Government Actions to Combat Online Falsehood and Fake News

Deliberate online falsehood and fake news can be the statement of being untrue, a lie, or a made-up story online to create chaos regardless of political, economic, social, or legal issues. Lying about political, economic, social, or legal issues can also lead to riots and cause loss of lives that could have been prevented. It can also be considered the goal of the individual or association spreading the data; it shows up on an online platform; it is clearly false; and it has a significant effect, for example, influencing national security or racial and religious harmony.

Government Actions to Combat Online Falsehood and Fake News

There is no need for new legislation to manage online deception, said activists, who instead urged the government to enable the public greater access to information and to increase efforts to promote media literacy. Existing laws can already be used and have been used against online deceptions in Singapore and abroad. There is a high risk that any legislative action will stifle free speech and might be used against the legitimate expression of opposing views, it said in its written submission. This demonstrated that pre-Internet era laws can be effectively used against online offenses - and even against individuals based outside Singapore. Furthermore, if new laws are enacted, the group stated, they must be balanced and not result in the removal of genuine content, including political discussions. Media literacy will be a key weapon in the battle against fake news, she noted, adding that basic and media literacy education should start at an early age, and that there should also be comprehensive political education. Additionally, citizens should be able to use the media to participate in public discourse.

Challenges in Enacting New Laws

Those who supported or proposed the idea of a new law also said it should be carefully calibrated to respond appropriately to a range of online lies. There were also others who warned that laws could achieve the opposite effect. While laws have a role to play in combating deception and hateful expression, legislation, when used in inappropriate conditions, can backfire. What can backfire? Defamation laws that restrict expressions which offend the feelings of religious or racial groups tend to backfire and can be misused by prejudiced groups in society to silence more direct and minority groups. The existing laws in Singapore, such as defamation laws, already impose too many restrictions on freedom of expression and are sufficient to manage online deceptions. The use of even current laws should be the last resort. The distinction between deception and free speech will be critical as it might be mistaken for controlling such misrepresentations, essentially as a restriction on free speech. Such falsehoods - intended to mislead people, manipulate election outcomes, and turn groups against each other - in fact harm society and undermine democracy, and belong to a category of speech that does not warrant protection. Warnings have been given that the spread of disinformation achieves the opposite effect of free speech and blocks public discourse, which is at the heart of a just society.

The Role of Media Literacy

There is freedom of speech, but there is also speech that needs to be safeguarded, such as issues of race and religion, which are sensitive. As self-regulation seems to be lacking, some speakers told Insight that the council is likely to consider ways to manage online life platforms, which have recently become very dominant groups conveying much subject talk. These regulations could compel tech firms to take more active steps, such as flagging disputed content, strengthening their detection of falsehoods, deprioritizing problematic online news sources, and removing fake accounts. Including media education as part of a multi-pronged approach to counter the spread of online lies was a recurring call by scholars, students, and civil society alike. The development of such literacy, and discouraging the sharing of unchecked information, could form long-term measures to counter disinformation. Those against having any "anti-disinformation law" which aligns with this approach to combat lies related to race and religion. Such a law may be viewed as securing social harmony on the surface. However, there are hatemongers who will misuse any state-authorized right to be offended in order to gain the upper hand.

The Role of Technology in Identifying Deception

The Deception Analysis and Reasoning Engine (DARE) was instructed to search for and analyze human micro-expressions, such as "lips distended" or "eyebrows raised," and also analyze sound frequencies for uncovering vocal patterns that indicate whether a person is lying or not. It was then tested using a training set of recordings in which actors were instructed to either lie or tell the truth.

Lying can be mentally demanding. You have to suppress the truth and build a falsehood that is plausible and does not contradict anything known by the audience, nor is likely to be known. You must tell it convincingly, and you must remember the story. This typically requires significant time and focus, both of which may emit secondary signals and reduce performance on concurrent tasks. There will always be lies intentionally sown; no legislation can and will put an end to such activity.

Conclusion

I am against the government enacting more laws to prevent and combat online falsehood because I believe in freedom of speech. But still, I also feel that control over speech topics will then be necessary to prevent unwanted outcomes.