Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Singapore tells Facebook to correct post under new fake news law

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 251 posts

Re: Singapore tells Facebook to correct post under new fake news law

#221

Post by magduf »

humanrebar wrote: post #163
saiya-jin wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever been to Switzerland? What you describe sounds like Suisse, but without all those dark aspects you mention. Open and just society that does treat people fairly. Super low criminality (compared to most world). Kids playing outside etc. Maybe for US persons this seems like a paradise, but its not a unique place. I know where I want to raise my kids. It sure as hell ain't some artificial bubble like Singapo…

Most small towns in the U.S. are extremely safe. I used to live in one and I basically never locked my home or car. And people are spread out enough that you still get plenty of freedom... no particular zoning, nobody to be bothered by your noise, etc.

Small towns have no high-paying jobs; that's why they're mostly dying and people are moving to the metro areas.

Re: Singapore tells Facebook to correct post under new fake news law

#222

Post by ValentineC »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #31
Aperocky wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a population vote the same party in every election cycle, does that mean the elections are pointless? Or are you suggesting the elections are marred by fraud? It has to be one of these two.

There is a third option, that the election system is designed to allow only the desired result. For example, only two of the five possible Singapore Presidential elections have been contested.

> There is a third option, that the election system is designed to allow only the desired result. For example, only two of the five possible Singapore Presidential elections have been contested.

Adding on: this is because the PAP in Singapore controls more than two-thirds of parliament [1], and have been able to push through constitutional changes without much consultation [2].

I think the increase in the private-sector requirement for candidates of our presidency (overtly disqualifying Tan Cheng Bock, a former PAP MP who was a candidate for the presidential elections, and is now the leader of an opposition party) slipped past many of our political critics until it was too late; a lot of uproar was focused on the elections being reserved for people from a specific ethnic group [3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Parliament_of_Singapore

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Singapore#Amen...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_elections_in_Sing...

Re: Singapore tells Facebook to correct post under new fake news law

#223

Post by ValentineC »

pirsquare wrote: post #76
ShorsHammer wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you say that Singapore's elections are faked? And the results invalid?

Singaporean here - I don't think they are faked. It's just that we don't have strong opposition party. Many opposition parties here spent majority of their time complaining every single decision the government makes instead of making actual contribution to the society.

> Many opposition parties here spent majority of their time complaining every single decision the government makes instead of making actual contribution to the society.

What would you consider "actual contribution to the society"? Any chance you could give examples of some things you would like to see opposition candidates do?

Re: Singapore tells Facebook to correct post under new fake news law

#224

Post by ValentineC »

xuki wrote: post #131
ShorsHammer wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes SNG expat here. Why exactly do you think that is? Surely there is enough highly talented, smart people to have a crack at a political office that's been held for decades and of course an enthusiastic young generation who have lived under this system perhaps interested in a change? It's a country with one of the highest average IQ's on Earth and I'm always intrigued by the statement "no viable opposition". T…

My theory is people who want to join politics, do it for power, for money, for status. Put yourself in their shoes, which party would you affiliate with to set yourself up? PAP also have an extensive network of grassroot organizations to recruit any young talents who want to join. It's very hard to change the status quo unless PAP leadership makes a series of catastrophic mistakes.

> My theory is people who want to join politics, do it for power, for money, for status. Put yourself in their shoes, which party would you affiliate with to set yourself up?

Not all political candidates seek power, money, or status.

Some might just want parliament to be more diverse than one party making up more than two-thirds of it, and having the power to push through constitutional changes any time they want.

Aspiring politicians who join the PAP hoping to steer it from within probably haven't thought about how they're subject to the party whip [1], and how nobody has disobeyed the whip since Tan Cheng Bock.

[1] https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/explainer-what-does-wh...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tan_Cheng_Bock#Nominated_Membe...

Re: Singapore tells Facebook to correct post under new fake news law

#225

Post by ValentineC »

xuki wrote: post #132
sumedh wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they simply don't match the quality of PAP's candidates. Is that by design?

