Problem/Solution Draft 4

As the number of social media users proliferates, social media has become a handy tool for the dissemination of misinformation, requiring authorities to develop measures to address the problem. In a technologically advanced nation like Singapore, users are highly connected via gadgets such as tablets and hand phones, as well as social media such as Facebook and Twitter. The World Economic Forum (2013) states that “Social media increasingly allows information to spread around the world at breakneck speed … [and] could also enable the rapid viral spread of information that is either intentionally or unintentionally misleading or provocative with serious consequence.”

Misinformation comes in many forms on social media. Examples of misinformation spread through social media include rumors, scandals, just to name a few. People want to be well informed about happenings and express their opinions. However, many do not verify the reliability of information sources before posting information on social media. This has resulted in the spread of misinformation via social media.

Misinformation spread may have motives such as defamation and slander or even to create social unrest, for example. In Singapore, there are many social media platforms for misinformation and defamation to spread, such as Stomp, TheRealSingapore and online tabloids which encourage citizen journalism and feedback. On such platforms, the main agenda of writers is to share “juicy” news such as scandals and happenings to attract viewers. However, information in such articles may be defamatory to the subjects involved. Being able to comment while hiding behind a screen has given many Internet users a confidence they do not have in face-to-face situations.

Defamation may cause harm to certain individuals, groups, or in severe cases societies as it snowballs. According to the Singapore Legal Advice, something is defamatory if it lowers one’s standing in society, causing the victim to be shunned or avoided, or exposes the victim to hatred, contempt, or ridicule. Defamation can be carried out through postings on websites, blogs, and on social media platforms.

Defamation can also disrupt the peace of Singapore’s many races and religions, especially if misinformation gains widespread attention through being spread by social media. In a Straits Times article, Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen says misinformation works “to weaken our resolve and cause disunity. Online misinformation (such as defamation) could spread widely during tense or volatile situations, he added, causing confusion and chaos” (Ee, 2013) As such, measures have to be taken by the necessary government authorities responsible, namely the Media Development Authority (MDA), to control the spread of misinformation, either by rules and regulations, campaigns, or other means.

As of now, MDA has a ruling on the spread of misinformation. According to Chua (2013), “websites which produce an average of at least one Singapore news program a week for a period of two consecutive months, and with average monthly visitors of at least 50,000 for the same two consecutive months, will have to be individually licensed. In addition, these websites will have to put up a performance bond of $50,000 and will be obligated to comply with any content takedown notice by MDA within a 24- hour period.” This ruling gives the government control over local citizen journalism websites that may possibly spread misinformation and defamation, allowing the government to shut down any sites which go against the regulations.

The ruling might be effective on paper, but has drawn criticism from the Singaporean public. Netizens cited that this undermines the right to freedom of speech for the people and the ruling stating unreasonable terms and conditions. Many Singaporeans have voiced their disagreement with the ruling, with the Blackout movement online, and #FreeMyInternet protests held at Hong Lim Park. Many questioned the need for the ruling, as there were previous rulings governing the usage of the Internet in Singapore. True enough, having multiple rulings on the usage of the Internet here in Singapore may help to reduce the spread of misinformation and defamation, but one might wonder, will the ruling come upon as a threat to the Internet rather than a benefit to Singapore’s cyberspace.

One measure that can be implemented to tackle the spread of misinformation online is to have a citizen/government cooperative initiative to affirm the authenticity and reliability of the information available on social media. The MDA could be the government department responsible for this. With this, netizens would have a dependable point of reference to verify the reliability of any information being posted on social media sites. Misinformation could be clarified before becoming viral on the Internet.

However, this suggestion has its own drawbacks. The extent of citizen/government cooperation remains questionable. Too much government involvement may render the initiative as a state-run initiative with the government controlling behind the scenes. On the other hand, too much citizen involvement may result in unreliability of the initiative. It is difficult to determine the extent of involvement of one party or another. Another shortcoming of the initiative is that the ruling’s reach only may only extend to locally-produced misinformation since it is a Singaporean ruling, not an international ruling. As such, the ruling may not applicable to international sources of misinformation. As such, Singapore would still be vulnerable to misinformation originating from overseas.

In conclusion, social media plays a major role in the spread of misinformation today. However, it is impossible for the Singapore government to entirely curb the spread of misinformation online. Ultimately, prevention is better than cure. The spread of misinformation in Singapore can be reduced through measures that encourage netizens to make more well-informed choices in posting and expressing their views on social media. Eventually, this can give rise to a better environment for social media users in Singapore.

