Earlier quoted context omitted.
First of all, there is no such thing as a requirement for a blogging licence. I can blog, my friends can blog - and we all don't have to get a blogging licence. It is irresponsible, given that the author claims to have "read an article", that he decided to summarise it in two words - a "blogging license". This shows that either he doesn't understand it, or he is deliberately trying to mislead people. While the term "…
My point was that a license was not required to simply blog - which was what the article was insinuating. For the exact rules for licensing of news websites, go to http://www.mda.gov.sg/NewsAndEvents/PressRelease/2013/Pages/... I'm not saying I agree with it. But at the same time I think that as long as it is not abused (to be addressed below), it is intended to prevent the new class of "independent journalists" from…
Who decides which facts are right and how does paying $50,000 prevent someone from publishing false information?
> From the linked fact sheet: The new Licence provides greater clarity on prevailing requirements within the Class Licence and Internet Code of Practice, and explains what MDA would consider “prohibited content” in the existing Internet Code of Practice, e.g. content that undermines racial or religious harmony.
Literally everything said by US civil rights leaders during the 20th century could be construed as "undermining racial harmony" (in the US). Why is preventing this kind of thing important?