When fraud pays on Facebook

 Giant greed: According to internal documents reviewed by Reuters, Meta projected that roughly 10% of its 2024 revenue – around US$16bil – came from advertisements tied to scams, banned goods and other fraudulent content. — Reuters

Fake content and scam advertisements are a bane on social media. But it gets worse when platform owners actively allow such content just to make millions.

Wong CHUN WAI National Journalism Laureate Datuk Seri Wong Chun Wai is the chairman of Bernama. The views expressed here are solely the writer’s own.

16 Nov 2025

A MONTH ago, I found a video of myself on social media promoting an investment scam promising huge returns.

I was flabbergasted and horrified. The content looked like a TV interview I had given sometime back.

The difference was that my voice had been altered, using artificial intelligence (AI) skills, to talk about investment opportunities.

The original content was on human capital and the importance of training. The modified content, using the AI version of my voice, sounded just like the real thing. It was so good it was hard to tell the difference.

I do not know why I was chosen by these scammers as I do not see my unsolicited endorsement to be of any real value.

But this is the story. I filed a complaint with Facebook on Oct 1 and they replied on Oct 8, thanking me for the report.

“We use a combination of technology and human reviewers and identify content that goes against our Community Standards. In this case, we did not remove the content that you reported,” the reply said.

As I wrote this article, I re-checked and found the content still floating around on FB, promising that “every Malaysian who invests from RM1,200 is guaranteed to earn at least RM210,000 in the first month!” It adds: “Limited spots available.”

In short, Facebook owner Meta did not see anything wrong with the fake content using my face and voice to cheat people. Meta’s reply was mind-boggling and made me feel helpless about combating such fraud.

Last week, Datuk Seri Michael Chong cautioned the public against fraudulent schemes that employ AI to replicate the faces and voices of the Prime Minister and Yang di-pertuan Agong to dupe unsuspecting individuals.

The MCA Public Service and Complaints Bureau chief said he had identified two online advertisements featuring the PM and King. When they were reported, the ads were removed, but the syndicate had re-uploaded similar content, this time using the face sofa nm panda prominent business figure.

Using AI, the syndicate created investment advertisements requiring a payment of RM1,100 while promising returns of up to RM200,000.

Why did Facebook fail to act? Well, we may know now. An investigation by Reuters has cast a harsh light on the business practices of Meta Platforms Inc, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and Whatsapp.

According to internal documents reviewed by Reuters, Meta projected that roughly 10% of its 2024 revenue – around Us$16bil (Rm66.72bil) – came from advertisements tied to scams, banned goods, and other fraudulent content.

What is deeply troubling is that the documents suggest that Meta’s enforcement efforts against these bad actors were intentionally limited, constrained by “revenue guardrails” and automated systems that only block ads when there is at least a 95% certainty of fraud.

For Malaysia and for users of social media everywhere, the implications are profound.

This is not just about one tech giant’s failure; it is about the structural tensions between platform profit models and user protection, and the regulatory void that allows serious harm to happen.

In Malaysia, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission has already expressed alarm, noting that some of that revenue could stem from Malaysian-market ads, and has summoned Meta for answers.

Allowing platforms to be used for such scams and profiting from it makes Meta an accomplice to such cybercrimes.

These platforms should be held to account for the content they host and monetise.

If a platform is earning money from fraud-linked ads, that raises questions of complicity, not just oversight failure.

When a company’s business model allows or even subtly incentivises questionable advertisers, that means it does not value ethics.

It has been reported that Meta internally estimated the scale of “high-risk” scam advertisements at Us$15bil (Rm61.9bil) of such ads per day across its platforms.

The company’s justification is that it will only block advertiser accounts when automated systems are 95% sure the advertiser is engaging in fraud.

If it is not absolutely certain, it just charges them higher ad rates – effectively profiting from uncertainty.

In my case, despite my protest, we can assume that Meta did not find enough evidence that it was a fraud.

It was a case of “looks like you, sounds like you but we are not sure it’s a fraud despite your complaint”.

A Reuters report on Nov 11 said that “Meta knowingly profits off of them” – meaning the social media giant knew about ads for fake products and scam posts and projected that it could earn up to Us$16bil from running these ads featuring banned goods or scamming posts.

Meta is so powerful that it can snub protests and calls from regulators requiring it to publish clear data on scam advertising volumes and the ad revenue derived from them.

