POFMA saves the day... kind of

It was with a touch of grim schadenfreude that I read the news that Facebook had, in its own words, been "compelled by law" to block the fake news peddler States Times Review (STR).

I've never been a huge proponent of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA). Back in 2019 when it was first introduced, I expressed concerns that it would give the Singapore Government too much discretionary power to censor. But I was also painfully conscious of the fact that as much as some Singaporeans demand full transparency and Freedom of Speech from the Government, they've also done precious little to show that they can handle those things with the responsibility and gravitas they deserve.

In the long run, without being exposed to such poisonous elements of society, how can Singaporeans learn to discern for themselves instead of outsourcing their thinking to the Government? Is that any way forward for a First World Nation?

Fast-forward almost a year later, amid the panic-causing outbreak of the Wuhan Coronavirus, newly christened COVID-19. A Facebook page States Times Review posted fake news on several different occasions. Here are some of its ludicrous claims:

The Government is unable to trace the source of infection for any of the infected COVID-19 cases in Singapore. Nonsense.

Singapore has run out of surgical masks. Minister Chan Chun Sing has debunked this clearly (and entertainingly) enough.

Seven countries have since banned travel to Singapore, citing lack of confidence in the Singapore government's public health measures. Lack of confidence? Oh, really?

(all these claims, and more, may be more thoroughly debunked on Factually.)

All this was designed to sow public panic and confusion, distrust towards the Government and undermine confidence in Singapore while drawing as many eyeballs to the website as possible.

The POFMA hammer.

The Singapore Government stepped in, wielding POFMA as a hammer, to strike at STR, ordering STR to issue correction notices to the false articles. When STR failed to comply, POFMA was again used, this time on Facebook itself, to block Facebook user access to STR. Now STR is an Online Declared Location, and may no longer be accessed within Singapore.

I may still have my reservations regarding POFMA... but it could not have happened to a more deserving site than STR. As a citizen of Singapore; indeed, as a human being, I find the opportunistic act of capitalizing on the fear of death amid a very real and very delicate situation, both irresponsible and morally repugnant.

Did the Singapore Government do the right thing?

What is the right thing, in this instance? Let things stand, and trust Singaporeans to be able to hold steady instead of being misled by charlatans? Or act swiftly to stifle malicious rumor-mongering that could spell disaster if fear spreads?

I know what I'd prefer. STR is not a site I visit often, if at all, for obvious reasons. Calling it a "joke" would be charity because satire actually has value. STR is not satire and has no place in a society that wants to be governed by reason. And therefore, in a perfect world, no one would pay that stinking heap of rubbish any mind, thus removing the necessity behind the Singapore Government's recent actions. In a perfect society, people would be free to choose, and they would choose to give STR the attention it deserves - none.

Time running out.

But this isn't a perfect world, or a perfect society. Far from it. And this is not a situation that allows for a generous margin of error. This is a situation which is dangerously fluid, where time is a luxury.

The Singapore Government did not do the "right" thing. They did the only thing they could, with whatever tools they had. I don't like it, but perhaps it's for the best.

Facebook's reaction

Facebook did not seem altogether too happy about this. In a statement to BBC, their spokesperson said the following.

"We believe orders like this are disproportionate and contradict the government's claim that POFMA would not be used as a censorship tool."

"We've repeatedly highlighted this law's potential for overreach and we're deeply concerned about the precedent this sets for the stifling of freedom of expression in Singapore."

Facebook doesn't have to like Singapore's laws - I'm not sure I'm entirely fond of them myself sometimes - but if Facebook wants to continue operating within Singapore, it is going to have to comply with those laws. There is no room for negotiation there. And if they're not willing to do so, they should feel free to adhere to those fancy principles of Freedom of Expression and forego the 5 million or so user accounts on this island. It's a pittance compared to the few billion they've already foregone in China.

Respect our laws.

I use Facebook without paying a cent. I'm on board with Facebook hitting me with advertisements, monitoring my conversations or tracking whatever I do on their platform. I consider it a fair trade. But I draw a hard, firm line at Facebook having the audacity to even suggest that our laws are wrong.

Whether they are or not, isn't the point. Facebook can shove its "deep concern" somewhere dark and hopefully painful. Facebook is a Social Media platform, and as much as I respect Facebook as a tech entity, the issue of Singapore's "freedom of expression" is something to be decided by Singaporeans, not Americans. Americans may be in love with their own brand of Democracy despite (or because of) the fact that it produced the relentless source of hilarity that is President Donald Trump. They may not have the imagination required to even comprehend how entire societies can choose not to live the way Americans do.

But that's their fucking problem.

Know your place, Facebook.

Just another slow (fake) news day,
T___T