Fighting Deliberate onLine Falsehoods, with Whose Truths?

by MIKOspace

Singapore has begun public hearings by a Parliamentary Select Committee into Deliberate Online Falsehoods. After a few days of hearings, the emergent motherhood consensus is that deliberate online falsehoods can fracture and rapture social trust to the extent as to injure public safety and harm social order should they lead to pervasive and destructive civil disobedience.

I have underlined and emphasized the word “deliberate” so as to highlight its vague distinctions with “unknowing” or “unconscious” types of online falsehoods.  Admittedly, these apparent distinctions are rapidly lost in various intellectual and semantic translations.    

Misinformation, half-truths and fake news are in fact not new.  We are surrounded by all forms of fake and false information in advertisements, man-made religions, philosophies, news articles and public relations spins. Official censorship together with the ideological control of the news and publishing media are also propaganda serving specific and particular power and economic interests.    

According to The Oxford English Dictionary, the new word for 2016 is “post-truth”.  It refers to the existence of “alternative” truths. Whither therefore the status of “deliberate falsehoods” in the internet era of “post-truths”?

The sobering truth is that all information is “deliberate” falsehood and partial-truths to varying degree. Indeed, many would even challenge this statement itself as “deliberate” falsehood and a half-truth!  And they would be neither wrong nor right! Even as I strenuously state it with the sincerest of conviction and belief!  To me therefore, it is a fully true statement. And it also does not matter to me if you should consider it a falsehood. 

Indeed, what difference does it matter? Herein lies the challenge in the war against “deliberate” online falsehood. If you don’t believe it, then don’t.  If you believe it, then own it and make it your very own!

In The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli’s advised that “… he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived.”  To Machiavelli, the people are simple-minded, naïve and gullible, and therefore can be easily manipulated all the time (by those who have the power to do so). [italic words added are mine]. Indeed, Machiavelli of course could not be more wrong or right.

With today’s Internet, Google, Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp … etc, we can expect unpredictable hysteria by the “naïve, gullible and simple-minded” at a greater speed and with dire public safety consequences.  Facebook has boasted of its active influence on the Arab Spring.  Both Facebook and Google do not however agreed to any restrictions or ban on the posting of partial truths, falsehoods and fake news. Quite understandably, no social media has the credentials to assume the role as a Truth-Watcher or Gate-Keeper on the Internet.

Every computer or mobile phone is a microphone for anyone who has something to say or write truth to the rest of the world. Indeed, no legitimate voice should be silenced, but it is arguable as to whether every voice should deserve equal air time on the proverbial social media microphone. The opportunity to be heard and thereby to influence is not a natural inherent birth right. Concepts, opinions, perceived facts and thought belong to the marketplace of ideas and innovations in the highly contested space of social reality.  Whatever and whichever prevailed are socially filtered and constructed through a process of mental and cultural construction that differentiate “falsehoods” from the applicable and practicable truths. Unfortunately, this truth-making process is often corrupted and interfered by crooked and less honourable people in positions of power.           

Action Sensors on onLine Falsehoods

It is not within the capability and capacity of the Parliamentary Select Committee into Deliberate Online Falsehoods (PSCDOF), nor does it has the wisdom, competency and moral aptitude, to recommend and define the parameters of the vast arrays of applicable and practicable truths for the diverse Singapore population.

There are three (3) Action Sensors to evaluate whether corrective actions are necessary on alleged online falsehoods. The Action Sensors are (1) Content; (2) Context; and (3) Consequences. They are inter-related to be considered together integratively.  

Content

A mere statement or publication, however disagreeable or objectionable, does not render itself sufficient to be chastised or proscribed or punished. Since most information is incapable to be absolutely 100% true, partially true information likewise cannot be regarded to be totally false. The absolute truthfulness of statements and publications may often be irrelevant to those who find them objectionable or disagreeable.

This is obviously true with regard to any information pertaining to religious beliefs, traditions and practices held by believers or regarded by nonbelievers. Absolute truth is totally immaterial and irrelevant to believers and nonbelievers.

Within science in the disciplines of medicine, physical and biological sciences, there are also wide disagreements over theories, models and methods and which in turn provide the motivation and momentum for further research and their innovations.  Social sciences clashed repeatedly over the validity and reliability of their predictions, findings and theories.      