If the company doesn’t have any ethics why would it care two hoots about accountability? It knows the world is addicted to its products.

Responsibility does not seem to exist in the company statement.

The only way out is to teach Malaysians how to identify scam ads, report suspicious content, and hold platforms and advertisers to account.

Digital literacy is a frontline defence, and also, simply stop being greedy. If it sounds too good to be true, then it’s a scam.

Meta knows we are hooked on Whatsapp, Instagram and Facebook, and the world will not function a day without these products. It is untouchable.

We have miserably consented and surrendered all our personal data to Meta to use these products for free.

Now you know why and how these scammers get our details. Meta is enriching itself, and each time regulators want to haul it up, it cries that it’s an assault on the platforms.

Wong Chun Wai

Wong Chun Wai began his career as a journalist in Penang, and has served The Star for over 35 years in various capacities and roles. He is now group editorial and corporate affairs adviser to the group, after having served as group managing director/chief executive officer. On The Beat made its debut on Feb 23 1997 and Chun Wai has penned the column weekly without a break, except for the occasional press holiday when the paper was not published. In May 2011, a compilation of selected articles of On The Beat was published as a book and launched in conjunction with his 50th birthday. Chun Wai also comments on current issues in The Star.

• https://twitter.com/chunwai09

Meta’s move to end fact-checking spurring shift to mainstream sites

PETALING JAYA: Tech giant Meta Platforms Inc’s decision to scrap fact-checking has prompted social media users and parents to be more cautious, driving them toward credible and established sources for information.

Business development executive Christina Lopez, 46, said despite Meta’s move, it will unlikely change her social media habits, including on Facebook.

ALSO READ: Mainstream media poised for bigger role in combating misinformation

“I will still binge, but I will be extra careful with links, videos or content that involves news or opinions,” she said yesterday.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, announced on Jan 7 that it would replace its fact-checkers with a user-based “community notes” system to flag inaccurate posts, much like that on X, formerly Twitter.

Launched in 2016, Meta’s fact-checking system identified hoaxes via staff and technology that flagged posts likely to contain misinformation.

Fact-checkers verified and rated these posts, issuing warnings for false content and limiting its visibility.

ALSO READ: Meta’s end to fact-checking will be felt, but not so much in Malaysia, says Fahmi

Users who have shared misleading posts receive a notification providing them with a link to the fact-check article.

Corrections by authors lifted the restrictions.

On Jan 8, Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil said Meta’s move to remove independent fact-checking on its platforms would have implications but would not immediately affect Malaysian users.

“At the moment, I don’t see it affecting the Malaysian market, only the United States,” he said, referring to Meta’s initial implementation of the move over the next few months.

Meta said the rollback is starting in the United States but does not apply to other countries “at this time.” However, it has since announced several layoffs.

Lopez, who is an avid content consumer, said she spends hours mostly on Facebook watching videos and reading articles on topics to her liking.

“At times, I’ll check who the content creator is and whether or not they posted similar content in the past.

ALSO READ: Meta is following X's playbook on fact-checking. Here's what it means for you

“However, I will also continue to only trust established and credible sources,” she said, referring to mainstream media and established news portals.

Hamidah Ahmad, 45, a homemaker and a mother of two, expressed concern over Meta’s move, saying that it might lead to the spread of fake news.

“I will remind my kids to not blindly take social media content at face value and to always verify what they find online by cross-referencing with other sources.

“As a parent, I am really wary of clickbait articles because children don’t understand what they are. If there is no gatekeeping, it will open the way to predators and scammers targeting vulnerable groups.

“Also, you do not want your teenagers to be radicalised or influenced by fake content.

“As such, I will never allow social media use for my kid until he is more mature and understands how the world works,” said Hamidah.

Businessman J. Yumnesh, 37, appeared unfazed by the changes, saying that he was unsure if it has any impact on Malaysians.

“Does this mean it applies to our country?

“If it happens, perhaps we will have more freedom to get more information. Whatever it is, in terms of news or information, I will go to a trusted news website or go to any search engine to validate the truth,” he said.

Content Forum chief executive officer Mediha Mahmood said Meta’s move to shift from third-party fact-checking to a community-based approach indicates the evolving complexities of addressing misinformation in the digital space.

“Misinformation or disinformation is a growing challenge, particularly during elections, where false narratives can erode trust and divide communities.

