There is little doubt in my mind that humanity needs to be monitored. The problem I see is obvious. Who does the monitoring? The 21st century may well turn out to be the age of misinformation, yet a backlash against fake news and click bait seems to be more prominent.
Authoritarian states crack down on misinformation. Why? Is it because such information is bad for their citizens? After all, authoritarians are the worst form of misinformation. Singapore has a proposal for a new law which gives the government full discretion over online falsehoods.
What could go wrong?
Singapore’s Law Ministry calls it the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill. From what I can tell from the details, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg should not travel to Singapore.
OK, back to the problem at hand. Who monitors the monitors? Voters? Hardly. More government authorities? How’s that worked out so far?
Eileen Yu explains how Singapore might handle such authoritarian rule in the most obvious of bureaucratic methods.
Minister for Communications and Information S. Iswaran said ministers were in the “best position” to decide whether a piece of content was falsehood and assess its impact on public interest. Once this was determined to be so, the minister would work with the Infocomm Media Development Authority on the action to take.
What could go wrong with that?
Apple seems to have done a decent job of monitoring the App Stores and video content (not music content, though) in a very Disneyesque manner. That is by design. Apple does not want to scare customers away with controversial content that could infect its masses.
It should be obvious that Apple CEO Tim Cook leads the charge but I’m certain there is a level of consensus within the company’s executive ranks.
Again, who monitors the monitors? Somebody needs to and the electorate cannot be trusted to do the job. Two words. 20-16.
Nobody monitored Google and Facebook and look what happened. Is it any wonder that a billion people take refuge in Apple’s walled garden ecosystem?