References:

1) World Economic Forum, 2013, Digital Wildfires in a Hyperconnected World, Retrieved from: http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2013/view/risk-case-1/digital-wildfires-in-a-hyperconnected-world/#/view/fn-10

2) David Ee, The Straits Times, 2013, Online misinformation, rumours and smears a ‘threat’ to Total Defence: Ng Eng Hen, Retrieved from:http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/online-misinformation-rumours-and-smears-threat-total-defence-ng-eng-h

3) Melanie Chua, 2013, How Should the Singapore Government Regulate Online News Sites?, Retrieved from: http://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/How-Should-the-Singapore-Government-Regulate-Online-News-Sites.pdf

4) Singapore Legal Advice, 2011, What if someone defames me over a blog or other forms of social networking media, Retrieved from:http://singaporelegaladvice.com/what-if-someone-defames-me-over-a-blog-or-other-forms-of-social-networking-media/

Personal reflection on class Presentation

After writing a third draft for the problem/solution essay, I had to give a short 5-minute presentation about my essay. The presentation was about a problem caused by social media, current measures to curb it, and my proposed solution for the problem.

During the presentation, initially i was quite nervous as i had not prepared well for the presentation. My presentation was quite shaky at the start. However, as the presentation went on, i sank into the presentation, and was able to present the topic better to the audience.

I had a few takeaways from the presentation, and presentation skills that i should work on. Firstly, it is important to have good slides, as to attract the attention of the audience and to convey ideas effectively. Second, stance is important as to portray confidence, and reduce fidgeting.

Overall, i felt that this presentation gave me a good insight on what is expected for a proper presentation. Preparation is crucial to be able to present a good presentation. Hopefully, the takeaways can be applied to future presentations in other courses in the future.

Critical feedback about peer review

In the ES1102 course, students were assigned many essays to write, draft after draft. After each draft, essays were subject to peer review and feedback during lessons. After receiving the peer review and feedback, students were encouraged to edit their essay, accordingly with the peer review and feedback. In general, I feel that it is a good method to encourage learning from our mistakes.

Occasionally, we are unable to notice our own mistakes in our essays, and require another person’s view and feedback to pick out the mistakes, and on how to improve on it. Say for example, expression errors. By receiving feedback from our peers it gives us more ideas on how to write an essay.Also, by giving peer review and feedback to my classmates has its learning points too. By referring to other essays, good and bad points can be picked out. From there, students can learn what to, and what not to do/follow for their future essays. It makes the students more aware of mistakes in our writings.

The feedback sessions also gives students a chance to interact with one another during the course, which is a good thing.

However, the peer review and feedback sessions are not without its own shortcomings. It is only efficient if the students actively participate in the session, to give consistent and constructive feedback. Otherwise, the feedback would not constructive, and does not add value to the student receiving the feedback. In the end, both the student giving and receiving the feedback do not benefit from this. It would also be a waste of time as the students do not see their errors, and continue committing the same errors in their writings. In the future, with higher level writings, then the impact will be felt.

Also after peer reviews, i have learnt the importance of having clearly organized essays. By having an organized essay, it conveys the idea clearly to the reader, and most importantly makes it easier to read and understand the piece of writing. some other takeaways from the peer reviews is to not commit redundant grammatical errors, such as run-on sentences and verb/tense agreements, just to name a few. With this, i would take more notice on such issues in my future writings outside of ES1102.

In conclusion, the peer review sessions have been useful in helping students to improve their writing skills. I hope the peer reviews has helped students achieve their goals set earlier in the semester.

Problem/Solution Draft 3

As the number of social media users proliferates, social media has become a handy tool for the dissemination of misinformation, requiring authorities to develop measures to address the problem. In a technologically advanced nation like Singapore, users are highly connected via gadgets such as tablets and hand phones, as well as social media such as Facebook and Twitter. The World Economic Forum (2013) states that “Social media increasingly allows information to spread around the world at breakneck speed … [and] could also enable the rapid viral spread of information that is either intentionally or unintentionally misleading or provocative with serious consequence.”

Misinformation comes in many forms on social media. Examples of misinformation spread through social media include rumors, scandals, political ideas and etc. People want to be well informed about happenings and express their opinions. However, many do not verify the reliability of information sources before posting information on social media. This has resulted in the spread of misinformation via social media. Misinformation spread may also have motives such as defamation and slander or even to create social unrest, for example.

In Singapore, there are many social media platforms for misinformation and defamation to occur, such as Stomp, TheRealSingapore and online tabloids which encourage citizen journalism and feedback. On such platforms, the main agenda of writers is to share “juicy” news such as scandals and happenings to attract viewers. However, information in such articles may be defamatory to the subjects involved. Being able to comment while hiding behind a screen has given many Internet users a confidence they do not have in face-to-face situations. Indeed, the Media Literacy Council (2013) has said that “It is possible to commit defamation in the online world through postings on any website, blogs and social networking sites like Facebook. Even tweets on Twitter and to an extent, SMSes and emails, may be subject to a defamation suit.”

