The Government wants to fight back against online misinformation and abusive trolls. But it must be prepared to accept that this is a battle that may not be easily won.
A week ago, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong outlined the Government’s approach to new media.
Laws to combat cyber-bullying and online harassment are on the cards. The aim of these is unobjectionable, though the form these laws take will be closely watched.
More questionable, however, is whether attempts to tackle misinformation and abusive interlocutors will be successful.
Anonymity is out, at least on feedback portal Reach. From next month, users must register in order to post there.
The aim: a safe, responsible online environment which promotes constructive participation.
On specific sites such as Reach, this might be possible. But anyone expecting responsibility and constructive discussion across the Singaporean online space will only be disappointed.
Trolls will remain free to wander the uncurated spaces of the Internet. And some people will still believe falsehoods, regardless of what is done.
Perhaps this is worth acknowledging and accepting, rather than hoping for a fully-informed electorate.
Firstly, although tighter new media rules can help curb the spread of misinformation, they will not stop it. They only apply to larger sites; and besides, Facebook posts, tweets or blog posts can go viral without having to be posted on an online news aggregator.
Secondly, some scientific studies (mainly from the United States) suggest that providing the facts has little effect on misinformed opinions.
These include a 2000 study by J. H. Kuklinski and other researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. They found that correcting false beliefs about welfare programs, such as the budget required and who the recipients were, did not make participants less opposed to them.
In a 2007 Stanford University doctoral thesis by John Bullock, participants read false information about a political candidate’s unpopular policy stances, and were then told that the researchers had made up the information. Despite this unambiguous correction, these participants still disapproved of the candidate more than a control group which did not receive the original misinformation.
More worrying is the so-called backfire effect, when being exposed to facts actually seems to strengthen false beliefs.
A 2010 paper by the University of Michigan’s Brendan Nyhan and Georgia State University’s Jason Reifler found that this was the case for some partisan people.
Participants were given either one version of an article on a policy issue such as the war in Iraq, or a second version with extra paragraphs correcting factual misconceptions.
The version with corrections actually strengthened false beliefs in right-wing participants, when the truth was at odds with their convictions.
Thirdly, the Internet is just a medium. The problem lies with how users react when unverified news makes the rounds.
Those who are capable of critical thinking will take a sceptical view, and perhaps check it against other sources.
What if the news is anti-establishment? The uncritically pro-government will simply dismiss it. And the uncritically anti-government will eagerly believe it, even if facts later show the news to be wrong – and despite anything the Government can do.
Of course, it is still worth the Government’s efforts to make sure that the facts are out there, and easily accessible, so that those who do care about accuracy can fact-check.
The Government’s intention to continue engaging and explaining itself – rather than changing policy based on online sentiments – will also give open-minded citizens a chance to assess arguments for and against policies.
Besides, the very act of engaging could have benefits. With ministries and MPs having taken to Facebook, and even the Prime Minister himself on photo-sharing site Instagram, new media helps the Government put forward a friendlier, more human face.
Social media might help erode the perceived distance between citizens and the state, and soften the image of a detached and impersonal Government.
This softer aspect of engagement might eventually prove more fruitful than the hard war on untruths, which will be a long, drawn-out affair. Misinformation and misinformed views, whether pro- or anti-establishment, will persist.
This may seem a cynical view, but it is far from new. Worries about an ignorant electorate long predate the Internet.
After all, America’s founding fathers’ deep scepticism about voters’ competence was why they preferred representative democracy over direct democracy – a choice that democracies over the world today have followed.
A week ago, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong outlined the Government’s approach to new media.
Laws to combat cyber-bullying and online harassment are on the cards. The aim of these is unobjectionable, though the form these laws take will be closely watched.
More questionable, however, is whether attempts to tackle misinformation and abusive interlocutors will be successful.
Anonymity is out, at least on feedback portal Reach. From next month, users must register in order to post there.
The aim: a safe, responsible online environment which promotes constructive participation.
On specific sites such as Reach, this might be possible. But anyone expecting responsibility and constructive discussion across the Singaporean online space will only be disappointed.
Trolls will remain free to wander the uncurated spaces of the Internet. And some people will still believe falsehoods, regardless of what is done.
Perhaps this is worth acknowledging and accepting, rather than hoping for a fully-informed electorate.
Firstly, although tighter new media rules can help curb the spread of misinformation, they will not stop it. They only apply to larger sites; and besides, Facebook posts, tweets or blog posts can go viral without having to be posted on an online news aggregator.
Secondly, some scientific studies (mainly from the United States) suggest that providing the facts has little effect on misinformed opinions.
These include a 2000 study by J. H. Kuklinski and other researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. They found that correcting false beliefs about welfare programs, such as the budget required and who the recipients were, did not make participants less opposed to them.
In a 2007 Stanford University doctoral thesis by John Bullock, participants read false information about a political candidate’s unpopular policy stances, and were then told that the researchers had made up the information. Despite this unambiguous correction, these participants still disapproved of the candidate more than a control group which did not receive the original misinformation.
More worrying is the so-called backfire effect, when being exposed to facts actually seems to strengthen false beliefs.
A 2010 paper by the University of Michigan’s Brendan Nyhan and Georgia State University’s Jason Reifler found that this was the case for some partisan people.
Participants were given either one version of an article on a policy issue such as the war in Iraq, or a second version with extra paragraphs correcting factual misconceptions.
The version with corrections actually strengthened false beliefs in right-wing participants, when the truth was at odds with their convictions.
Thirdly, the Internet is just a medium. The problem lies with how users react when unverified news makes the rounds.
Those who are capable of critical thinking will take a sceptical view, and perhaps check it against other sources.
What if the news is anti-establishment? The uncritically pro-government will simply dismiss it. And the uncritically anti-government will eagerly believe it, even if facts later show the news to be wrong – and despite anything the Government can do.
Of course, it is still worth the Government’s efforts to make sure that the facts are out there, and easily accessible, so that those who do care about accuracy can fact-check.
The Government’s intention to continue engaging and explaining itself – rather than changing policy based on online sentiments – will also give open-minded citizens a chance to assess arguments for and against policies.
Besides, the very act of engaging could have benefits. With ministries and MPs having taken to Facebook, and even the Prime Minister himself on photo-sharing site Instagram, new media helps the Government put forward a friendlier, more human face.
Social media might help erode the perceived distance between citizens and the state, and soften the image of a detached and impersonal Government.
This softer aspect of engagement might eventually prove more fruitful than the hard war on untruths, which will be a long, drawn-out affair. Misinformation and misinformed views, whether pro- or anti-establishment, will persist.
This may seem a cynical view, but it is far from new. Worries about an ignorant electorate long predate the Internet.
After all, America’s founding fathers’ deep scepticism about voters’ competence was why they preferred representative democracy over direct democracy – a choice that democracies over the world today have followed.
