The Executive Yuan on Wednesday released a video to explain proposed legislative amendments aimed at curbing the spread of disinformation. The purpose of the video was to address confusion and concern over the proposed amendments that were similar to reactions following proposals to fight “fake news” in Europe and elsewhere.
The biggest problem with such regulations is that terms such as “disinformation” and “misinformation” can never be objectively defined, giving those in power great leeway to enforce the rules in a way that suppresses dissenting opinions, which are fundamental to a democracy.
Such laws can never effectively accomplish what they intend to achieve. The nature of the Internet is such that posts can come from anywhere and forums for expression are innumerable.
Even the Executive Yuan’s suggestion that media platform operators be responsible for managing the content users post would be ineffective, as this is a reactionary measure and the “damage” would already be done before any action is taken, while blocked users can create new accounts — something China has tasked a whole government department to do.
The Guardian quoted Italian-Spanish professor of law Alberto Alemanno as saying that trying to fight “fake news” with legislation is “likely to end up being irrelevant, or even to exacerbate the root causes of the fake news phenomenon.” It would be much more effective to tackle the “underlying, structural reasons why [fake news] is so pervasive in our society and media environment,” Alemanno said.
One approach is to hold the media to higher standards, but there is a limit to what the government can require of the media in a democracy.
Minister Without Portfolio Lo Ping-cheng (羅秉成) said that the government and the media are “partners,” but traditional and social media should actually provide checks and balances on government power, scrutinizing and possibly exposing politicians and policies. Arguably, the government should put fewer restrictions on free speech, not more.
Laws prohibit political polls from being published within 10 days before elections, with breaches carrying fines of up to NT$5 million (US$161,985) and prison time. Legislators have also proposed a fact-checking agency to flag or remove posts deemed “harmful,” but once a post is up, any harm that it could do has already been done. A reposted, fact-checked story might not even be seen by the same readers. The public would also question who had done the fact-checking.
“People don’t necessarily believe mainstream media and political elites,” Lisa-Maria Neudert of the Oxford Internet Institute told the Guardian.
What harm can “fake news” and so-called “disinformation” do? A well-known example of fake news leading to physical harm is “Pizzagate,” in which a man fired upon people in a Comet Ping Pong pizzeria in Washington in December 2016 after a tabloid published a story claiming that former US secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton was running a pedophile ring out of it. However, this isolated and outlandish incident could hardly be used as justification for new legislation.
Disinformation is said to have its biggest effect on sentiment at the ballot box. That might be the case for socially divisive issues, but the main factor is whether voters are equipped to discern the quality of information they see.
Canada has run campaigns since the 1990s to teach children to question the media, such as House Hippo and Media Monkey commercials. Rather than legislation, which could impede free speech, the government should encourage the public to be critical consumers of information.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath