
ineffective half-measures).

In this case, I think the best solutions are quite a bit more radical than
many powerful people (and their followers) are willing to contemplate, so you
get bad ideas like this one because they are the solutions that group least
opposes. But I don't think that means the advocates of the idea "just don't
care about rights."

~~~
jeffdavis
You are saying that lying online is a problem so severe that it requires
solutions too radical to contemplate?

~~~
CharlesColeman
> You are saying that lying online is a problem so severe that it requires
> solutions too radical to contemplate?

"Lying online" is your characterization, not mine. Fake news isn't merely
"lying online."

And the solution I was advocating was pretty radical: a massive breakup of the
tech platforms and social networks that make widespread fake news
dissemination much more practical than it ever was.

~~~
jeffdavis
When you said "radical" I thought you were going to suggest re-education camps
or something.

So if you aren't going to criminalize lying, what exactly are we arguing
about? I am saying we shouldn't trade away rights -- are you saying that we
should trade away rights? If so, which ones?

------
coldcode
Unless there is some precise definition of fake news, this is just censorship
in sheep's clothing.

~~~
rhacker
Exactly. About 2 years ago Etsy started banning everyone that was selling
crystals and also included "promotes good health or luck" And while that's
probably fine to do from a trades perspective, I don't like the notion that we
had to start leaning this way. If we keep leaning over at what point are we
going to make it illegal to believe in UFOs (as in aliens) and ghosts.

There's no scientific evidence to make those concepts not possible. Just
evidence to make things we understand possible.

And on top of that, we have some kind of fucked up exception for God. Even
scientists are just unwilling to go on a rant to disprove god, but totally
happy putting someone in the psych ward for believing in aliens kidnapping
them.

(im not talking about ALL scientists - of course you'll find them, but talking
about bulk percentages here)

Thought police are coming.

~~~
katbyte
I think a line needs to be drawn. Those are sort of wacko ideas hard to
disprove, but saying "hillary clinton is guilty of ____" or blatantly
misrepresenting facts or lieing? that needs to stop.

~~~
colordrops
Why does saying that Hillary Clinton is guilty of something need to stop?

~~~
CharlesColeman
>> but saying "hillary clinton is guilty of ____" or blatantly misrepresenting
facts or lieing? that needs to stop.

> Why does saying that Hillary Clinton is guilty of something need to stop?

That's a too-literal reading of the comment. The implication was clearly that
what needs to stop is _lies_ that claim Hillary Clinton is guilty of something
she's not.

------
Palptine
Who fact checks the fact checkers?

~~~
ashelmire
Interesting idea - are you more likely to be lied to in a) an authoritarian
state with laws against fake news b) a democratic state with laws against fake
news, or c) a democratic state without laws against fake news?

~~~
partiallypro
What's democratic about outlawing speech?

~~~
laughinghan
"Democracy is a system of government where the citizens exercise power by
voting."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy)

If the citizens or elected representatives in a democracy voted to start
censoring speech, but continued to empower citizens to vote, it would still be
a democratic state in spite of the censorship. An illiberal one, but still
democratic.

~~~
dexen
_> it would still be a democratic state_

Only through the first election cycle [1].

Your idea is valid in a static, nothing-ever-changes world, with no
significant political dynamics to speak of. However, out in the world as we
know it, political processes run all the time, the proverbial pendulum swings,
and consensus is formed via vocal advocacy and protests.

Right now we have four basic things defined as "political speech": person-to-
person conversations; mass communication (press, TV, radio, online videos);
peaceful physical actions like assembly and manifestations; and finally
donations to candidates, parties and PACs. We protect each and every
recognized form of "political speech" exactly because without it the important
changes could not happen.

In a world with limited communication, you'd have on one side a small ruling
clique, semi detached from daily concerns, a large mass of disenfranchised and
zoned out people coasting along in the middle, and on the other side you'd
have a small fraction of disenfranchised and either abused or outright
persecuted people that can't even raise the wider society's awareness. This is
an unstable state, leading to societal collapse in one way or another.

Let people speak effectively, lest they could not protest problems or
oppression. Let people speak effectively, lest the wider society couldn't even
learn of the problems faced by sub-groups. Being heard is the first, necessary
step to having wants and grievances addressed.

\--

[1] tiptoeing around Godwin's law

~~~
laughinghan
To be clear, I strongly support free speech rights for many reasons, one of
which is that I agree with you that they make democracy and society stronger.

