7 ms·

I've visited Singapore and it's a beautiful country but it's commonly understood they achieved their status through an authoritarian government. I'm struggling

I've visited Singapore and it's a beautiful country but it's commonly understood they achieved their status through an authoritarian government. I'm struggling with my opinion about this case - imagine a society where people are actually held accountable for spreading bullshit disinformation, wouldn't that be a net good? On the other hand, powerful politicians suppressing dissent with crippling lawsuits tramples all over free speech and open debate. I'm from Canada so we don't have a hardline free speech movement like the USA but it is vital to democracy to be able to have discussions freely. What I do think is that the penalty in this case was much too large for simply sharing a link, citizens must be able to criticize their public figures without fearing a penalty that is some multiple of their annual salary, and the average person can't be expected to have a fact checking department on staff to verify every link they share with their social media friends. Strange times.

russianbandit 6y ago
> imagine a society where people are actually held accountable for spreading bullshit disinformation, wouldn't that be a net good? Who decides that it’s bullshit though? The government? Or maybe interested-party-backed “fact checkers”?
- mewse-hn 6y ago
  Court
- yifanl 6y ago
  Well, unless you hold the opposite position where nothing is bullshit and everything is equally valuable, _somebody_ has to be able to decide.
  - 3np 6y ago
    Not if you subscribe to the idea that things without or even net negative value should be legal to share.
    - yifanl 6y ago
      I will claim that after a certain negative threshold, some things should not be legal to be share in all forums. Accepting that, it becomes a question of where do you draw that line.
  - ihyfhgyfhth 6y ago
    I would surmise the traditional belief of western philosophy thusly: 1) I do not have perfect knowledge. 2) Good, or at least better, ideas will implicitly produce better results over long periods. 3) It is immoral to control the lives of others. 4) Therefore, people can argue for ideas they find compelling, and people are free to choose what they think is best. 5) Furthermore, people must bear the consequences of their decisions. A further part of this system was that it was necessary for society to be structured such that individual choices do not have an outsized impact on others. This required that the apparatus of the state have specific constraints. It was quite a remarkable belief system, and much has been written about it over centuries.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      > A further part of this system was that it was necessary for society to be structured such that individual choices do not have an outsized impact on others Technology has changed that rather dramatically.
    - tshaddox 6y ago
      Okay, but we still have systems in place that routinely make decisions based on determinations about factual statements. There are obvious ones, like determining whether someone murdered someone else, or determining how much money someone made for the purposes of taxation. We don’t just throw up our hands and say “sure, maybe there is objective reality out there, but even if there is, who could possibly decide what is real?”
- pessimizer 6y ago
  The government. This is basically a lese-majeste case, so the person you're criticizing has the authority to declare the criticism slander.
  - ValentineC 6y ago
    > The government. This is basically a lese-majeste case, so the person you're criticizing has the authority to declare the criticism slander. Not true. Defamation suits still have to go through due process in the courts.
sneak 6y ago
> the average person can't be expected to have a fact checking department on staff to verify every link they share with their social media friends. I think perhaps this is a misrepresentation of the requirement (that exists even in places like Singapore) that one be skeptical by default of any claim made by the media. "Cui bono?" Penalties for what the court system deems misinformation absolutely do not solve the problem: indeed they make it worse.
ipnon 6y ago
You're comparing apples and oranges. What works on the micro political level (Singapore) doesn't necessarily work at the macro political level (Canada). This is also why I can vote for Republicans in the state government and Democrats in the federal government and still sleep soundly every night. That being said the court case in question is draconian.
- gamegoblin 6y ago
  FWIW the population of Canada is only 6x Singapore, so definitely bigger but not irreconcilably larger. I think one of the bigger things that makes Singapore so much easier to govern with consensus is the density. It's 5.7 million people packed onto a 30x20km island. There isn't much in the way of urban/rural divide or of different federal-level divisions having competing resource concerns, etc.
  - leadingthenet 6y ago
    Maybe city states aren’t that bad of an idea, after all.
FpUser 6y ago
>"I'm from Canada so we don't have a hardline free speech movement like the USA" I'm in Canada as well an while I do not like many things in the US when comparing to Canada I am absolutely on their side when it comes to things like freedom of speech and things like Bill of Rights. Formally due to notwithstanding clause I do not think we have any rights at all as the government basically can override our rights any time it feels like. Sure it does not do it every other Monday but still it's been used something like 15 times and recently our provincial wizards like Legault and Ford just showed what does this Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms mean for them - apparently zilch.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  I'm also Canadian but to be fair American Freedom of Speech and the Bill of Rights is also violated whenever the government wants to. People have been put to death or jailed for being certain protests or screening anti-war movies. Not recently at least overtly, but nothing changed so this is still possible.
_up 6y ago
Doctors told people smoking is healthy in the past. Harvard apologized for pushing sugar as healthy 60 years ago. Flat Earth was the accepted truth at some time, and Round Earthers considered nut jobs. Not being able to questioning anything "science has settled", would basically kill advancement.
- bsimpson 6y ago
  This tweet spoke to me: > all this “believe experts” dogma is legit indistinguishable from the rhetoric of evangelical christians. ffs please just go to church and leave science to the skeptical assholes. - https://twitter.com/micsolana/status/1381237434512502784?s=20 https://twitter.com/micsolana/status/1381237434512502784?s=2...
  - TameAntelope 6y ago
    This implies the experts are giving their opinions in the same style as church leaders, which is blatantly false, and probably a little dangerous to equate. "Believe the people who will explain themselves to a degree you'll understand, and who change their opinion when new information is presented." is a more complete way of expressing that thought. There are other ways of expressing that thought, I wouldn't be surprised if `pg has an essay on this. Skeptics are right to be skeptical, but what "skeptic" usually means in modern culture is, "intransigent". The line between healthy skepticism and dogmatic rejection of basic reasoning has blurred substantially.
    - bsimpson 6y ago
      Well said
      - TameAntelope 6y ago
        Thanks, I'm thinking particularly about the hay anti-vaxxers are making about J&J right now, for some reason the whole situation bothers me.
    - 6y ago
andrepd 6y ago
Yes, it would be great to not have people spread bullshit information. But how would you accomplish it? By having "official fact-checkers" censoring information, but that's an appallingly terrible idea, many times worse than the current state of affairs. So the imperfect situation we have now is preferable to another many times worse.
syshum 6y ago
>>imagine a society where people are actually held accountable for spreading bullshit disinformation, wouldn't that be a net good? That largely depends on who is choosing what is "disinformation", normally if government (or corporations) is involved "disinformation" normally becomes "things that we do not like" which would not be a net good
throwaway823882 6y ago
> imagine a society where people are actually held accountable for spreading bullshit disinformation, wouldn't that be a net good? Sure, but who cares? Just doing what is a 'net good' isn't a good enough yard stick for whether you should actually do it. Imagine a society where the weak or infirm are culled at [or before] birth. Wouldn't that be a net good? (Answer: we already went there. Hitler thought the American idea of Eugenics was such a great idea that he made it a major priority of his government) > we don't have a hardline free speech movement like the USA A lot of places have movements where people want more free speech. Just like us. The difference is, we were lucky enough to actually succeed. And it really was luck. There is this myth that we have always just naturally revered free speech. The reality is that our country has only recently evolved its position. Up until the early 20th century, Americans were regularly convicted for defamation of the government (or speech that wasn't in the government's interests), particularly through and after WWI. Then one Supreme Court justice changed his opinion on free speech, and set the whole country on a course to re-interpret the limits of the First Amendment. We can only legally say "Fuck the USA" during wartime, or even salute a Communist flag (at any time), because that one Justice changed his mind. If one person changing their mind moved us forward, it could also go the other way. And the same could be true for your country.
jariel 6y ago
" for spreading bullshit disinformation" Why do you suggest that criticizing the government is BS and disinformation? That's not what is made illegal. Legitimate criticism is. There's a world of difference.