Defamation may cause harm to certain individuals, groups, or in severe cases societies as it gathers steam over time. According to the Singapore Legal Advice, something is defamatory if it lowers one’s standing in society, causing the victim to be shunned or avoided, or exposes the victim to hatred, contempt, or ridicule.

Defamation can also disrupt the peace of Singapore’s many races and religions, especially if misinformation gains widespread attention through being spread by social media. In the Straits Times, Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen says misinformation works “to weaken our resolve and cause disunity. Online misinformation (such as defamation) could spread widely during tense or volatile situations, he added, causing confusion and chaos” (Ee, 2013) As such, measures have to be taken by the necessary government authorities responsible, namely the Media Development Authority (MDA), to control the spread of misinformation, either by rules and regulations, campaigns, or other means.

As of now, MDA has a ruling on the spread of misinformation. According to Chua (2013), “websites which produce an average of at least one Singapore news programme a week for a period of two consecutive months, and with average monthly visitors of at least 50,000 for the same two consecutive months, will have to be individually licensed. In addition, these websites will have to put up a performance bond of $50,000 and will be obligated to comply with any content takedown notice by MDA within a 24- hour period.” With this ruling, it gives the government control over local citizen journalism websites that may possible spread of misinformation and defamation, allowing the government to shut down any sites which go against the regulations.

The ruling might be effective on paper, but has drawn criticism from the Singaporean public. Netizens cited that this undermines the right to freedom of speech for the people and the ruling having unreasonable terms and conditions. Many Singaporeans voiced their disagreement with the ruling, with the Blackout movement online, and #FreeMyInternet protests held at Hong Lim Park. Many questioned the need for the ruling, as there were previous rulings governing the usage of the Internet in Singapore. True enough, having multiple rulings on the usage of the Internet here in Singapore may help to reduce the spread of misinformation and defamation, but will it come upon as a threat to the Internet rather than a benefit to Singapore’s cyberspace?

One measure that can be implemented to tackle the spread of misinformation online is to have a citizen/government cooperative initiative to affirm the authenticity and reliability of the information available on social media. The MDA could be the government department responsible for this. With this, netizens would have a dependable point of reference to verify the reliability of any information being posted on social media sites. Misinformation could be clarified before becoming viral on the Internet.

However, this suggestion has its own drawbacks. The extent of citizen/government cooperation remains questionable. Too much government involvement may render the initiative as a state-run initiative with the government controlling behind the scenes. On the other hand, too much citizen involvement may result in unreliability of the initiative. It is difficult to determine the extent of involvement of one party or another. Another shortcoming of the initiative is that its reach only extends to locally-produced misinformation, and is not applicable to international sources of misinformation. As such, Singapore would still be vulnerable to misinformation originating from overseas.

In conclusion, social media plays a major role in the spread of misinformation today. However, it is impossible for the Singapore government to entirely curb the spread of misinformation online. Ultimately, prevention is better than cure. The spread of misinformation in Singapore can be reduced through measures that encourage netizens to make more well-informed choices in posting and expressing their views on social media. Eventually, this can give rise to a better environment for social media users in Singapore.

• World Economic Forum, 2013, Digital Wildfires in a Hyperconnected World, Retrieved from: http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2013/view/risk-case-1/digital-wildfires-in-a-hyperconnected-world/#/view/fn-10
• David Ee, The Straits Times, 2013, Online misinformation, rumours and smears a ‘threat’ to Total Defence: Ng Eng Hen, Retrieved from:http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/online-misinformation-rumours-and-smears-threat-total-defence-ng-eng-h
• Melanie Chua, 2013, How Should the Singapore Government Regulate Online News Sites?, Retrieved from: http://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/How-Should-the-Singapore-Government-Regulate-Online-News-Sites.pdf
• Singapore Legal Advice, 2011, What if someone defames me over a blog or other forms of social networking media, Retrieved from:http://singaporelegaladvice.com/what-if-someone-defames-me-over-a-blog-or-other-forms-of-social-networking-media/
• Media Literacy Council, 2013, Media, Internet and I, Retrieved from:http://www.medialiteracycouncil.sg/media-and-internet/Pages/understanding-the-law.aspx

Problem/Solution Draft 2

With social media, it facilitates the dissemination of misinformation, requiring the local authorities to develop measures to control the spread and development of the problem here in Singapore.  “The Internet remains an uncharted, fast-evolving territory. Current generations are able to communicate and share information instantaneously and at a scale larger than ever before. Social media increasingly allows information to spread around the world at breakneck speed … also enable the rapid viral spread of information that is either intentionally or unintentionally misleading or provocative, with serious consequence” (World Economic Forum, 2013)

For starters, misinformation comes in many forms. Examples of misinformation are such as Internet rumors, scandals, and many more. People wish to be in the know, and do not check the reliability of the information before posting, resulting in the spread of misinformation. Most of the time, only part of the whole picture is captured. The misinformation spread serves an underlying purpose, such as defamation and slander.