But you're being reductive. Countries around the world suppress speech to
varying degrees without collapsing or becoming autocracies in a single
election cycle. Many European countries have notably less freedom of speech in
specific areas than the US but are even still widely considered liberal
democracies (praising Nazism is illegal in Germany; UK defamation laws impose
some of the highest burden of proof on the defendant in the Western world).

~~~
dexen
_> still widely considered liberal democracies_

The Yellow Vests in France may disagree - for several weeks they were
protesting in large numbers, every weekend, and yet their wants and needs
haven't really registered in popular awareness. Why is that?

My point hinges on ability to raise awareness of issues, to break into public
consciousness with grievances. That's different from espousing a particular
political ideology. That doesn't even technically require a _liberal
democracy_ , but specifically requires having proper channels for being heard
out, and conduct society-wide negotiations. The political facet of freedom of
speech.

We here in Europe aren't in need of propagating authoritarian ideologies; that
would not help in the least. However there's a growing need to be able to
discuss and form consensus on issues of immigration, taxation, and growing
worries over the retirement pension systems in the face of shrinking
populations. The subjects effectively became tabu in recent years, up to the
point of having developed a wide array of euphemisms. There's growing
frustration over them.

Right now the subject of immigration is mostly discussed by far right and far
left parties and movements. This causes people interested in the subject to
drift towards extremes. It should instead be up for discussion - and
negotiations - on the political mainstream. The subject by and of itself is
orthogonal to political ideology. Suffices to point out that the major
political factions, both in USA and in Europe, have repeatedly shifted back
and forth on the subject over the recent decades.

~~~
laughinghan
I'm really not sure what point you're making. Are you saying:

• it was inaccurate of me to characterize the UK, Germany, and France as being
liberal democracies according to the consensus definition of the term?

• the consensus definition of the term is wrong or bad, and the term should
have a different definition that France, or Germany, or the UK wouldn't
satisfy?

• something else entirely?

P.S. I also am not sure what it means for the Yellow Vests' wants and needs to
have not "really registered". Didn't Macron rapidly rescind the gas tax that
initially sparked their anger, and then make a bunch more policy concessions
besides?

------
monksy
Given most Asian governments' preference for strict and harsh governance this
is very concerning.

~~~
poptrex
That's a pretty broad generalisation over a lot of countries that constitute
Asia. Japan and Korea for example are consistently ranked above many west
european countries in terms of freedom [1]. And many asian countries are at
about the middle in these rankings.

[1] [https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new](https://www.cato.org/human-
freedom-index-new)

~~~
darkpuma
Japan and Korea being highly developed nations with with capital punishment,
unlike the developed nations of Europe, seems to support his point. Those were
your counter-examples, probably because next to Singapore they look moderate,
but they're not even good counter-examples.

In 2014, 80% of adults in Japan supported capital punishment, making it far
more popular in Japan than it is even in America:
[https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/12/28/national/crime-...](https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/12/28/national/crime-
legal/number-inmates-awaiting-death-penalty-japan-end-2017-expected-123/)

~~~
poptrex
I'm not sure how capital punishment is relevant, but the US also has capital
punishment, in spite of being "developed" and ranking high on the index. And
the number of people actually being executed in the US is much higher than
Japan or Korea.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#Capital_pun...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#Capital_punishment_by_country)

~~~
darkpuma
Everyone here knows America has the death penalty. That's probably a big part
of why you compared Japan to "western european countries" rather than America.
Saying that a country has saner law and order than America is considered
_damning with faint praise._

To reiterate: America executes more people than Japan, but in Japan execution
is far more popular than in America. In America, capital punishment is very
controversial, but in Japan it enjoys broad public support.

To the original point, per wikipedia:

> _" Of the countries/regions categorized as 'very high' on the Human
> Development Index, 10 countries perform capital punishment: the United
> States, Japan, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait,
> Bahrain, Belarus, Oman, and Taiwan"_

Of those, one is in North America, one in Eastern Europe, five in the Middle
East, and three in Asia. It strains credibility to suggest that Asia, moreso
than Western Europe, is known for a progressive justice system.

> _" I'm not sure how capital punishment is relevant"_

Because the matter being discussed is _" most Asian governments' preference
for strict and harsh governance."_

------
robgibbons
Souds more like they want a monopoly on propaganda.

------
qroshan
Fake News is a problem.

without removing the basic freedom of speech, here is a law that'll curb it.

When posting on Social Media, you must use a) Verified Name with a Verified
Pic or b) Reusable anonymous ID like anonymous-323876 (Generic face profile
for all anonymous users). or c) Fully Anonymous like anonymous with a
common,generic face profile

Sites can only use PII for verification, but must discard everything related
to user and cannot tie PII UserID to any logs

~~~
laughinghan
What leads you to believe the people spreading fake news on WhatsApp and
Facebook, leading to death and violence, aren't already real people using
their real names?

In articles like [https://www.wired.com/story/how-whatsapp-fuels-fake-news-
and...](https://www.wired.com/story/how-whatsapp-fuels-fake-news-and-violence-
in-india/) there's no mention of anonymous, fake, or untraceable accounts,
just real people being outraged and sharing misleading, sensationalized, or
outright fake news, ultimately leading to tragedy.

Not to mention, your proposal is barely different from what Facebook already
does.