I would say it's a positive feedback loop. PAP is the main party, so young talents are more likely to join, which in turn makes PAP stronger.

> PAP is the main party, so young talents are more likely to join, which in turn makes PAP stronger.

What makes "young talents" suitable for good governance?

Re: Singapore tells Facebook to correct post under new fake news law

#226

Post by apatters »

ulfw wrote: post #192
apatters wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You statement seems like whataboutism, a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit someone else by making an false accusation of hypocrisy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism In truth a common Western position is that China and Singapore are not equivalent because despite its problems, Singapore still commits fewer human rights violations than China. This position is based on extensive research and observati…

You completely misinterpreted my small single sentence and misread my background too. I don't intend to discredit Singapore. AT ALL. I have high respect for Singapore as a nation and some of my best friends live there. I lived there for three years, founded a startup there. My "professional connections" to China are absolutely tiny in comparison and have nothing to do with my statement. Not everyone has political mot…

Your response is long on explanations of what a nice guy you are and how much you love Singapore, where your close business partners reside.

All that however is immaterial to the observation that you've committed the fallacy of whataboutism, seemingly to discredit critics of China's human rights violations, which you've labeled as political - please consider that for many people the right to not have their organs harvested or be force fed pork is more than just politics.

Respectfully I think this is a poor look for a business leader and graduate of America's elite universities. Or for anyone.

Re: Singapore tells Facebook to correct post under new fake news law

#227

Post by Meph504 »

diveanon wrote: post #211
Meph504 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>"Nobody cares about freedom of the press because they are well paid and comfortable. They have truly figured out how to placate the masses." Could this not equally be applied to America?

I hate America as much as the next Mexican, but to compare the two speaks to how little you have traveled. The US has freedom of the press, Singapore does not. It really is that simple. I worry about my ability to enter Singapore after posting comments like this, which is a real concern that impacts my livelihood.

Somehow you've mistaken a statement about the complaince of Americans due to the level of comfort we have, with the actual legal structure and rights available in two countries.

Additionally, I don't hate America but readily admit we have our faults.

Your statement about my travels, is equally inaccurate.

Re: Singapore tells Facebook to correct post under new fake news law

#228

Post by michaelmrose »

Barrin92 wrote: post #83
michaelmrose wrote: post #2

It's unconscionable to subordinate US companies and Australian citizens to a feckless foreign power. If Singapore why not every other nation on earth?

It's actually perfectly reasonable to subject American companies to the laws of nations they operate in unless you're suggesting they ought to act in imperial fashion and ignore the law of sovereign nations. It goes without saying that the same is, of course, true for foreign companies in the US.

They are asking a US company to censor the words of an Australian because its about them. There are 190 something depending on who you count nations in the world. Anyone who connects a server to the internet is instantly "operating" in every one of them to some degree.

A company should expect to be subject to risk whatever assets it has in a nation and ought to ensure they don't HAVE assets to lose anywhere that is likely to make unreasonable demands or confiscate these assets.

This is because the alternative is only allowing speech that would pass muster in all.

Re: Singapore tells Facebook to correct post under new fake news law

#229

Post by mac01021 »

sethgecko wrote: post #135
mac01021 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the examples of safety that you provide describe my experience in the US too, FWIW.

“I don't think/worry about guns - ever.”

That too. I never worry about guns in my daily life.

Re: Singapore tells Facebook to correct post under new fake news law

#230

Post by humanrebar »

magduf wrote: post #221
humanrebar wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most small towns in the U.S. are extremely safe. I used to live in one and I basically never locked my home or car. And people are spread out enough that you still get plenty of freedom... no particular zoning, nobody to be bothered by your noise, etc.

Small towns have no high-paying jobs; that's why they're mostly dying and people are moving to the metro areas.

Depends on the town. Some have industries that pay the bills fine. Like tourism or fishing.
Post reply on HN