In Singapore, there are many platforms for misinformation and defamation to spread, in forms such as Stomp, TheRealSingapore and tabloids. On such platforms, the main agenda is to share “juicy“ information, like scandals and false rumors, to attract viewers. However, such ”information” may be defamatory to the individual/group at hand. Being able to hide behind a screen has given many Internet users a confidence they do not have in social situations. “It is possible to commit defamation in the online world through postings on any website, blogs and social networking sites like Facebook. Even tweets on Twitter and to an extent, SMSes and emails, may be subject to a defamation suit.” (Media Literacy Council, 2013)

Defamation may cause harm to certain individuals, groups, or in severe cases societies as it gathers steam over time. “It is defamatory if it lowers the victim in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, causes the victim to be shunned or avoided, or exposes the victim to hatred, contempt or ridicule. For example, in 1998, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong successfully sued Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, when the latter made a loaded statement without directly accusing the former of wrongdoing.” (Singapore Legal Advice, 2011)

Defamation can also disrupt the peace of Singapore’s many races and religions, if it gathers enough steam over time. Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen says misinformation works “to weaken our resolve and cause disunity”. Online misinformation (such as defamation) could spread widely during tense or volatile situations, he added, causing confusion and chaos” (The Strait Times, 2013) As such, measures have to be taken by the necessary authorities, namely the Media Development Authority (MDA), to control the spread of misinformation.

As of now, MDA has a ruling on the spread of misinformation. In a paper written by the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, it states that “websites which produce an average of at least one Singapore news programme a week for a period of two consecutive months, and with average monthly visitors of at least 50,000 for the same two consecutive months, will have to be individually licensed. In addition, these websites will have to put up a performance bond of $50,000 and will be obligated to comply with any content takedown notice by MDA within a 24- hour period.” (Melanie Chua, 2013) With this ruling, it gives the government control over local means of the possible spread of misinformation and defamation, allowing the government to shut down any sites which go against the regulations.

This has drawn flak from the public, citing that this undermines the right to freedom of speech for the people and the ruling having unreasonable terms and conditions. Protests were held, with the Blackout movement online, and #FreeMyInternet protests held at Hong Lim Park. Many questioned the need for the ruling, as there were previous rulings governing the usage of the Internet in Singapore. Yes, by having multiple rulings on the usage of the Internet here in Singapore helps to reduce the spread of misinformation and defamation, but will it come upon as a threat to the internet, rather than to benefit the Internet in Singapore?

One possible measure that can be implemented, is to have a citizen/government cooperative initiative, to debunk misinformation, and control the spread of defamation. In this case, the government arm responsible could be the MDA. Misinformation can be clarified by the initiative, before being spread to the masses and causing confusion and chaos. The public now would have a reliable source of information to compare against the defamatory claim posted online and judge its validity. As the public is better informed, defamation can be quickly shot down by the public before it makes waves in the community.

However, this suggestion has its own drawbacks. First, one might ask to what extent the citizen/government cooperation is. Too much of government involvement, and one will say that it is state run, controlling behind the scenes. Too much of citizen involvement, and it might turn out to be unreliable. It is difficult to determine the extent of involvement of one party or another. Also, it is only applicable to local means of misinformation.

Another way to control the spread of defamation, is to get a reliable news source, such as Yahoo or  Al Jazeeraa, to listen and write about the actual story. Nowadays, most people are technologically educated, to determine the reliability of the information by oneself, before spreading it to others. There is only so much the MDA can do to prevent the spread of misinformation. By having a renowned news platform writing the truth, with thousands, possibly millions reading and spreading the actual story, it can bury the defamatory comment/article altogether in the Internet.

Social media is one of the main reasons for the spread of defamation. However, social media is here to stay. It is virtually impossible to entirely stop the spread of misinformation and defamation. The only thing we can do is to work together to come up with measures which minimize the impact misinformation has on individuals and ultimately on Singapore.

• World Economic Forum, 2013, Digital Wildfires in a Hyperconnected World, Retrieved from: http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2013/view/risk-case-1/digital-wildfires-in-a-hyperconnected-world/#/view/fn-10
• The Strait Times, 2013, Online misinformation, rumours and smears a ‘threat’ to Total Defence: Ng Eng Hen, Retrieved from:http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/online-misinformation-rumours-and-smears-threat-total-defence-ng-eng-h
• Melanie Chua, 2013, How Should the Singapore Government Regulate Online News Sites?, Retrieved from: http://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/How-Should-the-Singapore-Government-Regulate-Online-News-Sites.pdf
• Singapore Legal Advice, 2011, What if someone defames me over a blog or other forms of social networking media, Retrieved from:http://singaporelegaladvice.com/what-if-someone-defames-me-over-a-blog-or-other-forms-of-social-networking-media/
• Media Literacy Council, 2013, Media, Internet and I, Retrieved from:http://www.medialiteracycouncil.sg/media-and-internet/Pages/understanding-the-law.aspx

An Influential Event

We all have had our fair share of events influencing and impacting our lives. The most recent influential event for me, was my Overseas Community Involvement Program (OCIP) trip to Laos last December.

24 of us set off from Singapore, to a small village in the middle of nowhere, to help out the villagers, in terms of construction, farming, teaching the children and interacting with the locals. In total we spent 3 weeks over there, away from the hustle and bustle of city life.

Over there, it was an eye-opening experience. For 3 weeks, we lived as the locals did. Farming, construction, cooking, doing laundry by hand, and much more. Life was back to basics, getting down and dirty in the mud. It was dusty, run-down, and had poor cellular reception. Despite that, it was a beautiful place, with scenic views of the mountains in the day, and the stars at night.

Personally, I learnt a lot from the trip. First, the trip has taught me to be thankful and appreciate what we have here in Singapore. It is heartwarming seeing the local children having fun while having little to nothing at all. It has also taught me to step out of my comfort zone, and as much as I can, to put others before myself. Lastly, I learnt to be more open, to people and issues

In the end, I am thankful for this influential event. If given the chance to repeat it all over again, I would.

Problem/Solution Draft 1

With social media, it facilitates the dissemination of misinformation, requiring the local authorities to develop measures to control the spread and development of the problem here in Singapore.  “The Internet remains an uncharted, fast-evolving territory. Current generations are able to communicate and share information instantaneously and at a scale larger than ever before. Social media increasingly allows information to spread around the world at breakneck speed … also enable the rapid viral spread of information that is either intentionally or unintentionally misleading or provocative, with serious consequence” (World Economic Forum, 2013)

For starters, misinformation comes in many forms. Examples of misinformation are such as Internet rumors, scandals, and many more. People wish to be in the know, and do not check the reliability of the information before posting, resulting in the spread of misinformation. Most of the time, only part of the whole picture is captured. The misinformation spread serves an underlying purpose, such as defamation and slander.

In Singapore, there are many platforms for misinformation and defamation to spread, in forms such as Stomp, TheRealSingapore and tabloids. On such platforms, the main agenda is to share “juicy“ information, like scandals and false rumors, to attract viewers. However, such ”information” may be defamatory to the individual/group at hand. Being able to hide behind a screen has given many Internet users a confidence they do not have in social situations. “It is possible to commit defamation in the online world through postings on any website, blogs and social networking sites like Facebook. Even tweets on Twitter and to an extent, SMSes and emails, may be subject to a defamation suit.” (Media Literacy Council, 2013)

Defamation may cause harm to certain individuals, groups, or in severe cases societies as it gathers steam over time. “It is defamatory if it lowers the victim in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, causes the victim to be shunned or avoided, or exposes the victim to hatred, contempt or ridicule. For example, in 1998, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong successfully sued Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, when the latter made a loaded statement without directly accusing the former of wrongdoing.” (Singapore Legal Advice, 2011)

Defamation can also disrupt the peace of Singapore’s many races and religions, if it gathers enough steam over time. Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen says misinformation works “to weaken our resolve and cause disunity”. Online misinformation (such as defamation) could spread widely during tense or volatile situations, he added, causing confusion and chaos” (The Strait Times, 2013) As such, measures have to be taken by the necessary authorities, namely the Media Development Authority (MDA), to control the spread of misinformation.

As of now, MDA has a ruling on the spread of misinformation. In a paper written by the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, it states that “websites which produce an average of at least one Singapore news programme a week for a period of two consecutive months, and with average monthly visitors of at least 50,000 for the same two consecutive months, will have to be individually licensed. In addition, these websites will have to put up a performance bond of $50,000 and will be obligated to comply with any content takedown notice by MDA within a 24- hour period.” (Melanie Chua, 2013) With this ruling, it gives the government control over local means of the possible spread of misinformation and defamation, allowing the government to shut down any sites which go against the regulations.

This has drawn flak from the public, citing that this undermines the right to freedom of speech for the people and the ruling having unreasonable terms and conditions. Protests were held, with the Blackout movement online, and #FreeMyInternet protests held at Hong Lim Park. Many questioned the need for the ruling, as there were previous rulings governing the usage of the Internet in Singapore. Yes, by having multiple rulings on the usage of the Internet here in Singapore helps to reduce the spread of misinformation and defamation, but will it come upon as a threat to the internet, rather than to benefit the Internet in Singapore?

One possible measure that can be implemented, is to have a citizen/government cooperative initiative, to debunk misinformation, and control the spread of defamation. In this case, the government arm responsible could be the MDA. Misinformation can be clarified by the initiative, before being spread to the masses and causing confusion and chaos. The public now would have a reliable source of information to compare against the defamatory claim posted online and judge its validity. As the public is better informed, defamation can be quickly shot down by the public before it makes waves in the community.

However, this suggestion has its own drawbacks. First, one might ask to what extent the citizen/government cooperation is. Too much of government involvement, and one will say that it is state run, controlling behind the scenes. Too much of citizen involvement, and it might turn out to be unreliable. It is difficult to determine the extent of involvement of one party or another. Also, it is only applicable to local means of misinformation.

Another way to control the spread of defamation, is to get a reliable news source, such as Yahoo or  Al Jazeeraa, to listen and write about the actual story. Nowadays, most people are technologically educated, to determine the reliability of the information by oneself, before spreading it to others. There is only so much the MDA can do to prevent the spread of misinformation. By having a renowned news platform writing the truth, with thousands, possibly millions reading and spreading the actual story, it can bury the defamatory comment/article altogether in the Internet.

Social media is one of the main reasons for the spread of defamation. However, social media is here to stay. It is virtually impossible to entirely stop the spread of misinformation and defamation. The only thing we can do is to work together to come up with measures which minimize the impact misinformation has on individuals and ultimately on Singapore.

• World Economic Forum, 2013, Digital Wildfires in a Hyperconnected World, Retrieved from: http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2013/view/risk-case-1/digital-wildfires-in-a-hyperconnected-world/#/view/fn-10
• The Strait Times, 2013, Online misinformation, rumours and smears a ‘threat’ to Total Defence: Ng Eng Hen, Retrieved from:http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/online-misinformation-rumours-and-smears-threat-total-defence-ng-eng-h
• Melanie Chua, 2013, How Should the Singapore Government Regulate Online News Sites?, Retrieved from: http://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/How-Should-the-Singapore-Government-Regulate-Online-News-Sites.pdf
• Singapore Legal Advice, 2011, What if someone defames me over a blog or other forms of social networking media, Retrieved from: http://singaporelegaladvice.com/what-if-someone-defames-me-over-a-blog-or-other-forms-of-social-networking-media/
• Media Literacy Council, 2013, Media, Internet and I, Retrieved from: http://www.medialiteracycouncil.sg/media-and-internet/Pages/understanding-the-law.aspx

Problem/Solutions

With social media, it facilitates the dissemination of misinformation in Singapore, requiring the local authorities to develop measures to control the spread and development of the problem here in Singapore.  “The Internet remains an uncharted, fast-evolving territory. Current generations are able to communicate and share information instantaneously and at a scale larger than ever before. Social media increasingly allows information to spread around the world at breakneck speed … also enable the rapid viral spread of information that is either intentionally or unintentionally misleading or provocative, with serious consequence” (World Economic Forum, 2013)

For starters, misinformation should not be confused with disinformation, as they are two different things. Both involve the dissemination of false info, but the former is in an unintentional manner, and the latter in a deliberate manner (For example, propaganda). People wish to be in the know, and do not check the reliability of the information before posting, resulting in the spread of misinformation. Most of the time, only part of the whole picture is captured.

In Singapore, misinformation is prevalent, in forms such as Stomp, TheRealSingapore and other social media, both local and international. Misinformation may harm an individual by bringing unwanted fame to the individual, and in greater cases, the Singapore society. Misinformation can also disrupt the peace of Singapore’s many races and religions. Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen says misinformation works “to weaken our resolve and cause disunity”. Online misinformation could spread widely during tense or volatile situations, he added, causing confusion and chaos” (The Strait Times, 2013) As such, measures have to be taken by the necessary authorities, namely the Media Development Authority (MDA), to control the spread of misinformation.

As of now, MDA has a ruling on the spread of misinformation. In a paper written by the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, it states that “websites which produce an average of at least one Singapore news programme a week for a period of two consecutive months, and with average monthly visitors of at least 50,000 for the same two consecutive months, will have to be individually licensed. In addition, these websites will have to put up a performance bond of $50,000 and will be obligated to comply with any content takedown notice by MDA within a 24- hour period.” (Melanie Chua, 2013) With this ruling, it gives the government control over local means of information dissemination, allowing the government to shut down any sites which go against the regulations.

This has drawn flak from the public, citing that this undermines the right to freedom of speech for the people and the ruling having unreasonable terms and conditions. Protests were held, with the Blackout movement online, and the #FreeMyInternet protests held at Hong Lim Park. Many questioned the need for the ruling, as there were previous rulings governing the usage of the Internet in Singapore. Yes, by having multiple rulings on the usage of the Internet here in Singapore helps to reduce the spread of misinformation, but will it come upon as a threat to the internet, rather than to benefit the Internet in Singapore?

