13 ms·

Singapore tells Facebook to correct post under new fake news law

177 points by djsumdog 7y ago

michaelmrose 7y ago
It's unconscionable to subordinate US companies and Australian citizens to a feckless foreign power. If Singapore why not every other nation on earth?
- saagarjha 7y ago
  If you have the ability to moderate and modify posts on your platform, everyone and their mother is going to come after you and try to force you to exercise that power. It looks like Facebook gets to find out what happens when governments try to make you do that.
- throwaway864231 7y ago
  The US, and even the EU, already subject foreign companies to their power.
- gruez 7y ago
  >If Singapore why not every other nation on earth? What's likely going to happen is that Facebook complies, but only for visitors from Singapore.
  - everybodyknows 7y ago
    What about blacking out the text of the post with redaction bars, and adding a link to a copy of the government's order? Obey the letter of the law, yet call out the official oppression to the reader in a way that maximizes the ugliness.
- Barrin92 7y ago
  It's actually perfectly reasonable to subject American companies to the laws of nations they operate in unless you're suggesting they ought to act in imperial fashion and ignore the law of sovereign nations. It goes without saying that the same is, of course, true for foreign companies in the US.
  - mendelmaleh 7y ago
    How do you define 'operating in' for a web service? I would suggest they are operating on the internet, out of the US, therefore bound only to US law. Having the service accessible worldwide shouldn't make you subject to everyone's laws.
    - squiggleblaz 7y ago
      I guess it depends on whether they have ads paid for by Singaporean based companies targetting Singaporean based audiences. If Coca-Cola sells their wares in Singapore entirely by remote operations based in the United States, we'd still expect them to abide by Singaporean regulations pertaining to the sale of beverages in Singapore, taxes etc. The alternative would seem to be separate national internets. Data might be imported and exported, but it wouldn't be seamless like today. You can say you're not subject to a foreign law, but if you want that market, you aren't really immune.
      - mendelmaleh 7y ago
        If Coca-Cola sells remotely, I would imagine that would be through a local importer, and it would fall on him to follow the local regulation, or through a local subsidiary, and the same would apply. So yes, Singapore should have to separate from the internet if it wants to enforce its laws imo.
    - JimDabell 7y ago
      Facebook have a large office in Singapore where they employ many people. There is no question they are operating there.
      - mendelmaleh 7y ago
        So would that be 'Facebook USA' or the local subsidiary? Of course 'Facebook Singapore' needs to respect Singapore law, but the question was wether 'Facebook USA' needs to.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
mochialex 7y ago
This is how fake democracy works.
- trickstra 7y ago
  Should people be allowed to say and write lies in a "real" democracy?
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > Should people be allowed to say and write lies in a "real" democracy? Yes. In democracy, the public are the arbiters of truth. Particularly political truth. Free speech doesn’t mean consequence-free speech. Cooling-down periods, mandatory preservation and disclosure requirements, et cetera are both prudent and commonplace. Court-supervised anti-fraud statute, which punishes for the harm done by the lie, not the speech itself, also helps. Governments should not have the power to silence their critics. It’s a conflict of interest between the rulers and the ruled, and historically marches towards poverty, misery and instability.
    - throwaway864231 7y ago
      Definitely the government shouldn’t be able to stop criticisms, but for outright lies, wouldn’t libel or slander laws apply?
      - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
        > for outright lies, wouldn’t libel or slander laws apply? That would require the slandered party (a) prove it’s false and (b) demonstrate harm. There is also good reason for most slander and libel law withholding many remedies from public figures and politicians. In this case, a department of a single-party city-state issued a takedown notice against allegations of election tampering. It is as illegitimate as it is Streisand-effect inducingly stupid.
      - hogFeast 7y ago
        Uncoincidentally, members of the PAP have a reputation for being rather aggressive in suing people for libel. I think somewhere you have to accept that certain statements aren't true or false. What has changed recently is the willingness of people to view the statements of others as "lying" as opposed to having a different opinion. Unf, when the plaintiff is the government this becomes even more tricky (and I think a reasonable person would conclude that the PAP have used the legal system to supress criticism...I love Singapore, I love LKY...but it is what it is).
headsoup 7y ago
Is there a factsheet or written definition for what actually constitutes 'Fake News' or is it "news I don't agree with?" There were perfectly reasonable legal words available to describe fraudulent, false or factually inaccurate statements, it's sad that 'Fake News' has caught on so well as though it is a meaningful term.
- ValentineC 7y ago
  > Is there a factsheet or written definition for what actually constitutes 'Fake News' or is it "news I don't agree with?" The law [1] is broadly worded, and ministers can issue correction orders (which must be complied with immediately) for anything. The affected parties are required to then spend time and money to go through the court system to dispute the order. [1] https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Acts-Supp/18-2019/Published/20190625?DocDate=20190625 https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Acts-Supp/18-2019/Published/20190625?...
- Iv 7y ago
  > the law, known as the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Singapore is an english-speaking country, they used valid words to describe "fake news"
  - ajdlinux 7y ago
    Malaysia, where Malay is the official language but much of the legal system still runs in English, passed a law that was in fact entitled the "Anti-Fake News Act 2018" and very much uses "fake news" as a legal term. http://www.federalgazette.agc.gov.my/outputaktap/20180411_803_BI_WJW010830%20BI.pdf http://www.federalgazette.agc.gov.my/outputaktap/20180411_80... Thankfully, the new government has repealed this ridiculous legislation.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
woohuiren 7y ago
Just so you know, this law doesn't apply the govt themselves. In 2018, a historian criticized this and said that the govt broke this fake news law and that the law should apply to govt too. However, govt said that the historian's evidence were incorrect even though no other historians dispute this fact. See: https://medium.com/@pj_85357/follow-up-submission-to-the-select-committee-on-deliberate-online-falsehoods-parliament-of-f1c34a2d9365 https://medium.com/@pj_85357/follow-up-submission-to-the-sel...
- powerapple 7y ago
  did he go to court and a judge said the evidence were incorrect?
  - tdsamardzhiev 7y ago
    one does not simply sue a military dictatorship
    - creddit 7y ago
      I'm not sure Singapore's government falls under a military dictatorship by any means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Singapore
      - kbcool 7y ago
        When the dictatorship controls the military you can pretty safely say they're a military dictatorship.
        9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
        No, it's a military dictatorship when the military controls the country, which is fairly obviously not the case in Singapore.
        7y ago
knzhou 7y ago
Reserving any judgment on this specific action, I just note that it's all consistent with how Singapore has treated this in the past. From Lee Kuan Yew's autobiography: > My early experiences in Singapore and Malaya shaped my views about the claim of the press to be the defender of truth and freedom of speech. The freedom of the press was the freedom of its owners to advance their personal and class interests. (There follow a few examples of rich individuals forming their own newspapers, to push their preferred politics.) > In the 1980s, Western-owned English-language publications became a significant presence in Singapore. [...] We have always banned communist publications; no Western media or media organization has ever protested against this. We have not banned any Western newspaper or journal. Yet they frequently refused us the right of reply when they misrepresented us. We decided in 1986 to enact a law to restrict the sale or distribution of foreign publications that had engaged in the domestic politics of Singapore. One of our tests for "engaging in the politics of Singapore" was whether, after they had misreported or slanted stories on Singapore, they refused to publish our reply. We did not ban them, only restricted the number of copies they sold. [...] This would reduce their advertising revenue but did not stop their reports from circulating. They could not accuse us of being afraid to have their reports read. > Singapore's domestic debate is a matter for Singaporeans. [...] We cannot allow [American journalists] to assume a role in Singapore that the American media play in America. [...] Indeed, America's Federal Communications Commission regulations bar foreigners from owning more than 25 percent of a TV or radio station. Only Americans can control a business which influences opinion in America. > Advanced in information technology, satellite broadcasting, and the Internet will enable Western media networks to saturate our domestic audience with their reports and views. Countries that try to block the use of IT will lose. We have to learn to manage this relentless flood of information so that the Singapore government's point of view is not smothered by the foreign media. The memoir is incredibly prescient. Many of the policy debates held in Singapore in the 1980s mirror those held in America over the last three years, as we start to face a tiny fraction of the threats they dealt with daily. I wouldn't be surprised if the very same people who flaunt moral superiority over places like Singapore end up being the ones who take us in the exact same direction.
riffic 7y ago
Journalists need to look at alternative platforms, such as those under the control of their own organization. The Fediverse is a good place to be.
- inglor 7y ago
  I recently joined WikiTribune which is supposed to solve just that. It's still invite-only with a huge mailing list but you can get in early if you donate (I donate). If anyone wants an invite email me at username @ gmail and I will try to send everyone invites (I have like 200) when I get back from JSConf.
  - riffic 7y ago
    I wonder if Jimbo Wales would consider white labeling this app or in providing managed nodes to media / content providers (in the way G Suite provides managed email services to third party orgs). There's a need to maintain control of the namespace and content and you lose that on yet another walled garden service.
- guywithahat 7y ago
  I second this, I’ve been using it more and I really enjoy it. The only thing I would recommend people avoid is the original mastodon instance, since to combat losing market share they’ve been banning instances which sort of defeats the point of the fediverse. But gab and qoto.org are both good imo. You sort of get the close community of a smaller social network but since there’s a large programmer population they tend to build out really robust bot networks too.
  - input_sh 7y ago
    There are various ways I could describe this, but good isn't one of them. > Gab is an English-language social media website known for its far-right user base.[8] The site has been widely described as a "safe haven"[9] for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.[10] > The site was launched in 2017 and claimed to have almost 1,000,000 registered user accounts by July 2019.[11] It primarily attracts far-right and alt-right users who have been banned from other social networks.[12][13][14] The platform populace is mainly populated by users who are "conservative, male, and Caucasian".[15] As of 2018, the site's most-followed users included high-profile far-right figures such as Richard B. Spencer, Mike Cernovich, and Alex Jones.[13][15] Gab recognizes far-right websites such as Breitbart News and InfoWars as competitors, according to a March 2018 financial filing.[16][17] Any other Mastodon/fediverse instance is better than this.
robomartin 7y ago
I have a lateral question about Singapore. Everything I have read about the country says that it is one of the best in the world for business and, in particular, startups. Yet some of the commentary here leads me to believe there's a dark side to the reality of this nation. Anyone with first hand knowledge care to comment on this? I am puzzled because it so happens we might have to do some business in Singapore and a friend was telling me about the business/startup environment. I did a bunch of research and found articles with nothing but praise. Is the truth more nuanced than this?
- draw_down 7y ago
  Perhaps suppressing speech and being business friendly are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps.
- eej2ya1K 7y ago
  Of course there's a dark side, but the truth is that a lack of real democracy, fair elections, human rights etc. just isn't going to matter to your average startup. In fact, it's not going to matter to the average person, either.
- phs318u 7y ago
  It’s a benevolent dictatorship. Benevolence is in the eye of the beholder. As a visitor to that country it is easily one of the safest and cleanest countries in SE Asia.
- Cayde-6 7y ago
  It's a bit more nuanced. My understanding is that for Singaporean citizens and PRs living in the country, registering a business is pretty fast, cheap, and easy. When the small foreign company I work for set up a subsidiary there, however, it was far more difficult. A lot of paperwork, required a SG legal firm and associated fees, answering a bunch of questions from the government about the business, required an existing local as the Director, etc. and it took months. The timezone difference certainly didn't help communication speed either. Then there's the visa process if you want to bring in anyone from outside of SG. Maybe it's less difficult for large multi-nationals.
- 7y ago
diveanon 7y ago
