Put POFMA on the Menu
Singapore's answer to National's Facebook Election Strategy
This week the Prime Minister flew to Singapore to sign a deal to ensure that no matter how awful the world gets, we’ll still trade essential goods with each other (except it doesn’t, in the fine print it says it’s not actually a guarantee, just a nice thing to aim for). Not sure if it warranted the PM to go personally but it’s been weeks since he had a tax payer funded trip out of the country and he didn’t go to India and we all know he was itching to be the face of that so badly - so he was probably entitled to it or something.
And I’m not here to chastise that deal - but if there’s one thing I would love for us to really bring back from Singapore, it’s POFMA - or the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act and it is considered the gold standard of laws that stop politicians and political parties from bullshitting online - a problem we have here, especially from the National Party. In one 24 hour period this week, on Monday, the party made 4 false or misleading claims alone on their Facebook page ranging from Labour was soft on crime using their cherry picked and wildly extrapolated crime stats they keep repeating, through to ram raid numbers, again taking credit for work Labour did which saw massive drops in the number of these before the election.
The National Party MPs and candidates keep posting easily provable falsehoods on an almost daily basis - and the fucked up thing is that legally, there is sweet fuck all we can do about it except point out they’re lying which they can still remove from their posts - because unless they’re paying for them, they’re just Facebook posts and anyone can claim anything in those.
But in Singapore, they have had POFMA since 2019.
When a social media post is made that’s misleading or false, the posters are forced to issue a correction - they’re not allowed to remove it. This is designed to stop the Streisand effect from kicking in, where people go hunting for something that’s been removed and ends up having more eyes on the incorrect information than if they’d just left it. It’s not just the author though that is targeted - by law it also covers the platforms themselves to ensure those that saw the original post also see the correction.
To make sure the law was taken seriously the punishments are severe - a hefty fine or up to a 5 years in prison. And it has a near 100% compliance rate.
On top of all that, it was tested in fire - well during the height of the covid pandemic where 55% of all early complaints were about Covid disinformation. It was seen as a major element that led to the 92% vaccination rate Singapore saw without the parallel realities a lot of western countries ended up with, and POFMA has a high rate of accuracy over censorship because it means people can still say what they want but now it’s juxtaposed with data and facts.
I know it sounds too good to be true but there are downsides.
Because the measure of what’s a falsehood is decided by government there it means the government gets to fact check it’s opponents, it had an impact on journalism and activism, making it harder for these groups to hold the government - which chooses what is “true” - to account, especially in an election. And David Seymour’s comments this week around RNZ show he’d be keen on that kind of power. And because the process is “correct first, argue details later”, it leaves open disingenuous attacks that take time to go through the legal process to course correct.
Then there’s always the argument that the way information is presented is actually just how it’s been interpreted so it’s not wrong exactly, just seen from a different perspective. And I know there’s going to be people who argue the truth is the truth no matter what, but there are many issues where perspective impacts reality - For right wing Herald readers for example, the reality is the Tax Payers Union is presented as an impartial, legitimate data source of influence but for people not in that ecosystem, it’s clear they’re a corporate right wing Astroturf who answer to no one and should be ignored totally. Those differences change how people see something presented to them in the same way.
There are ways to minimise these issues though - an independent way to define accuracy - so maybe some sort of centralised database, a public accessible repository of evidence that looks at facts, figures, findings from groups like the BSA or judicial outcomes or academic research. Of course, as soon as you mention a “Ministry of truth” or even a library, you can see how that will send alarm bells going for the hard right, especially those who read the synopsis to the 1984 version of 1984 on the back of a VHS cover and think they understand it’s meaning.
But finding a way to ensure independence would be important to stop the tool from being abused and we have done this in legislation before - it’s already enshrined in the Public Services Act, The Crown Entities Act, the SOE Act, the Broadcasting Act, the Policing Act, the Reserve Bank Act, the OIA, the Ombudsman Act and of course the Human Rights Act.
And a narrower definition of what is covered - limited to say, public health, public safety and election integrity - it would help limit the ability of the law to polish a governments reputation or enshitify the oppositions reputation. No one should be concerned something silly, like a Star Wars Day post becomes subject to something like this because they used the word fourth instead of 4th, for example. But clearly defined limits and scope help ensure accuracy and fairness for all - it’s actually one of the reasons why we have PREFU, to make sure that before an election all parties have the same data available to campaign on so they don’t make promises they can’t afford.
And maybe look at slightly less intense punishments - people make mistakes after all and shouldn’t be punished for a genuine fuck up. But coordinated, malicious actors who keep lying, they would then be the most likely to be punished. We could go so far as to change how party campaigns are funded, meaning an actual level playing field and therefore a disincentive to bullshit being just as impactful for well funded parties over not as well funded ones, but again, won’t happen any time soon and certainly not under this lot.
I wouldn’t expect the coalition to consider anything like this - just look at their idiotic decision around the BSA because they hurt the feewings of a big man baby who supports the coalition - it would hold them specifically to account far too much since they are so loose with truth and accuracy, and so against accountability for themselves but one of the most common comments I get from people when I make content pointing out falsehoods and bullshit is that there is an appetite for this type of law here. Maybe it’s something one of the opposition parties will consider, I honestly don’t know.
But in the mean time, when you do see falsehoods online from political figures, there’s a couple of things you can do. Firstly, you can point out in the comments the data is incorrect and if possible cite a source or link to show the correct information. You won’t necessarily change the minds of the hard core voters for the person putting out bullshit, and there are some Parties that thrive on disinformation that you won’t make much cut through with but putting it out there means others have an ability to see the truth or decontextualise the data. The other action you can take is to report it to the platform you see it on. Some won’t do bugger all - Twitter for example generally don’t care how wrong someone is, but there may be a community note added. Facebook is a little better at dealing with constant feedback about accuracy by limiting reach while Tik Tok can be quite serious, if sometimes a little slow, in dealing with disinformation complaints.
And of course, make sure you use your voice to share accurate data and facts and share your perspective and most importantly, that you and those around you vote! We’re now 6 months away from the election, that’s 6 more months of this bullshit being sprayed at us in an industrial hose strength stream and the most effective way we can stop it is to change the government at this stage.
Excellent outline Paul - but making the right wing and their media mouthpieces in this country accountable for truth is too good to be true.
I hope someone called out Bidois for this blatant twisting of facts?