Facebook Bows to Singapore's 'Fake News' Law, Posts 'Correction' (bbc.com) 37
An anonymous reader quotes the BBC:
Facebook has added a correction notice to a post that Singapore's government said contained false information. It is the first time Facebook has issued such a notice under the city-state's controversial "fake news" law. Singapore claimed the post, by fringe news site States Times Review, contained "scurrilous accusations".
The note issued by the social media giant said it "is legally required to tell you that the Singapore government says this post has false information".
Facebook's addition was embedded at the bottom of the original post, which was not altered. It was only visible to social media users in Singapore... Critics say the law threatens freedom of expression. Amnesty International said it would "give authorities unchecked powers to clamp down on online views of which it disapproves". But Singapore's law minister said free speech "should not be affected by this bill", adding that it was aimed only at tackling "falsehoods, bots, trolls and fake accounts". The government has argued that the law safeguards against abuse of power by allowing judicial reviews of its orders.
Singapore had first ordered the page's editor to correct the post, but as an Australian citizen he'd refused and promised (on Facebook) that he would "not comply with any order from a foreign government".
The note issued by the social media giant said it "is legally required to tell you that the Singapore government says this post has false information".
Facebook's addition was embedded at the bottom of the original post, which was not altered. It was only visible to social media users in Singapore... Critics say the law threatens freedom of expression. Amnesty International said it would "give authorities unchecked powers to clamp down on online views of which it disapproves". But Singapore's law minister said free speech "should not be affected by this bill", adding that it was aimed only at tackling "falsehoods, bots, trolls and fake accounts". The government has argued that the law safeguards against abuse of power by allowing judicial reviews of its orders.
Singapore had first ordered the page's editor to correct the post, but as an Australian citizen he'd refused and promised (on Facebook) that he would "not comply with any order from a foreign government".
Could maybe some enterprising journalist ... (Score:3)
... establish the facts of the underlying claims?
I.e. is the Singapore government correct on the merits?
https://www.gov.sg/factually/c... [www.gov.sg]
Moot (Score:1)
It doesn't really matter. The Singapore government stated a fact, ergo it is a fact, and it is illegal to dispute it.
Now, time to finally reign in all these out of control media companies in the US with some legislation!
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't really matter. The Singapore government stated a fact, ergo it is a fact, and it is illegal to dispute it.
Now, time to finally reign in all these out of control media companies in the US with some legislation!
Is it your opinion that only what the current president claims to be "fact" should be the ruler by which to measure truth?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it your opinion that only what the current president claims to be "fact" should be the ruler by which to measure truth?
It doesn't matter what his opinion is. That is the law in Singapore. The government sets the facts, and the media follows their orders.
Censorship in Singapore [wikipedia.org]
The politicians baying for "commonsense controls" on social media want to have a similar system in America.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"rein in". It's about controlling horses, not kings....
sp (Score:2)
At least I didn't write it as "rain in." :)
Re: (Score:1)
is the Singapore government correct on the merits?
Hardly... It is a haven for money laundering and contraband, like Panama, Bahamas, all those little islands out there in the Caribbean, including Epstein's... All these are mafia run and untouchable. If people gave a shit, all the world's economies would collapse, so we're kind of in a bind.
Re: (Score:2)
... All these are mafia run and untouchable. If people gave a shit, all the world's economies would collapse, so we're kind of in a bind.
Citation?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Also, in any kind of debate, the burden of proof is on the party making the affirmative claim (e.g. that something is happen
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you think your logic is obvious, correct, and morally just, if you want anyone else to pay attention to you, you typically do have to substantiate it.
Except on social media. Then you can just put it in a meme and it's 100% legit. Or write "People are saying..." What people? Doesn't matter. People.
Journalism is a lost art. The very concept of journalism is a lot art.
Re: Could maybe some enterprising journalist ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
singapore is being slimy again. If they REALLY wanted to clarify things then they would have put on that gov.sg site what they did do and not just what they didnt do.
"The Government did not request that Facebook take down the NSU post or disable the page. It was Facebook which removed the page on its own accord." https://www.gov.sg/factually/c... [www.gov.sg]
1. They are lying. The page did not get removed.
2. If it did get removed singapore would be to blame because theyre the ones offended by it.
"It was Facebook which r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Theyre not accountable to anyone on gov.sg and can claim whatever they like as being true and false.
If they posted on facebook people would have given them a piece of their mind unless they quite obviously disable replies.
It would be ironic however if they posted on facebook and facebook stuck a 'correction notice' to it.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't really matter because this will backfire.
Imagine if Infowars or Brietbart got one of these. They would love it, it would be their badge of honour. "We posted the truth that the government doesn't want you to hear!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oppressive regimes have existed for thousands of years, but not the same ones. They tend to fall apart eventually.
It remains to be seen if democracy is that much more durable. I won't be around to see if any make it to 1k years.
Re: Could maybe some enterprising journalist ... (Score:2)
Ohhh that's cute. We can't do that here, that's why we have Trump.
so .. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I think the basic principle of national sovereignty applies.
We may not like the fact people in other nations want different laws and different customs (some of which we find repugnant) but we should respect the differences and comply if we want to do business there.
I disagree when a company complies with one country's laws and customs in every other country's markets.
If you think facebook (Score:2)
er, yeah (Score:2)
Critics say the law threatens freedom of expression.
They say that because ... it does.
Mandatory social media courses for all... (Score:1)
The first few rules to learn are:
1) Social media posts should be considered false things.
2) When in doubt, see rule #1.
3) Always check the facts.
Banning social media from all that fail these tests will go a long way to improve society.