Why am I not surprised that it is Singapore doing this. That country is an authoritarian nanny state disguised as Disney Land. I have visited many times and have lots of friends there. Nobody cares about freedom of the press because they are well paid and comfortable. They have truly figured out how to placate the masses.
- qwtel 7y ago
  > Nobody cares about freedom of the press because they are well paid and comfortable that's because freedom of press and similar rights are a uniquely western phenomenon that are --- despite what droves of its proponents will tell you --- derived from christian values that didn't and don't exist anywhere else. Many in the broader region don't care about freedom of press, while also being poorly paid and uncomfortable. No placation of masses needed.
  - vorpalhex 7y ago
    > derived from christian values This is not quite correct. Christian values would be a strict theocracy with no freedom of the press. Liberal values descend from a robust view of agency, eg humanism which is more or less incompatible with strict interpretations of Christianity. Compatible with deism though.
    - diveanon 7y ago
      You are confusing catholicism with the teachings of christ. Two very different messages. Love your neighbor and judge others as you would judge yourself.
      - vorpalhex 7y ago
        No, I'm quoting directly from several hundred if not thousands of years of Jewish teachings which make up over half the bible. Christ mentioned very little on political structures, he certainly didn't vouch for democracy.
  - 7y ago
tus88 7y ago
> Facebook has previously said it was “concerned with aspects of the new law which grant broad powers to the Singapore executive branch to compel us to remove content they deem to be false and to push a government notification to users”. How comical is this coming from Facebook that went all out combating "fake news" but they now they are concerned about arbitrary censorship?
avainlakech 7y ago
Just as Uber is slowly but surely getting checked by authorities around the world (London among others), I hope Facebook gets held to account.
bigpumpkin 7y ago
Given Facebook policy, they'll probably underweight the post in their algorithm but not take any step to remove it or put a "fake news" disclaimer on it. If they don't even correct fake news in the US, I doubt they care about fake news about Singapore.
choonway 7y ago
My prediction is that Facebook is going to resort to "this content is banned in your country" route. Only way to access this would be through VPN... if everybody in the country uses VPN, they govt would probably start copying the Great firewall of China.
- trevyn 7y ago
  It’s getting there: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Singapore https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Singa...
  - ylyn 7y ago
    The internet "censorship" in SG has been around for a long time, and it hasn't really changed. It's a symbolic block that ISPs sometimes forget to even implement.
qeng-ho 7y ago
I'm Singaporean, and completely not surprised to see this appear on HN. As with many places, the situation in my country is a bit more nuanced than a simple "the ruling party has ruled the country since 1965". Civilisation is the surrender of varying degrees of civil liberty for security and safety, and over here we definitely surrender more degrees of civil liberty for the safety and security of our streets. As another user put it, essentially a benevolent dictatorship, emphasis on the benevolent. For the most part, the ruling party has done a good job with the administration of the government. Things are fast and efficient. Is it worth the trade? It depends on your perspective. Even as a liberal, I agree that the paternalism of the government is not without its merits. There were quite a lot of push-back on the POFMA (what the fake news law is called) among the people, though our politicians, no doubt because of their same-party membership, barely discussed anything concrete in our parliamentary debates. In the end, the law was passed because of course it would be.
- rorykoehler 7y ago
  I’ve lived in Singapore and agree with your post but I also have an uneasy feeling that it won’t last much longer. This government have and continue to make some big (IMO) mistakes especially in the areas of planning and mobility. Hopefully this is managed better by the next government.
  - qeng-ho 7y ago
    I agree, especially with the uneasy feeling that it wouldn't last much longer; the challenge of the first 50 years of Singapore was economical, and the heavy-handedness of the government was a result of that. The challenge of the next 50, in contrast, is cultural and about her people, and I don't think the government as it is, is capable of shifting gears.
- RavlaAlvar 7y ago
  Genuinely asking. Do most of the population believe Singapore’s authoritarian government would stay benevolent??
  - 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