One possible measure that can be implemented, is to have a citizen/government cooperative initiative, to debunk misinformation, and control the spread of misinformation. Misinformation can be clarified by the initiative, before being spread to the masses and causing confusion and chaos. The public now would have a reliable source of information to compare against the (mis)information they see online and see the whole picture. As the public is better informed, they would spread more of the truth, rather than misinformation.

However, this suggestion has its own drawbacks. First, one might ask what the extent of the citizen/government cooperation is. Too much of government involvement, and one will say that it is state run, controlling behind the scenes. Too much of citizen involvement, and it might turn out to be unreliable. It is difficult to determine the extent of involvement of one party or another.

The best way is still individual vigilance, to determine the reliability of the information by oneself, before spreading it to others. There is only so much the MDA can do to prevent the spread of misinformation. The culprits of spreading misinformation in Singapore are the users of the Internet here, and the best way to reduce the spread of misinformation is to educate the people about the use of the Internet. Individually it might not mean much, but with thousands of people practicing individual vigilance in the spread of misinformation, it would build up. Bit by bit, over time, it will accumulate, putting an end to the spread of misinformation.

Social media is one of the main reasons for the spread of misinformation. However, social media and misinformation are here to stay. It is virtually impossible to entirely stop the spread of misinformation. The only thing we can do is to work together to come up with measures which minimize the impact misinformation has on individuals and ultimately on Singapore.

1)      World Economic Forum, 2013, Digital Wildfires in a Hyperconnected World, Retrieved from: http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2013/view/risk-case-1/digital-wildfires-in-a-hyperconnected-world/#/view/fn-10

2)      The Strait Times, 2013, Online misinformation, rumours and smears a ‘threat’ to Total Defence: Ng Eng Hen, Retrieved from: http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/online-misinformation-rumours-and-smears-threat-total-defence-ng-eng-h

3)      Melanie Chua, 2013, How Should the Singapore Government Regulate Online News Sites?, Retrieved from: http://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/How-Should-the-Singapore-Government-Regulate-Online-News-Sites.pdf

Reader Response Draft 4

In the article, “Who is the true enemy of Internet freedom-China, Russia, or the US?” (Morozov, 2015), the author discusses the issue regarding who poses a greater threat to the Internet- China, Russia or America. The policies implemented by China and Russia may seem as a threat to the free Internet, however America poses a greater threat due to its aggressive nature , and thus the actions taken by China and Russia are justified.

Undeniably, there is a huge American influence over the rest of the world via the Internet. As such, actions have been taken by nations such as China and Russia technologically for self-defense. In the article, Morozov stated that “the US wants to access data generated by anybody anywhere as long as American companies handle it.” This implies that there is a possibility of America intruding one’s technological sovereignty and privacy. Hence, actions taken China and Russia can be viewed as a response to America’s offensive move in the first place. Similarly in Russia, Internet censorship is in the works with RuNet. According to Bodner (2014), “Russia was planning to entirely cut off the Russian Internet — known as RuNet — but due to the “unpredictable behavior” of the U.S. and EU, “we (Russia) have to think about how to ensure our national security.” This highlights Russia’s need for self-defense against US’s actions on the Internet.

Russia and China also implemented such measures to protect themselves from the vast reach of the American government surveillance. America has been in the spotlight in many spying incidents, such as the recent incident involving former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden when sensitive details about global surveillance projects by the US were leaked.

Another example of US surveillance involved US technological firm Google. According to Koutonin (2013), “Google is not just a simple search engine. It’s the biggest spying tool ever created.” Much data, both sensitive and insensitive, is stored on Google’s servers. All this information may be made available to the American government with a few clicks of the mouse. This poses a threat to many countries’ national security, and large nations such as China and Russia are especially concerned with this threat. As a result, measures have been taken to protect against such threat.

China and Russia wish to achieve sovereignty and they have taken measures towards attaining this goal. For example, the Great Firewall of China is one such measure. The Great Firewall of China is possibly the largest and most extensive case of Internet censorship today. In a country with a population exceeding 1 billion, the Chinese government is resistant towards external influences on their people. Hence, implementation of the firewall essentially cuts off foreign influence (mainly American influence) on their people. This gives the Chinese government dominance over its people, achieving sovereignty domestically and technologically.

In addition, measures such as the Great Firewall can help China and Russia stake a claim on the Internet. Staking a claim on the Internet may seem like an absurd idea due to the World Wide Web being an infinite space. Nevertheless, one must admit that the Internet is currently overrun with American control and influence due to the dominance of American technological giants like Google and Microsoft. Hence, America seemingly holds a large stake on the Internet, with its influence spreading far and wide. All 3 nations – America, China and Russia – can be considered global powerhouses and naturally, they wish to have a high level of influence and authority on the Internet as well. Thus, China and Russia are trying to catch up with American which has been dominant on the Internet for many years.