“It is vital for platforms to strike a balance between promoting free expression and providing users with the tools to navigate the online world responsibly.”

Source link

Mainstream media poised for bigger role in combating misinformation

PETALING JAYA: Meta Platforms Inc’s decision to remove its fact-checking initiative in the United States has sparked concern among political and cybersecurity experts over the spread of disinformation and polarisation in Malaysia, especially during elections.

KRA Group director of strategy Amir Fareed Rahim highlighted the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report 2025, which identifies misinformation and disinformation as top short-term threats.

“If social media platforms won’t proactively address fake news, everyone must be more vigilant.

“Mainstream media can play a bigger role in fact-checking and debunking fake news,” he said yesterday.

The Star, for example, has its QuickCheck and True or Not sections that debunk fake news and viral content.

Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil acknowledged Meta’s move on Jan 8.

The firm is also in the final stages of securing an Application Service Provider (ASP) Class Licence in Malaysia.

Amir Fareed said that incorrect stories were spread across multiple countries and regions during the Covid-19 pandemic.

“However, it must also be acknowledged that even the best and most stringent social media fact-checking will not help in countries where trust in public institutions is or has been damaged, or where social polarisation has been allowed to fester.

“Ultimately, the responsibility to maintain social cohesion and credibility rests with governments and institutions.

“The task will get more difficult, but it is still fundamentally their responsibility,” Amir Fareed said, adding that misinformation could be prevalent in the upcoming Sabah and Melaka state elections this year.

Fong Choong Fook, the executive chairman of cybersecurity consulting company LGMS Bhd, said Malaysia perhaps needs a fraud verification unit to combat online scams, which he views as a more critical issue compared with political misinformation in the United States.

“Social media platforms aren’t doing enough to protect users from false advertising on Facebook and other platforms that are used by scammers.

“Users must be wary, especially when AI (artificial intelligence) is now being used to generate false advertising,” said Fong.

He added that disinformation is a global trend, considering that most users rely on the convenience of social media.

This has also led to users easily believing that whatever is posted online is true, which has also conditioned them to trust content without verification.

While there are concerns that Meta’s move could affect the upcoming Sabah election this year, political pundit Dr Tunku Mohar Tunku Mohd Mokhtar of International Islamic University Malaysia said the social media giant’s decision to remove its fact-checking unit would not affect Malaysia that much.

He said that during elections, disinformation often becomes a campaign strategy, as seen in Sabah in the past.

“The danger is when such disinformation spreads, gullible people would believe it, and it is difficult to rectify the situation,” he added.

Tunku Mohar said Facebook and other social media platforms are “democratic” in the sense that people are free to air their views without much restriction.

He said social media platforms provided “credibility” even to unverified news.

In Malaysia’s context, he said fact-checking mechanisms can exist outside of social media platforms to help users verify the truth.

“The government can rely on existing laws, but by the time the due process is completed, the damage is already done.

“In that sense, social media platforms should also be proactively involved to ensure that their platforms aren’t used for ‘black propaganda’,” he added.

Source link

Related stories:

Meta is following X's playbook on fact-checking. Here's what it means for you

Meta’s end to fact-checking will be felt, but not so much in Malaysia, says Fahmi

Indonesia’s fact-checkers slam Meta’s decision to end US fact-checking programme

Meta's 'Community Notes' model will not apply to paid ads

It’s an ‘American disease’ to make an issue of China in all aspects: Global Times editorial

Tesla's founder Elon Musk inks a deal to purchase Twitter with $44 billion in cash. Photo: website 

News about Elon Musk's Twitter takeover has sparked continuous heated discussions in the US recently. The focus of some, however, has apparently been off the track. A New York Times reporter tweeted to question whether Twitter would become one of the platforms Beijing will gain leverage over in the future. It was re-tweeted and commented on by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. There are also voices saying that Musk will have to seek a balance between his support for free speech and his business activities in China, and that China will exert influence on Twitter through Musk.

