Unless there is some precise definition of fake news, this is just censorship in sheep's clothing.
There's no scientific evidence to make those concepts not possible. Just evidence to make things we understand possible.
And on top of that, we have some kind of fucked up exception for God. Even scientists are just unwilling to go on a rant to disprove god, but totally happy putting someone in the psych ward for believing in aliens kidnapping them.
(im not talking about ALL scientists - of course you'll find them, but talking about bulk percentages here)
Thought police are coming.
> Why does saying that Hillary Clinton is guilty of something need to stop?
That's a too-literal reading of the comment. The implication was clearly that what needs to stop is lies that claim Hillary Clinton is guilty of something she's not.
The only sane solution to this is to educate the masses, give them the tools to may be verify facts ...etc.
(I'm in favor of banning organized news manufacturing. But I fully acknowledge that it's not practical and leaves a lot of room for bias. If President Trump gets that power, there's nothing stopping him from banning CNN entirely and I'm pretty convinced that he would.)
Maybe the solution to the problem is pressuring Facebook and Google. Maybe the solution is changing tech culture. Maybe the solution is more aggressively demoting fake news and promoting debunking of fake news. Even if you want a governmental component, maybe we should only go so far as a law requiring advertising networks to make it easier/possible for an advertiser to blacklist who gets their money (I know people who have tried, failed, and ultimately gave up on trying to prevent their ads from showing up on Breitbart).
(And just so we're clear, the earth is round. It's a shame I have to state that, lest the rabid opponents of harmless flat earth nutters get the wrong idea, jump down my throat, and accuse me of all manner of outlandish offenses.)
Do you remember that guy who made a hydrogen peroxide rocket, said that he was going to check if the earth was actually round? Got a lot of support from flat earthers? He also got a ton of vitriol from 'sensible' round earthers too. A LOT of vitriol. People hoping he would die. Why? Because an Evel Knievel wannabe would joke around with internet memes about the earth being flat to fund his stunt? That's cause to wish his death? It was deranged. After he pulled off his stunt, comment threads across the internet about it had people lamenting his survival. People earnestly wanted this man (whom they'd never met!) to die, simply because he said the earth was flat. Even if he were sincere in that belief, which is doubtful, that's not any reason to become angry with him.
I don't think it's unfair for a site to not want to be associated with scam artists.
Singaporean here. This is the bill that was proposed in Singapore's parliament on 1 April (PDF): https://www.parliament.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-do...
The problem that many people have with the bill, as it is, is that it gives the power to Singapore's government ministers to issue "correction" or "stop communication" directions, on the entirely arbitrary grounds of "public interest".
There is a definition of "public interest" in the bill, but it includes a section which contains broad terms like "… to prevent a diminution of public confidence in [the government and its bodies]". The courts have no power to determine whether the public interest need is legitimate.
Second, the bill is procedurally flawed. An entity issued with an order by the minister must comply immediately, or can be charged with non-compliance. If they wish to contest the order, they have to first appeal to the minister, which is not obliged to reply within a fixed period of time. It is only after a minister rejects their appeal that they are allowed to file a case in the High Court (which requires expensive legal representation, unlike the State Courts).
This allows a minister to effectively delay the appeal process indefinitely.
Furthermore, unlike defamation, the minister also has the power to require the given entity to publish a specifically-worded apology (at their own expense).
This is worse than mere censorship — it's giving the government the power to make people say things.
Finally, note that the Singapore government is claiming to have jurisdiction over all media, as long as it is communicated to an end user in Singapore. Content publishers and their intermediaries will also be affected by this law.