As long as the contents of statements or publications are within the permissible bounds of applicable defamatory, libel and slander laws, there should be no basis for any punitive actions.

Context

The context of disagreeable or objectionable statements or publications is an important factor to understand the motivation and purpose of their author(s).    What is known regarding the degree of intellectual acuity and their respective depth of technical knowledge in the subject(s) expressed or written about?  What audience or readers are addressed by the authors? Are the purposes personal, educational, political, social, economic and/or casual conversational?  Is the context closed or opened, referring to whether the statements and publications are intended for named individuals or a defined specific group or for the unspecified public?  A careful assessment of the context is critical to adjudge and infer whether the author(s) intend to cause chaos and mischief, harm public safety, denigrate self-respect, destroy self-esteem, entertain, educate and/or informational.            

As long as there is no intention to disrupt social harmony or harm public safety, vigorous debates and conversations among well-informed and knowledgeable individuals in deeply divisive subject matters such as politics, religions, history, traditions and personal preferences, especially where one has the freedom to choose to enjoin, rebut or leave the discussions or debate, there should be no need for any interference by government officials or state authorities. 

Consequences

When the conflation of content and context resulted in damaging the social fabric of harmony, increased religious and racial tensions, disrupting social peace and harm public safety, enforcement actions are not only necessary, they are vital to restore peaceful social order. This is however applicable only in genuinely democratic societies. The strength of democracy does not however require the prohibition of falsehoods, but in their counter arguments and vigorous rebuttal where they matter.

Ironically, in freely democratic elections, the amounts of misinformation which deploy deliberate online and print falsehoods often multiply to overwhelm the voters.  Examples from the USA, UK, Europe and neighbouring nations require no elaboration.

However, to advocate by insisting on absolute truthfulness during elections is disingenuous and naïve. It is also a no-brainer proposition. Internet accessibility drives the momentum of both volume and quantity of information and misinformation.  Just as misinformation, half-truths and fake news are part and parcel of daily human society, they are also indispensably integral for many politicians during elections to grab and win the benefits of power and privileges.  

Use IoT to Manage onLine Falsehoods 

A non-partisan infrastructure comprising a mix of local and foreign election watchers with security enforcement powers is needed to assure that social peace is preserved and public safety maintained at a high level during and between the election periods.

The key in the effective management of online falsehood is NOT the utopian promotion of truth.  It is in the control and minimisation of the negative disruptive consequences of less-than-truthful information that matters. The following four (4) strategies using Internet-of-Things [IoT] can create a favourable impact:

[1] Technology

Eliminate anonymous internet postings.  Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Social Media owners eg Facebook, Twitter, Instagram … etc must maintain registration of the valid and legitimate names of their subscribers who want to access and be accessible from Singapore.  This would also include any websites who allow feedback and comments on all things Singaporeans. Web-site and social media owners shall be held legally and punitively responsible for harm and damage to individuals and public safety.

[2] Education

Develop a high level of debating skills in our students, including critical thinking and independent thought.  Regular research and essay writing on contentious subjects, field trips, followed by presentations and questions from peers, teachers and visitors would help to reduce students’ simple-minded gullibility and naivety.  

[3] Public Discourse

Promote regular public forum to encourage debates and critical discussions on interesting subject topics, and to learn the etiquette of mutually respectful conversations.  This would also raise the quality of comments and debates on the internet.

[4] Legal and Regulatory

Without anonymity, online actors who choose to cause social chaos and mischief, harm public safety, denigrate self-respect and destroy self-esteem of individuals and communities should face the full extent of incarceration and other legal punitive measures.

Freedom is our noble and privileged foundation to secure for ourselves, our children, our grandchildren and fellow Singaporeans the right to speak and write truth to power and the world. Every Singaporean should be educated to know and understand that they should not pre-digest any opinion unthinkingly, and they should not gullibly swallow everything that come through the internet and social media taps.  

Read, listen and research everything of relevance and interest; question all but believe none of them; and arrive at your very own conclusions. There is no other victorious way to combat deliberate online falsehoods.  

  .