russianbandit 6y ago

> imagine a society where people are actually held accountable for spreading bullshit disinformation, wouldn't that be a net good? Who decides that it’s bullshit though? The government? Or maybe interested-party-backed “fact checkers”?

mewse-hn 6y ago
Court
yifanl 6y ago
Well, unless you hold the opposite position where nothing is bullshit and everything is equally valuable, _somebody_ has to be able to decide.
- 3np 6y ago
  Not if you subscribe to the idea that things without or even net negative value should be legal to share.
  - yifanl 6y ago
    I will claim that after a certain negative threshold, some things should not be legal to be share in all forums. Accepting that, it becomes a question of where do you draw that line.
- ihyfhgyfhth 6y ago
  I would surmise the traditional belief of western philosophy thusly: 1) I do not have perfect knowledge. 2) Good, or at least better, ideas will implicitly produce better results over long periods. 3) It is immoral to control the lives of others. 4) Therefore, people can argue for ideas they find compelling, and people are free to choose what they think is best. 5) Furthermore, people must bear the consequences of their decisions. A further part of this system was that it was necessary for society to be structured such that individual choices do not have an outsized impact on others. This required that the apparatus of the state have specific constraints. It was quite a remarkable belief system, and much has been written about it over centuries.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    > A further part of this system was that it was necessary for society to be structured such that individual choices do not have an outsized impact on others Technology has changed that rather dramatically.
  - tshaddox 6y ago
    Okay, but we still have systems in place that routinely make decisions based on determinations about factual statements. There are obvious ones, like determining whether someone murdered someone else, or determining how much money someone made for the purposes of taxation. We don’t just throw up our hands and say “sure, maybe there is objective reality out there, but even if there is, who could possibly decide what is real?”
pessimizer 6y ago
The government. This is basically a lese-majeste case, so the person you're criticizing has the authority to declare the criticism slander.
- ValentineC 6y ago
  > The government. This is basically a lese-majeste case, so the person you're criticizing has the authority to declare the criticism slander. Not true. Defamation suits still have to go through due process in the courts.