177 points by djsumdog 7y ago

It's unconscionable to subordinate US companies and Australian citizens to a feckless foreign power. If Singapore why not every other nation on earth?

saagarjha 7y ago
If you have the ability to moderate and modify posts on your platform, everyone and their mother is going to come after you and try to force you to exercise that power. It looks like Facebook gets to find out what happens when governments try to make you do that.
throwaway864231 7y ago
The US, and even the EU, already subject foreign companies to their power.
gruez 7y ago
>If Singapore why not every other nation on earth? What's likely going to happen is that Facebook complies, but only for visitors from Singapore.
- everybodyknows 7y ago
  What about blacking out the text of the post with redaction bars, and adding a link to a copy of the government's order? Obey the letter of the law, yet call out the official oppression to the reader in a way that maximizes the ugliness.
Barrin92 7y ago
It's actually perfectly reasonable to subject American companies to the laws of nations they operate in unless you're suggesting they ought to act in imperial fashion and ignore the law of sovereign nations. It goes without saying that the same is, of course, true for foreign companies in the US.
- mendelmaleh 7y ago
  How do you define 'operating in' for a web service? I would suggest they are operating on the internet, out of the US, therefore bound only to US law. Having the service accessible worldwide shouldn't make you subject to everyone's laws.
  - squiggleblaz 7y ago
    I guess it depends on whether they have ads paid for by Singaporean based companies targetting Singaporean based audiences. If Coca-Cola sells their wares in Singapore entirely by remote operations based in the United States, we'd still expect them to abide by Singaporean regulations pertaining to the sale of beverages in Singapore, taxes etc. The alternative would seem to be separate national internets. Data might be imported and exported, but it wouldn't be seamless like today. You can say you're not subject to a foreign law, but if you want that market, you aren't really immune.
    - mendelmaleh 7y ago
      If Coca-Cola sells remotely, I would imagine that would be through a local importer, and it would fall on him to follow the local regulation, or through a local subsidiary, and the same would apply. So yes, Singapore should have to separate from the internet if it wants to enforce its laws imo.
  - JimDabell 7y ago
    Facebook have a large office in Singapore where they employ many people. There is no question they are operating there.
    - mendelmaleh 7y ago
      So would that be 'Facebook USA' or the local subsidiary? Of course 'Facebook Singapore' needs to respect Singapore law, but the question was wether 'Facebook USA' needs to.
- michaelmrose 7y ago

mochialex 7y ago

This is how fake democracy works.

trickstra 7y ago
Should people be allowed to say and write lies in a "real" democracy?
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > Should people be allowed to say and write lies in a "real" democracy? Yes. In democracy, the public are the arbiters of truth. Particularly political truth. Free speech doesn’t mean consequence-free speech. Cooling-down periods, mandatory preservation and disclosure requirements, et cetera are both prudent and commonplace. Court-supervised anti-fraud statute, which punishes for the harm done by the lie, not the speech itself, also helps. Governments should not have the power to silence their critics. It’s a conflict of interest between the rulers and the ruled, and historically marches towards poverty, misery and instability.
  - throwaway864231 7y ago
    Definitely the government shouldn’t be able to stop criticisms, but for outright lies, wouldn’t libel or slander laws apply?
    - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
      > for outright lies, wouldn’t libel or slander laws apply? That would require the slandered party (a) prove it’s false and (b) demonstrate harm. There is also good reason for most slander and libel law withholding many remedies from public figures and politicians. In this case, a department of a single-party city-state issued a takedown notice against allegations of election tampering. It is as illegitimate as it is Streisand-effect inducingly stupid.
    - hogFeast 7y ago
      Uncoincidentally, members of the PAP have a reputation for being rather aggressive in suing people for libel. I think somewhere you have to accept that certain statements aren't true or false. What has changed recently is the willingness of people to view the statements of others as "lying" as opposed to having a different opinion. Unf, when the plaintiff is the government this becomes even more tricky (and I think a reasonable person would conclude that the PAP have used the legal system to supress criticism...I love Singapore, I love LKY...but it is what it is).

headsoup 7y ago

Is there a factsheet or written definition for what actually constitutes 'Fake News' or is it "news I don't agree with?" There were perfectly reasonable legal words available to describe fraudulent, false or factually inaccurate statements, it's sad that 'Fake News' has caught on so well as though it is a meaningful term.

