- Email: [email protected]
Don't ban fake news
Views The columnist Annalee Newitz on why the AI apocalypse will be very weird p24
Letters Why do we tolerate the internet of broken things? p26
Aperture A Welsh beaver that may end up running wild in the UK p28
Culture Data made beautiful in an ambitious project at the Venice Biennale p30
Culture columnist Jacob Aron on why the Surviving Mars game keeps him awake p32
Comment
Don’t ban fake news As tempting as it sounds, Singapore’s initiative to curb online misinformation sets a dangerous precedent, says Donna Lu Donna Lu is a reporter for New Scientist. Follow her on Twitter @donnadlu
JOSIE FORD
H
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, flatEarthers 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 make
social 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 were
deemed 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. ❚ 1 June 2019 | New Scientist | 23
Letters Why do we tolerate the internet of broken things? p26
Aperture A Welsh beaver that may end up running wild in the UK p28
Culture Data made beautiful in an ambitious project at the Venice Biennale p30
Culture columnist Jacob Aron on why the Surviving Mars game keeps him awake p32
Comment
Don’t ban fake news As tempting as it sounds, Singapore’s initiative to curb online misinformation sets a dangerous precedent, says Donna Lu Donna Lu is a reporter for New Scientist. Follow her on Twitter @donnadlu
JOSIE FORD
H
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, flatEarthers 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 make
social 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 were
deemed 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. ❚ 1 June 2019 | New Scientist | 23