(Source: “The Death of Fake News: A Quest for the Holy Grail.” )
Inspired by: “Keeping It Real: 5 Recommendations That Could Emerge from the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods.” (Straits Times)
After the Select Committee of Online Falsehoods in Singapore has heard approximately 70 speakers over the span of 50 hours, the fruitful discussion has shed light on some conclusions regarding how to tackle online falsehoods.
One of the first recommendations made by many speakers was to alter legislation and establish new laws to counter this issue. There are certain legal issues regarding online falsehoods that can be solved first and foremost through legislation. Yet, many speakers such as SMU’s (Singapore Management University) law dean Mr. Goh Yihan rightly stated that it was important to “examine the effectiveness of existing legislative frameworks”, before creating new ones. This will ensure that there will be improvements incorporated in the new legislation, and will help to conquer the limitations of existing ones by focusing on prerequisites such as determining a spectrum, flexibility and the speed in which legislations are able to defeat these falsehoods. Particularly emphasizing on the establishment of a spectrum, some speakers did highlight on the fact that legislation needs to be “carefully calibrated” and focused to ensure that only those who deliberately share and publish online falsehoods should be prosecuted. With this recommendation, it’s always important to see its ramifications. Some laws like the insult laws may be perceived as harmful to religious and racial groups and seen as a symbol of oppression by the government.
The perceived symbol of oppression gives rise to the debate regarding freedom of speech. It is true to a larger extent that strong and rigid legislations may curtail freedom of speech, as it places a control on people’s ability to post. Speakers like Ms. Gillian Koh argue that falsehoods shouldn’t be regulated to a greater degree and shouldn’t be taken down, as it strengthens the immunity of the society, by allowing people to debate and recognize the characteristics of fake news. Others believe the mere opposite, that deliberate online falsehoods misleads and manipulates people’s rhetoric, which dissuades them from expressing their honest opinions. This undermines democracy and actual freedom of speech.
Thus, because of such limitations in legislation, there is an increasing need for the defense to be “multifaceted” and the issues are palimpsests in nature. This not only includes effective legislation, but also the application of takedowns, regulation of technology giants, establishing independent bodies and the promotion of media literacy. Concerning takedowns with ‘a judicial oversight’, many speakers have encouraged this method, as it is an effective platform to ensure that news can be removed rapidly. Another suggestion posed was the regulation of technology companies. With Facebook and the Cambridge Analytica fiasco, the world has to come realize how social media providers have displayed a constant lack of effort to debacle ethical issues such as deliberate online falsehoods. Hence, there is an encouragement of more alliances between states and these companies to ensure that social media is armed with enough competence to detect and flag online falsehoods. Social media also should play a role in disclosing its affiliations with advertisers and third-party developers to promote ‘responsible advertising’. Furthermore, another point raised about mitigating deliberate online falsehoods was the establishment of an independent fact-checking body to monitor networks to control the dissemination of fake news. Yet, many raised arguments to whether the government should be partnered with such bodies as people may question the authenticity of fact-checking and its objectivity.
However, to ensure a sustainable line of defense towards tackling deliberate online falsehoods, SMU’s associate professor of law, Mr. Eugene Tan recommended that instilling media literacy is the way to go. The crux of disseminating fake news not only stems from the malicious intents from publishers, yet also originates from the public’s lack of awareness. The inability to self-check news and verify sources is growing to become a significant obstacle to prevent deliberate online falsehoods. Thus, by embedding the importance of media literacy within society, it will prevent people from sharing news without verification. Media literacy will replace the gaps that were created by ineffective legislation and will allow for Singaporeans to not only recognize the characteristics of fake news, yet to criticise its intents. As people are becoming more susceptible to such news, media literacy will serve to immunize people in hopes of countering such malicious acts that have divided our society.
Sources:
