1 June 2019 | New Scientist | 23Culture
Data made beautiful in
an ambitious project at
the Venice Biennale p30Aperture
A Welsh beaver that
may end up running
wild in the UK p28Letters
Why do we tolerate
the internet of broken
things? p26The columnist
Annalee Newitz on
why the AI apocalypse
will be very weird p24Views
JOS
IE^ F
OR
D
CommentDon’t ban fake news
As tempting as it sounds, Singapore’s initiative to curb online
misinformation sets a dangerous precedent, says Donna LuH
OW do you fight fake
news? You could impose
more stringent regulation
on big tech companies, as the
European Union has attempted
to do, or even break them up, as
US presidential hopeful Elizabeth
Warren has demanded. You might
roll out awareness campaigns,
or make tech companies hire
more fact checkers, as Facebook
has been doing. Or, if you are
Singapore, you could just ban it.
On 8 May, the country’s
parliament passed the
“Protection from Online
Falsehoods and Manipulation
Bill”. The law requires individuals
and social media platforms to
take down, or issue corrections
alongside, content deemed false,and forces companies to remove
bots and fake accounts. Those
who fail to comply face hefty
fines and up to 10 years in prison.
This might seem like a good
thing. Research shows falsehoods
travel faster online than the truth,
be they from anti-vaxxers, flat-
Earthers or climate denialists.
With bitter irony, social media
platforms that once promised
to help spread free speech are
now a tool by which democracy
is undermined.
Singapore isn’t the first
government to take action. Last
year, France allowed judges to
order the removal of fake content
during election campaigns. The
Canadian and UK governments
have introduced policies to makesocial media companies more
accountable for misinformation.
But just what constitutes “fake
news” is open to interpretation.
Just take Donald Trump. For
some, he was elected on the back
of fake news, but he has since
appropriated the term as a
blanket criticism of news
reporting he deems unflattering.
Singapore’s record on free
speech is poor. Reporters Without
Borders ranks the country 151 out
of 180 on press freedom, and the
city state’s Media Development
Authority has previously clamped
down on journalistic content.
In 2014, film-maker Tan Pin Pin’s
documentary about political
exiles, To Singapore, With Love,
was banned for what wereDonna Lu is a reporter for
New Scientist. Follow her
on Twitter @donnadludeemed to be “untruthful
accounts” from interviewees.
The Singaporean government
says the fake news ban won’t
be used to censor opinion or
criticism, and will primarily be
used against corporations, not
individuals. But Rachael Jolley
of the London-based Index on
Censorship says the law could
put individuals under pressure
to back away from public interest
research or investigative
journalism. Researchers have
raised concerns that it could stifle
academic discourse, given that
scientific progress hinges on
challenging accepted truths.
In response, the country’s
education minister has said
empirical research would be
exempt so long as it isn’t based
on falsified data. It remains
to be seen how the legislation
will be enforced. Google,
Facebook and Twitter all oppose it.
Preventing the spread of fake
news means holding online
platforms and publishers to
account, just as print and
broadcast media are for spreading
falsehoods. Open democracies
will continue to grapple with how
to do that without compromising
civil liberties. A blanket ban on
information that a state deems
to be false – and threatening
punitive consequences including
significant prison time for private
individuals who contravene it – is
the wrong way to go about it. ❚Culture columnist
Jacob Aron on why the
Surviving Mars game
keeps him awake p32