ValentineC 7y ago
> Is there a factsheet or written definition for what actually constitutes 'Fake News' or is it "news I don't agree with?" The law [1] is broadly worded, and ministers can issue correction orders (which must be complied with immediately) for anything. The affected parties are required to then spend time and money to go through the court system to dispute the order. [1] https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Acts-Supp/18-2019/Published/20190625?DocDate=20190625 https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Acts-Supp/18-2019/Published/20190625?...
Iv 7y ago
> the law, known as the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Singapore is an english-speaking country, they used valid words to describe "fake news"
- ajdlinux 7y ago
  Malaysia, where Malay is the official language but much of the legal system still runs in English, passed a law that was in fact entitled the "Anti-Fake News Act 2018" and very much uses "fake news" as a legal term. http://www.federalgazette.agc.gov.my/outputaktap/20180411_803_BI_WJW010830%20BI.pdf http://www.federalgazette.agc.gov.my/outputaktap/20180411_80... Thankfully, the new government has repealed this ridiculous legislation.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

woohuiren 7y ago

Just so you know, this law doesn't apply the govt themselves. In 2018, a historian criticized this and said that the govt broke this fake news law and that the law should apply to govt too. However, govt said that the historian's evidence were incorrect even though no other historians dispute this fact. See: https://medium.com/@pj_85357/follow-up-submission-to-the-select-committee-on-deliberate-online-falsehoods-parliament-of-f1c34a2d9365 https://medium.com/@pj_85357/follow-up-submission-to-the-sel...

powerapple 7y ago
did he go to court and a judge said the evidence were incorrect?
- tdsamardzhiev 7y ago
  one does not simply sue a military dictatorship
  - creddit 7y ago
    I'm not sure Singapore's government falls under a military dictatorship by any means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Singapore
    - kbcool 7y ago
      When the dictatorship controls the military you can pretty safely say they're a military dictatorship.
      - 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
        No, it's a military dictatorship when the military controls the country, which is fairly obviously not the case in Singapore.
        7y ago

knzhou 7y ago

Reserving any judgment on this specific action, I just note that it's all consistent with how Singapore has treated this in the past. From Lee Kuan Yew's autobiography: > My early experiences in Singapore and Malaya shaped my views about the claim of the press to be the defender of truth and freedom of speech. The freedom of the press was the freedom of its owners to advance their personal and class interests. (There follow a few examples of rich individuals forming their own newspapers, to push their preferred politics.) > In the 1980s, Western-owned English-language publications became a significant presence in Singapore. [...] We have always banned communist publications; no Western media or media organization has ever protested against this. We have not banned any Western newspaper or journal. Yet they frequently refused us the right of reply when they misrepresented us. We decided in 1986 to enact a law to restrict the sale or distribution of foreign publications that had engaged in the domestic politics of Singapore. One of our tests for "engaging in the politics of Singapore" was whether, after they had misreported or slanted stories on Singapore, they refused to publish our reply. We did not ban them, only restricted the number of copies they sold. [...] This would reduce their advertising revenue but did not stop their reports from circulating. They could not accuse us of being afraid to have their reports read. > Singapore's domestic debate is a matter for Singaporeans. [...] We cannot allow [American journalists] to assume a role in Singapore that the American media play in America. [...] Indeed, America's Federal Communications Commission regulations bar foreigners from owning more than 25 percent of a TV or radio station. Only Americans can control a business which influences opinion in America. > Advanced in information technology, satellite broadcasting, and the Internet will enable Western media networks to saturate our domestic audience with their reports and views. Countries that try to block the use of IT will lose. We have to learn to manage this relentless flood of information so that the Singapore government's point of view is not smothered by the foreign media. The memoir is incredibly prescient. Many of the policy debates held in Singapore in the 1980s mirror those held in America over the last three years, as we start to face a tiny fraction of the threats they dealt with daily. I wouldn't be surprised if the very same people who flaunt moral superiority over places like Singapore end up being the ones who take us in the exact same direction.

riffic 7y ago

Journalists need to look at alternative platforms, such as those under the control of their own organization. The Fediverse is a good place to be.

inglor 7y ago
I recently joined WikiTribune which is supposed to solve just that. It's still invite-only with a huge mailing list but you can get in early if you donate (I donate). If anyone wants an invite email me at username @ gmail and I will try to send everyone invites (I have like 200) when I get back from JSConf.
- riffic 7y ago
  I wonder if Jimbo Wales would consider white labeling this app or in providing managed nodes to media / content providers (in the way G Suite provides managed email services to third party orgs). There's a need to maintain control of the namespace and content and you lose that on yet another walled garden service.
guywithahat 7y ago
I second this, I’ve been using it more and I really enjoy it. The only thing I would recommend people avoid is the original mastodon instance, since to combat losing market share they’ve been banning instances which sort of defeats the point of the fediverse. But gab and qoto.org are both good imo. You sort of get the close community of a smaller social network but since there’s a large programmer population they tend to build out really robust bot networks too.
- input_sh 7y ago
  There are various ways I could describe this, but good isn't one of them. > Gab is an English-language social media website known for its far-right user base.[8] The site has been widely described as a "safe haven"[9] for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.[10] > The site was launched in 2017 and claimed to have almost 1,000,000 registered user accounts by July 2019.[11] It primarily attracts far-right and alt-right users who have been banned from other social networks.[12][13][14] The platform populace is mainly populated by users who are "conservative, male, and Caucasian".[15] As of 2018, the site's most-followed users included high-profile far-right figures such as Richard B. Spencer, Mike Cernovich, and Alex Jones.[13][15] Gab recognizes far-right websites such as Breitbart News and InfoWars as competitors, according to a March 2018 financial filing.[16][17] Any other Mastodon/fediverse instance is better than this.

robomartin 7y ago

I have a lateral question about Singapore. Everything I have read about the country says that it is one of the best in the world for business and, in particular, startups. Yet some of the commentary here leads me to believe there's a dark side to the reality of this nation. Anyone with first hand knowledge care to comment on this? I am puzzled because it so happens we might have to do some business in Singapore and a friend was telling me about the business/startup environment. I did a bunch of research and found articles with nothing but praise. Is the truth more nuanced than this?

draw_down 7y ago
Perhaps suppressing speech and being business friendly are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps.
eej2ya1K 7y ago
Of course there's a dark side, but the truth is that a lack of real democracy, fair elections, human rights etc. just isn't going to matter to your average startup. In fact, it's not going to matter to the average person, either.
phs318u 7y ago
It’s a benevolent dictatorship. Benevolence is in the eye of the beholder. As a visitor to that country it is easily one of the safest and cleanest countries in SE Asia.
Cayde-6 7y ago
It's a bit more nuanced. My understanding is that for Singaporean citizens and PRs living in the country, registering a business is pretty fast, cheap, and easy. When the small foreign company I work for set up a subsidiary there, however, it was far more difficult. A lot of paperwork, required a SG legal firm and associated fees, answering a bunch of questions from the government about the business, required an existing local as the Director, etc. and it took months. The timezone difference certainly didn't help communication speed either. Then there's the visa process if you want to bring in anyone from outside of SG. Maybe it's less difficult for large multi-nationals.
7y ago

diveanon 7y ago

Why am I not surprised that it is Singapore doing this. That country is an authoritarian nanny state disguised as Disney Land. I have visited many times and have lots of friends there. Nobody cares about freedom of the press because they are well paid and comfortable. They have truly figured out how to placate the masses.

