The Work Of Government: Prevention And Combat Online Falsehoods
Technologies have been exceptionally optimist enablers. They have, for instance, enable individuals to stay connected as they receive and share information with one another from all over the world. However, abuse has taken place through the use of technology to spread falsehoods, initiating a disagreement and weakening social cohesion. Online falsehood is the widespread of one’s malicious opinion that may cause disillusion since its inclination to emphasize one’s emotions, particularly anger because views placed forward are fictional. Also, several of these false claims are irreversible. With this, I agree to a large extent that additional regulations should be legislated to avert and counter online falsehoods. Legislations are essential to set societal standards on all governmental levels. Although there are already existing laws and regulations in the society to prevent individuals from circulating false information, and protects the individual from being mistreated by others, existing law is not enough to deal with the swift spread of fake news due to its limitations in speed, adaptableness, and range. Deliberate online falsehoods may exploit present rifts within Singapore’s community, which comprises of racial, religious, and political disputes. As such, additional regulations to control discrimation can be implemented to prevent and counter online falsehood while at the same time allowing minimal free speech.
Firstly, online falsehood may have extensive adverse effects on society. As Singapore is a multi-racial and multi-religious nation, individuals live together in a cohesive environment. Propagating deceptive information online is a compelling reason to damage the harmonious social unity since race and religion are familiar fault-lines that have torn several societies apart. Further support for this observation lies in an example of false news asserted by a duo on their local website. The post claimed that a Filipino family and their young child were expressing their dissatisfaction towards the noise level of musical instruments during Thaipusam religious festival. Following from this, it can be seen netizen rapidly took to the article without enquiring on the integrity of the issue, and started making nasty commentaries criticizing Filipinos in Singapore. Furthermore, the publicists of the website were earning profits from the fabricated assertion by catching viewers’ eyes to increase their revenue from online advertisements on their website. Consequently, the duo was charged under the Sedition Act in court for asserting false claims online. Clearly then, this is a case for the additional law to prevent such scenarios. Secondly, online falsehood may impair the national security and causes political problems. For instance, deliberate online falsehood has interfered in the British exit from the European Union (Brexit) elections in June 2016. United Kingdom (UK) organized a referendum to decide whether to continue as a member of the European Union (EU).
However, the implementation of referendum incurred countless wide-spread of falsehoods aiming to destabilize institutions and aggravating anti-EU feelings. A false assertion made by a newspaper company during Brexit was that twelve million of Turkish people planned to move to the UK if it is elected to remain in the EU since the UK would not be able to reject consent by Turkey. Such intercession that broadcast falsehoods may have the authority to impact voters, consequently affecting the results of the elections. As a result, the newspaper company published an article admitting to the inaccuracy of information and provided clarifications to its audience. With the political, economic, and society of a country at stake, additional laws have to be implemented. Conversely, peaceful open rallies and other get-togethers are strictly restricted in Singapore. Failure to obey with specific constraints on the issues mentioned and the participants in the public assemblies often results in police inquiries and threats of illegitimate charges. Therefore, individuals utilize the online platform to express their views and concerns on current issues. As such, activists argued that Singapore does not require any new legislation unless the existing ones are deficient even with necessary modifications since the current laws are already limiting individuals’ free speech.
Existing laws such as the Defamation Act that covers libel of individuals while the Telecommunications Act encompasses all types of falsehoods conveyed on the internet are ample to withstand the current online fake news. An alternative view is that additional legislation on fake broadcast may extensively restraint the liberty of communication and expression – concerning the issue of receiving as well as relaying of thoughts and information. Xu (2018) noted that regulations are not one step forward but two steps back. Activists debated that in the long run, equipping netizens with falsehood awareness and critical thinking skills will be adequate to enhance individuals in characterizing the different types of false information mingling in our information ecosystem.
Although it is true that additional laws may prevent unnecessary conflicts, this view fails to consider the suppression of individuals’ freedom of speech. Freedom of speech allows one to naturally, share thoughts and improves efficiency in the workplace, fostering social interactions. However, this argument does not take into account the distressing point of free speech which distinguishes no multinational boundaries. Each part of the world has a different approach on where the boundary between unpleasant dialogues and hate speech, security threats lies. Hence, this point is unconvincing because the extent of individuals’ free speech is uncontrollable even with the present laws. Furthermore, the chances of individual knowing the truth behind online falsehood are limited.
In conclusion, efforts to confront fake news should incorporate both legislative and non-legislative methods. Since there are occurrences around the world that have demonstrated the severity of the issues, the governmental bodies of Singapore should not wait for an episode to occur but rather, prepare ahead of time. Singaporeans should also be educated on fake news, and learn to interpret them instead of rubbing salt to the issue.