sneak 6y ago

> the average person can't be expected to have a fact checking department on staff to verify every link they share with their social media friends. I think perhaps this is a misrepresentation of the requirement (that exists even in places like Singapore) that one be skeptical by default of any claim made by the media. "Cui bono?" Penalties for what the court system deems misinformation absolutely do not solve the problem: indeed they make it worse.

ipnon 6y ago

You're comparing apples and oranges. What works on the micro political level (Singapore) doesn't necessarily work at the macro political level (Canada). This is also why I can vote for Republicans in the state government and Democrats in the federal government and still sleep soundly every night. That being said the court case in question is draconian.

gamegoblin 6y ago
FWIW the population of Canada is only 6x Singapore, so definitely bigger but not irreconcilably larger. I think one of the bigger things that makes Singapore so much easier to govern with consensus is the density. It's 5.7 million people packed onto a 30x20km island. There isn't much in the way of urban/rural divide or of different federal-level divisions having competing resource concerns, etc.
- leadingthenet 6y ago
  Maybe city states aren’t that bad of an idea, after all.

FpUser 6y ago

>"I'm from Canada so we don't have a hardline free speech movement like the USA" I'm in Canada as well an while I do not like many things in the US when comparing to Canada I am absolutely on their side when it comes to things like freedom of speech and things like Bill of Rights. Formally due to notwithstanding clause I do not think we have any rights at all as the government basically can override our rights any time it feels like. Sure it does not do it every other Monday but still it's been used something like 15 times and recently our provincial wizards like Legault and Ford just showed what does this Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms mean for them - apparently zilch.

sudosysgen 6y ago
I'm also Canadian but to be fair American Freedom of Speech and the Bill of Rights is also violated whenever the government wants to. People have been put to death or jailed for being certain protests or screening anti-war movies. Not recently at least overtly, but nothing changed so this is still possible.

_up 6y ago

Doctors told people smoking is healthy in the past. Harvard apologized for pushing sugar as healthy 60 years ago. Flat Earth was the accepted truth at some time, and Round Earthers considered nut jobs. Not being able to questioning anything "science has settled", would basically kill advancement.

bsimpson 6y ago
This tweet spoke to me: > all this “believe experts” dogma is legit indistinguishable from the rhetoric of evangelical christians. ffs please just go to church and leave science to the skeptical assholes. - https://twitter.com/micsolana/status/1381237434512502784?s=20 https://twitter.com/micsolana/status/1381237434512502784?s=2...
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  This implies the experts are giving their opinions in the same style as church leaders, which is blatantly false, and probably a little dangerous to equate. "Believe the people who will explain themselves to a degree you'll understand, and who change their opinion when new information is presented." is a more complete way of expressing that thought. There are other ways of expressing that thought, I wouldn't be surprised if `pg has an essay on this. Skeptics are right to be skeptical, but what "skeptic" usually means in modern culture is, "intransigent". The line between healthy skepticism and dogmatic rejection of basic reasoning has blurred substantially.
  - bsimpson 6y ago
    Well said
    - TameAntelope 6y ago
      Thanks, I'm thinking particularly about the hay anti-vaxxers are making about J&J right now, for some reason the whole situation bothers me.
  - 6y ago

andrepd 6y ago

Yes, it would be great to not have people spread bullshit information. But how would you accomplish it? By having "official fact-checkers" censoring information, but that's an appallingly terrible idea, many times worse than the current state of affairs. So the imperfect situation we have now is preferable to another many times worse.

syshum 6y ago

>>imagine a society where people are actually held accountable for spreading bullshit disinformation, wouldn't that be a net good? That largely depends on who is choosing what is "disinformation", normally if government (or corporations) is involved "disinformation" normally becomes "things that we do not like" which would not be a net good

throwaway823882 6y ago

> imagine a society where people are actually held accountable for spreading bullshit disinformation, wouldn't that be a net good? Sure, but who cares? Just doing what is a 'net good' isn't a good enough yard stick for whether you should actually do it. Imagine a society where the weak or infirm are culled at [or before] birth. Wouldn't that be a net good? (Answer: we already went there. Hitler thought the American idea of Eugenics was such a great idea that he made it a major priority of his government) > we don't have a hardline free speech movement like the USA A lot of places have movements where people want more free speech. Just like us. The difference is, we were lucky enough to actually succeed. And it really was luck. There is this myth that we have always just naturally revered free speech. The reality is that our country has only recently evolved its position. Up until the early 20th century, Americans were regularly convicted for defamation of the government (or speech that wasn't in the government's interests), particularly through and after WWI. Then one Supreme Court justice changed his opinion on free speech, and set the whole country on a course to re-interpret the limits of the First Amendment. We can only legally say "Fuck the USA" during wartime, or even salute a Communist flag (at any time), because that one Justice changed his mind. If one person changing their mind moved us forward, it could also go the other way. And the same could be true for your country.

jariel 6y ago

" for spreading bullshit disinformation" Why do you suggest that criticizing the government is BS and disinformation? That's not what is made illegal. Legitimate criticism is. There's a world of difference.