“The jail cells in Singapore are not bad, food is quite good, too,” quipped an entrepreneur when we sought his comment on the new ‘fake news law’, enacted by one of the world’s wealthiest countries.
Singapore’s new fake news law, or the ‘Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act’ or POFMA, came into effect on October 2. The law gives government ministers powers to order social media sites to put warnings next to posts authorities deem to be false. In extreme cases, ministers can order to take a news item down.
Yes, a law to curb fake news is a good step in the right direction. But the moot question is who discerns what fake news is? Will it serve the purpose? And what will be its repercussions?
“There are good intentions behind this new law, taking into account the importance of multiculturalism, strength in unity and international relations,” believes Roshni Mahtani, CEO, Tickled Media, which owns media sites theAsianparent.com and AsianMoneyGuide.com .
“Time will tell if there are repercussions on the dynamic digital media ecosystem in Singapore. For now, it encourages accountability and a responsible media presence,” she says.
“I think this is a good and bold step in the right direction. No other countries have taken such a step yet,” Adrian Liew, CEO, Beknown, a reputation management company, agrees.
“When fake news is identified, it is important to stop its spreading as soon as possible to protect the public interest. I read in papers that some fake news in India had caused panic among the public and that led to lynching. My only concern is how the government will execute this law in Singapore, or will it be seen as a way to stifle dissent. A tool is a tool and must be used in a manner for the public good,” Liew added.
Also Read: The world should wish the Singapore fake news law is Fake News
Logan Tan, Founder and CEO of Eezee, another local startup, can’t agree more. “In my opinion, the fake news law, although controversial, is a necessary step to protect the people. As the era of digitisation comes into full effect, information is spread across fast and vast. Platform owners have the responsibility to regulate and control the information being posted on their respective platforms.”
“Ultimately, the law is just a tool. It still boils down to how the authorities exercise this right. If used properly, I believe there will be greater benefits than there is zero regulation,” Tan added.
Several others view the fake law from a different angle. For them, this is not a regulation or technology problem, but a societal problem. “People are just too addicted to having everything served to them fast and easy, to the detriment of society,” says a digital media entrepreneur. “I think the only way to eradicate fake news is by investing our energy in learning to be better critical thinkers. I feel the ‘fake news law’ is just another knee-jerk reaction.”
For several others, POFMA is fair if used with the explicit intention of preventing falsehood from spreading. “However, it would not be fair if the laws are used to stifle controversial debates or dissent,” says a guest contributor of e27. “But this has been clarified publicly by various representatives of the Singapore government that POFMA focuses only on falsehoods of news.”
“Speaking in a context as a guest contributor on e27, it ensures that the articles I write should be double-checked for facts, and the information should be obtained from credible sources. This is an ethical code of conduct of journalism, which I am already adhering to. As long as I follow these guidelines, I would not worry about breaching POFMA,” the contributor said.
But not all founders we spoke to subscribe to this view. “The law sucks,” says one. “What if some news stories are real, but the government refuses to acknowledge them?”
He has raised an important question: How will the government decide a piece of news is fake or not?
“It will be more effective if online voting is conducted to verify and establish the authenticity of certain content,” suggests Bandanjot Singh, Product Manager with a local startup. “This can also be done via crowdsourcing from the members of social media, rather than the authorities mark a news item fake. This will remove the bias. There is always a risk factor that certain content may be marked fake and removed from the sites if it doesn’t match government views.”
“That’s a terrific idea, but what if the votes are also biased,” asks another founder. “Let’s take the Cambridge Analytics issue. Enough of misinformation. Here, the voter can also vote knowingly in favour of the perpetrator. My point is that the crowd is not a good judge, either.”
There is already a law in Singapore, the Computer Abuse Act, top executive of a startup points out. This law is to penalise the fabrication and spreading of falsehood. However, the new law is specific to online and falsehood.
“The fake news problem is a media literacy problem. Not a government policy problem or a technology problem,” another one opines.
Agrees another founder: “Misinformation has been around since long. Until recently, with the amplification of social media and instant messaging apps, it became a serious problem. The solution is well, be smarter. It’s not something tech, or government policies can fix,” he quipped.
Image Credit: Elijah O’Donnell on Unsplash
—
What do you think of the Singapore government’s new law? Please post your comments below.
The post Fake news law is good but it shouldn’t be used to stifle dissent: Singapore’s startup community speaks out appeared first on e27.