[ad_1]
From corporations to politicians to even charities, everyone wants a platform on which to roll out their goals. Everyone wants a voice and a way to get their messages across. However, as with everything, there will always be a negative side at most and that's where we are with social media.
Lately, social media giant Facebook (FB) is reportedly under fire for its alleged role in US election results and how the platform has been misused by Russians to prevent Hilary Clinton from winning. the elections. .
Closer to home, the Singaporean government has repeatedly called for regulations to limit the scope of FB, unable to regulate the content. For those who are unaware, the government had asked FB to delete an article alleging that the Singapore government was under investigation for the 1MDB saga because it contained "false news" which FB did not comply with.
The inconvenient truth about the agendas is that, depending on who you ask, the same agenda could be both good and bad. What is a forgery and what is an opinion? If FB is simply an information forum, is it its role to check the facts?
In the end, FB is not a medium – so why (government and civilians) do we treat it as it is? Is not it the responsibility to check on us people? For example, if you are shopping in Singapore and buying an item that is too big or not right in stores, chances are you will not get a refund because it was your responsibility to try it. ! You can change size at best, but you certainly can not get a refund!
I'm not absolu FB of course. Given its scope, it must at least be cautious and judgmental. This seems to have been taken into account by agreeing to delete articles in certain critical situations. The request of the Government of Singapore (unfortunately for them) did not fall into this category.
Members of the Singapore Government have used FB to the best of their abilities and to their advantage. They used it as an advertising tool, uploading photos "Make yourself feel good" from grassroots events and various other government outreach actions.
They used it to spread their message and to correct mistakes and inaccuracies that could have been committed against them.
Looking at each of their profile pages, they have many followers, friends and "I like". It seems that, despite their collective criticism of FB, it has also served them well. So the question is whether the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
What strikes me is that the government is looking for a tool that it can absolutely control. A tool that will only broadcast the information it wants. If this is the case, FB is not the right tool because it is not beholden to the Singapore government.
The beauty of FB (and perhaps its failure) lies in the fact that it can be used by everyone from the Islamic State to Lee Hsien Loong. If the government wants to blame FB for not honoring his wishes, I would suggest that he stop using it. At least then, their charges would have more credibility. Now, it just looks like they want to have their cake and eat it too.
[ad_2]
Source link