In conclusion, measures taken by nations such as China and Russia are not only to maintain their sovereignty but also to protect themselves due to the threat of spying or surveillance posed by the US. As stated by Morozov, “the concept of technological sovereignty is poised to emerge as one of the most important and contentious doctrines of 2015.” As a result, such measures can also be viewed as ways to assert dominance and power in a world dominated by American influence.

 

References

1) Evgeny Morozov (2015, January 4), Who’s the true enemy of internet freedom – China, Russia, or the US?, Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/04/internet-freedom-china-russia-us-google-microsoft-digital-sovereignty

2) Matthew Bodner (2014, September 19), Russian’s Internet Increasingly Subject to Control, Retrieved from: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russians-internet-increasingly-subject-to-control/507449.html

3) Mawuna Remarquw Koutonin (2013, June 20), Why China and Russia banned Google from their country?, Retrieved from: http://www.siliconafrica.com/why-china-and-russia-banned-google-from-their-country/

Reader Response Draft 3

In the article, “Who is the true enemy of Internet freedom-China, Russia, or the US?” (Morozov, 2015), the author discusses the idea of who poses the bigger threat to a free Internet. I agree with the aithor’s position, that China and Russia pose a danger to the free Internet, but America is also a threat despite of its contributions to the Internet.

The author gives examples namely China, Russia, coming up with measures to achieve technological sovereignty. The moves/policies implemented by them may seem as a threat to the “free” Internet. However, I feel that their actions are justified.

China and Russia wish to achieve sovereignty, and to do so, they have taken measures to ensure such. For example, the Great Firewall of China. It is possibly the largest and most extensive case of Internet censorship today. In a country with a population exceeding 1billion, the Chinese government does not want external influences on their people. As a result, by implementing the firewall, it is essentially cutting off foreign, namely American, influence on their people. This gives the Chinese government dominance over its people, achieving sovereignty domestically and technologically.

Such actions are also to stake a claim on the Internet. Yes, it may sound absurd to stake a claim on the World Wide Web, as it is an infinite space. However, the Internet is now being overrun with American control and influence, due to the dominance of American Internet companies like Microsoft and Google. Unknowingly, America’s reach has spread to nearly worldwide, having a large stake in the Internet. All 3 nations – America, China and Russia – are global powerhouses, and they have to stamp their authority on the world. America has done so for many years. Now, China and Russia are trying to catch up

One undeniable thing, is that there is a huge American influence over world, via the Internet. Actions have been taken by nations such as China and Russia, for self-defense from a technological perspective. From the article, Morozov states that “the US wants to access data generated by anybody anywhere as long as American companies handle it.” This implies that there is a possibility of America intruding one’s technological sovereignty ad privacy. Consequently, the reactions by nations such as China and Russia, are in return to America’s aggressive move in the first place. Similarly in Russia, Internet censorship is in the works, with RuNet. As Bodner (2014) says, “Russia was planning to entirely cut off the Russian Internet — known as RuNet — but said due to the “unpredictable behavior” of the U.S. and EU, “we have to think about how to ensure our national security.” This highlights the need for self-defense against actions taken by the US on the free Internet.

Russia and China also take such measures, as to protect themselves from the vast reach of the American government. America has been at the centre of many spying incidents, namely the Edward Snowden incident, where sensitive details about global surveillance projects by the US had been leaked. This is an example of a far more serious case.

Coming back to a far more general case,”Google is not just a simple search engine. It’s the biggest spying tool ever created.” (Koutonin, 2013) Much data, both sensitive and insensitive is stored on its servers. By pushing the right buttons, all that information may be made available to the American government. This poses as a threat for many nations, especially large nations such as China and Russia. Therefore, measures have to be taken, to protect themselves from such activities.

In short, the measures taken by nations such as China and Russia, is to protect themselves, and achieve sovereignty in today’s world. It is to assert dominance and power in a heavily-American-influenced world. As quoted from Morozov, “the concept of technological sovereignty is poised to emerge as one of the most important and contentious doctrines of 2015.”

1) Evgeny Morozov (2015, January 4) Who’s the true enemy of internet freedom – China, Russia, or the US?

Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/04/internet-freedom-china-russia-us-google-microsoft-digital-sovereignty

2) Matthew Bodner ( 2014, September 19)  Russian’s Internet Increasingly Subject to Control

Retrieved from: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russians-internet-increasingly-subject-to-control/507449.html

3) Mawuna Remarquw Koutonin (2013, June 20) Why China and Russia banned Google from their country?

Retrieved from: http://www.siliconafrica.com/why-china-and-russia-banned-google-from-their-country/