Many American media outlets didn't forget to "remind" people of the fact that Musk once "praised" China, and he encouraged people to visit China and see for themselves. At a critical moment when China and the US were locked in trade frictions in 2019, Tesla's Shanghai Gigafactory kicked into production. In merely over a year, Shanghai-made Teslas have accounted for more than half of Tesla's global delivery. Musk has dealt a lot with China and spoke out some truths about China's economy, they are regarded as "original sins" of Musk by some Americans. Many link Musk's Twitter deal with China and raise it to the level of "risks" or "threats", which shows how narrow the room for pragmatism and rationality toward China in the US has become. Similar incidents have become common in the US. Making an issue of China in every possible way has already become an "American disease." In the face of China's growing comprehensive national power that is closing the gap with the US', the confidence of many political elites in Washington has been declining. And these people are showing anxiety and over-sensitivity toward China, not letting go of any opportunity to hype the "China threat" theory. After Musk acquired Twitter, some from American media even urged Musk to cut off his business ties with China to "guarantee freedom of speech." Such extreme overbearingness hilariously overlaps their weakness.

An interesting phenomenon is that many China security-related discussions contain various "private interests" if you look at them closely. Some businesspeople, such as George Soros, blamed China for their failure due to their wrong investment decisions in China. Others try to show their allegiance to the US. For example, Bezos often stresses security with a high-profile patriotic posture, but what he actually eyes are Pentagon orders that are highly profitable. More lawmakers and politicians touch on the China topic in an exaggerated and forcible way, through which they attack opponents as "weak." The "China Threat" is becoming a tacit business approach or a code to seek attention.

From the national perspective, Sinophobia which is currently rampant in American society is not fundamentally different from "Japanophobia" that prevailed in the 1980s and 1990s. In both cases, the US regards a "chaser" as competitor, on which the US tried to suppress by any means to ensure its own competitive advantage. But the end of the story will be different because there is no way that Washington can overwhelm China in the same way that it coerced Japan to sign a Plaza Accord. Chinese people do not believe in fallacies, nor are we afraid of evil forces. We will never yield to threats or coercion. As to words and deeds of forcefully making an issue of China, they remind people of an ancient poem: Along the Yangzi River, apes moan ceaselessly. My boat has passed ten thousand mounts briskly.

It must be pointed out that making an issue of China can't save the US. Instead, it will continue to intensify all the problems Washington is facing, be they domestic or external, and squeeze the room to solve these issues in the future. Even some people of insight in the US have warned that the excessive attention on undermining Beijing's advantages could make Washington neglect its most important tasks at home and push its foreign policies to deviate from its course even further. "American hubris is always a danger, but so is exaggerated fear, which can lead to overreaction," wrote US scholar Joseph Nye last year. "The US and China must avoid exaggerated fears that could create a new cold or hot war," he added. It seems that those who are sick are unwilling to take medicine.

The US is trying to oppose China in every possible aspect, reflecting the peremptory squeezing of reality by the US' anti-China ideology. But the reality is also resisting the ideological pressure at all times. The twist has distorted some US elites' mindset, making them fall into hesitation and division. However, the "China threat" is not the root cause of Washington's internal and external problems. Reality will make them understand sooner or later that win-win cooperation is the effective cure for their disease.

  Source link.

RELATED ARTICLES

 

Bezos’ China conspiracy theory after Musk’s Twitter buyout just 'sour grapes'

In response to some reports’ hype of China’s influence following Elon Musk’s buyout of Twitter, a Chinese Foreign ...

Elon Musk Plan for Twitter: Pitch Featured Job Cuts, Ways to make money

 

Angry employees grill Twitter CEO - PressReader

Musk sells Tesla shares worth $906.5 million - filings By Reuters

Musk sells Tesla shares worth Rm36.5bil

 

Related posts:

 

Migratory birds of mass destruction

    Albatross, famous migratory bird, is also a love bird. It is known for being monogamous, forming long-term bond with one partner that

 

华为不惧美国封杀 美式霸凌失道寡助！Huawei's goodwill gesture being treated unscrupulously by the US !

https://youtu.be/hRv0QMEwdas https://youtu.be/dtT0rHgJ9-I 《今日关注》是CCTV中文国际频道播出的时事述评栏目。该栏目紧密跟踪国内外重大新闻事件，邀请国内外一流的专家和高级官员梳理新闻来龙去脉，评论新闻事...

 

Watch out for WhatsApp scammers

MCMC: Beware of scammers trying to take over your WhatsApp account 

 MCMC issued a warning to alert the public to increasing reports of WhatsApp accounts being hijacked

MCMC said scammers often pose as friends or family members, using accounts that scammers had already successfully hacked into, to try to trick them into revealing their six-digit WhatsApp verification codes. — Bloomberg

The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) has issued a  statement warning the public to be wary of increasingly inventive tactics employed by scammers trying to hijack a user’s WhatsApp account, due to increasing reports of fraud cases being committed through the app.