qwtel 7y ago
> Nobody cares about freedom of the press because they are well paid and comfortable that's because freedom of press and similar rights are a uniquely western phenomenon that are --- despite what droves of its proponents will tell you --- derived from christian values that didn't and don't exist anywhere else. Many in the broader region don't care about freedom of press, while also being poorly paid and uncomfortable. No placation of masses needed.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  > derived from christian values This is not quite correct. Christian values would be a strict theocracy with no freedom of the press. Liberal values descend from a robust view of agency, eg humanism which is more or less incompatible with strict interpretations of Christianity. Compatible with deism though.
  - diveanon 7y ago
    You are confusing catholicism with the teachings of christ. Two very different messages. Love your neighbor and judge others as you would judge yourself.
    - vorpalhex 7y ago
      No, I'm quoting directly from several hundred if not thousands of years of Jewish teachings which make up over half the bible. Christ mentioned very little on political structures, he certainly didn't vouch for democracy.
- 7y ago

tus88 7y ago

> Facebook has previously said it was “concerned with aspects of the new law which grant broad powers to the Singapore executive branch to compel us to remove content they deem to be false and to push a government notification to users”. How comical is this coming from Facebook that went all out combating "fake news" but they now they are concerned about arbitrary censorship?

avainlakech 7y ago

Just as Uber is slowly but surely getting checked by authorities around the world (London among others), I hope Facebook gets held to account.

bigpumpkin 7y ago

Given Facebook policy, they'll probably underweight the post in their algorithm but not take any step to remove it or put a "fake news" disclaimer on it. If they don't even correct fake news in the US, I doubt they care about fake news about Singapore.

choonway 7y ago

My prediction is that Facebook is going to resort to "this content is banned in your country" route. Only way to access this would be through VPN... if everybody in the country uses VPN, they govt would probably start copying the Great firewall of China.

trevyn 7y ago
It’s getting there: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Singapore https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Singa...
- ylyn 7y ago
  The internet "censorship" in SG has been around for a long time, and it hasn't really changed. It's a symbolic block that ISPs sometimes forget to even implement.

qeng-ho 7y ago

I'm Singaporean, and completely not surprised to see this appear on HN. As with many places, the situation in my country is a bit more nuanced than a simple "the ruling party has ruled the country since 1965". Civilisation is the surrender of varying degrees of civil liberty for security and safety, and over here we definitely surrender more degrees of civil liberty for the safety and security of our streets. As another user put it, essentially a benevolent dictatorship, emphasis on the benevolent. For the most part, the ruling party has done a good job with the administration of the government. Things are fast and efficient. Is it worth the trade? It depends on your perspective. Even as a liberal, I agree that the paternalism of the government is not without its merits. There were quite a lot of push-back on the POFMA (what the fake news law is called) among the people, though our politicians, no doubt because of their same-party membership, barely discussed anything concrete in our parliamentary debates. In the end, the law was passed because of course it would be.

rorykoehler 7y ago
I’ve lived in Singapore and agree with your post but I also have an uneasy feeling that it won’t last much longer. This government have and continue to make some big (IMO) mistakes especially in the areas of planning and mobility. Hopefully this is managed better by the next government.
- qeng-ho 7y ago
  I agree, especially with the uneasy feeling that it wouldn't last much longer; the challenge of the first 50 years of Singapore was economical, and the heavy-handedness of the government was a result of that. The challenge of the next 50, in contrast, is cultural and about her people, and I don't think the government as it is, is capable of shifting gears.
RavlaAlvar 7y ago
Genuinely asking. Do most of the population believe Singapore’s authoritarian government would stay benevolent??
- 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]