11 ms·
Singapore issues first correction order under 'fake news' law
- DyslexicAtheist 7y agothis 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?)
- lsiebert 7y agoSimple, don't use fake accounts? Or if you are a company, don't astroturf. As for Parody, looks like you are fine. https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-articles/singapore-fake-news-protection-online-falsehoods-manipulation/ https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-articles/singapore-fake...
- mozey 7y agoEasy, parody and satire doesn't pretend to be the truth?
- arethuza 7y agoIt 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 7y agoIf there is a difficulty to tell the difference between the truth and the parody, then the parody should tone it down.
- arethuza 7y agoWhat about something like: "Angus man who tried to fly drone into Perth Prison claimed Romanian circus stole his chihuahua" Without using Google - truth or parody?
- TeMPOraL 7y agoIn absence of punishment for fake news, I'd assume it's parody. The presence of such punishment would let you think, "they didn't label it as parody so either they have lots of money to burn on fines, or it might actually be true".
- arethuza 7y agohttps://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/perth-kinross/1007095/angus-man-who-tried-to-fly-drone-into-perth-prison-claimed-romanian-circus-stole-his-chihuahua/ https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/perth-kinross/100... Also a creative writing challenge based on combining this with some other headlines: https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2019/10/creative-writing-challenge.html https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2019/10/creativ...
- TeMPOraL 7y agoIn this case it turns out to be true. But (absent fake news punishment) in general, you can assume that such a funny-sounding headline is completely bullshit, because legitimate news only hits such headlines by accident, whereas there are tabloid and celebrity gossip sites that produce such headlines on a daily basis.
- mvdwoord 7y agoIn some (if not most) cases it would have my preference the truth would tone it down. ;)
- TeMPOraL 7y agoIt's less difficult when jokes are labeled as such. So I guess satire in Singapore will be fine, but will have to be unambiguous about what it is. It sounds similar to how in civilized places you're supposed to make it clear to the viewers that an ad is an ad.
- hgfdytrwsx 7y agoBad parody is easy to distinguish.
- ValentineC 7y ago> I wonder how they deal with meme and parody accounts. (will making fun of people this way now be criminalized?) The Singapore Law Minister has come out and said that parody and satire don't fall under the "fake news" law [1]. Note, however, that this particular law was rushed through parliament despite much criticism. Ministers are empowered to issue correction orders (which must be complied with immediately), and affected parties (which may include parody and satire) are required to spend time and money to go through the court system to dispute the order. [1] https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/fake-news-law-satire-erroneous-shanmugam-mlc-11903898 https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/fake-news-law...
- namanaggarwal 7y agoSingapore 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.
- dabbernaught420 7y agoBy the time it is implemented things have already gone horribly wrong.
- atoav 7y agoAs 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.
- forgingahead 7y agoThis 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.
- lsiebert 7y agoI mean, I get the concern, there's definitely ways this could go wrong, just like there are ways that many things can go wrong under the law in this country. But as long as there is rule of law (and that's questionable in some places but singapore is relatively good) then any such uses are subject to real judicial review. That said, remember when two company stole people's identities and sent fake comments to the FCC, and now we don't have net neutrality? https://boingboing.net/2019/02/22/notice-and-comment-and-lie.html https://boingboing.net/2019/02/22/notice-and-comment-and-lie... I wouldn't mind AT ALL if those companies got hit with a ~730k dollar file per each one of those fake posts (It's a million singapore dollars).
- raxxorrax 7y ago> this could go wrong Then scrap the idea, because that "could" changes to "will" on a large enough time frame. This just clearly gives traditionally influential people a disproportional amount of power over information. All the more ironic considering the usual groups advocating against "fake news". The companies that you gleefully and probably rightfully try to penalize have large legal departments that can get really bored and will hit you twice as hard. At this point it is just like asking for it.
- qeternity 7y agoSingapore is an amazing country. But its rule of law is very authoritarian. It’s more monarchy than democracy.
- frockington1 7y agoI'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?
- farrelmahaztra 7y agoIndonesia (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-intensify-crackdown-fake-news https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/indonesian-police-...
- sudhirj 7y agoSo 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 7y agoThe 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?
- megous 7y ago> Are you willing to give the same power you want, to tell us what facts are, to your political opponents? Not sure what's up with this thought, as it's repeated many times in the comments here. You don't give power to the opponents, they either take it, or they are elected. They'll be able to make their own laws, or cancel old ones, regardless of what you want or do now.
- tus88 7y ago> Opposition politician What a surprise.
- Jonnax 7y agoThe 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.
- mikekchar 7y agoJust to be pedantic: Don't mix bleach and ammonia if you want to live. It produces a very toxic gas. Y'know... can't be too careful with people who might not read carefully ;-)
- Nasrudith 7y agoIt does make an effective cleaner but you would have to be a complete idiot to do so.
- gruez 7y agoVery toxic but also very effective? Why not use it outdoors only?
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoBecause there are equally effective cleaners that are less hazardous to your health and the things being cleaned than concentrated chlorine. Sure you could use chlorine as a cleaner but the cost/benefit is not there outside some niche industrial applications where there's some specific pro that makes it worth all the extra cost.
- 7y ago
- frereubu 7y agoI 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 7y agoIn 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 7y agoLibel 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 7y agoUsed 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
- hellofunk 7y agoLame. 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 7y agoWhile 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
- mcintyre1994 7y agoDoes 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 7y ago> 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.
- whack 7y agoA 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 7y agoComplete 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 7y ago> 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.
- est 7y agothe obvious fake news don't make me feel nervous, those selectively partial true ones do.
- Wildgoose 7y agoHence "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" being used for testimony in court cases.
- jfengel 7y agoThe 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.