Legal (partially private, only for registered users) > Agencies & Associations

Minlaw: Combating Online Falsehoods (aka Fake News)

(1/6) > >>



Annexe A: Green Paper

Annexe B: Factsheet on Select Committee

Annexe C: Infographic on Deliberate Online Falsehoods

Annexe D: Infographic on the Select Committee Process

Backup: Cache of Annexe A to D

Official Media Coverage

Select Committee to examine fake news threat in Singapore

Parliament: MPs suggest various approaches to tackle fake news



Mission: "We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding. is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels."

Process: "At, we follow a process when we select, research, write, edit and, if necessary, correct our articles.",

Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

20th Jan 2018: Original posting by Mark Zuckerberg:
"Continuing our focus for 2018 to make sure the time we all spend on Facebook is time well spent...
Last week I announced a major change to encourage meaningful social interactions with family and friends over passive consumption. As a result, you'll see less public content, including news, video, and posts from brands. After this change, we expect news to make up roughly 4% of News Feed -- down from roughly 5% today. This is a big change, but news will always be a critical way for people to start conversations on important topics.
Today I'm sharing our second major update this year: to make sure the news you see, while less overall, is high quality. I've asked our product teams to make sure we prioritize news that is trustworthy, informative, and local. And we're starting next week with trusted sources.
There's too much sensationalism, misinformation and polarization in the world today. Social media enables people to spread information faster than ever before, and if we don't specifically tackle these problems, then we end up amplifying them. That's why it's important that News Feed promotes high quality news that helps build a sense of common ground.
The hard question we've struggled with is how to decide what news sources are broadly trusted in a world with so much division. We could try to make that decision ourselves, but that's not something we're comfortable with. We considered asking outside experts, which would take the decision out of our hands but would likely not solve the objectivity problem. Or we could ask you -- the community -- and have your feedback determine the ranking.
We decided that having the community determine which sources are broadly trusted would be most objective.
Here's how this will work. As part of our ongoing quality surveys, we will now ask people whether they're familiar with a news source and, if so, whether they trust that source. The idea is that some news organizations are only trusted by their readers or watchers, and others are broadly trusted across society even by those who don't follow them directly. (We eliminate from the sample those who aren't familiar with a source, so the output is a ratio of those who trust the source to those who are familiar with it.)
This update will not change the amount of news you see on Facebook. It will only shift the balance of news you see towards sources that are determined to be trusted by the community.
My hope is that this update about trusted news and last week's update about meaningful interactions will help make time on Facebook time well spent: where we're strengthening our relationships, engaging in active conversations rather than passive consumption, and, when we read news, making sure it's from high quality and trusted sources."


(From left) The headline Mr Neo Aik Chau edited and the original headline.

Facebook user apologises for doctoring article on City Harvest verdict
Feb 07, 2018 | SEOW BEI YI

A man who uploaded a doctored newspaper report on Facebook, suggesting a lawyer -who is an MP from the People's Action Party (PAP) - saved the six people in the City Harvest Church case from harsher sentences, has apologised on social media.

Mr Neo Aik Chau, 38, a delivery driver, posted the apology on his Facebook page yesterday.

He also apologised in at least two other Facebook groups but not on the public page where he uploaded the doctored report.

Mr Neo's apologies came a day after the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) wrote to him about the false report.

Writing in Chinese on his Facebook page, Mr Neo said:"I swear not to post anything like this again. Please forgive me."

On Monday, Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam said the AGC considers the Facebook post of the doctored article a case of contempt by scandalising the courts.

Originally posted on a public Facebook group whose name translates to "Policy discussion forum", Mr Neo's post was of Chinese evening daily Lianhe Wanbao's Page 1 report with a false headline.

The original said an outdated law saved Kong Hee and five others from harsher penalties.

The false headline said a PAP lawyer saved them, referring to Mr Edwin Tong, an MP for Marine Parade GRC, who was Kong's lawyer in the criminal trial.

Shin Min Daily News reported yesterday that Mr Neo said he was "inspired" by coffee-shop chatter over the verdict.

"I'd only meant to put it on the Facebook group as a talking point, and did not have malicious intent. I didn't think it would be reposted," he said.

Lianhe Wanbao editor Goh Sin Teck said of the fake headline: "This is not creativity and is a type of behaviour with malicious intent, attempting to mislead the public. It should be condemned."



[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version