MCMC said scammers usually manage to take over victims’ WhatsApp accounts by tricking them into divulging their six-digit verification codes, which users will usually receive when there is an attempt to change the phone number associated to their account.

To do this, scammers have been known to contact potential victims while posing as a hapless individual or business claiming to have mistakenly keyed in the victim’s phone number while trying to complete an online transaction, explaining that as a result the authorisation code for the transaction had been sent to the victim’s phone and imploring them for help retrieving the code.

These appeals could even come from the victim’s family members or friends via accounts that scammers had already hijacked, said MCMC.

This tactic commonly misleads the victim into thinking they would be sending the scammer an unrelated TAC (transaction authorisation code) when in fact they would be handing over the six-digit verification code to the victim’s own WhatsApp account.

Those who have been duped into giving up their codes could end up having their accounts stolen by scammers, added MCMC.

MCMC said scammers have also impersonated WhatsApp employees to fool users into sharing their verification code, adding that there have also been instances where the scammer would deliberately fail at keying in the code several times in order to force an automated system by WhatsApp to call the user about their verification code.

In this instance, the scammer would also contact the user to ask for the code while pretending to be someone else. If the user did not answer the automated call by WhatsApp and it goes into the user’s voice mailbox, then the scammer would try to randomly guess at or ask for the user’s voice mailbox PIN code to access the recording, according to MCMC.

The regulatory body advised WhatsApp users to be suspicious of any attempts to procure their six-digit verification code, adding that it is absolutely imperative that users never reveal the code to anyone else to prevent their accounts from being hijacked.

It added that users should also enable two-factor verification on WhatsApp and utilise more complicated PIN numbers for their voice mailbox as additional security measures.

According to an  FAQ by WhatsApp, a user may be sent the verification code via SMS – even when one wasn’t requested – for a number of reasons.

WhatsApp said this could happen due to someone mistyping their own number, or a hacker attempting to take over the person’s account.

Without the code, the hacker will not be able to complete the verification process, which would prevent the account from being hijacked.

If your account has been stolen, you will have to sign into WhatsApp with your phone number and verify your phone number by entering the six-digit code you receive via SMS.

Once you enter the six-digit SMS code, the individual using your account will be automatically logged out.

You might also be asked to provide a two-step verification code. If you don’t know this code, the hijacker using your account could have enabled two-step verification.

You must wait seven days before you can sign in without the two-step verification code, according to WhatsApp.

Regardless of whether you know this verification code, the other person will be logged out of your account once you entered the six-digit code received via SMS.

In a separate FAQ about  stolen accounts, WhatsApp also advised the victim to inform family and friends if they suspect someone is impersonating them in chats.

Users whose WhatsApp accounts have been stolen are encouraged to file a complaint with MCMC or lodge a report at the nearest police station.

Source link

 

Related stories:

India asks Facebook's WhatsApp to withdraw privacy policy update

 

WhatsApp users’ phone numbers and chats exposed on Google

 

WhatsApp to delay launch of update business features after privacy backlash

How WhatsApp’s Status update escalated into fake... 

 

WhatsApp to use fingerprint and face ID authentication... 

 

Leaving WhatsApp? Telegram now lets users import chat...

 

Related post:

 

WhatsApp Tips: How to clear WhatsApp cache when you are running low on phone memory

Anonymity a double-sided shield

 

How to protect your online privacy in 2020 | Tutorial

https://youtu.be/jxeeKKfjb5o

Internet anonymity empowers people to speak without fear, and to be trolls

ONLINE anonymity is such a huge topic, often carrying a bad reputation because it appears to incite irresponsible behaviour.

Anyone can say something cruel or nasty, and no one will ever know it was him because he uses a made-up personality.

When you spend more time delving into the subject of Internet anonymity, you will find that it has its fair share of pros and cons.

It is a matter of debate among security researchers, politicians and policy analysts. There are those who say it affords everyone freedom of speech as there is less judgement levelled at an anonymous person who speaks his mind freely, and whistleblowers are able to unearth secrets and share information without fear of being accused of slander or ending up in jail.

It is important to note that freedom of speech doesn’t mean you have freedom to lie.

Online abuse is rampant, it’s easy for lies to be manufactured and spread, and news loses its credibility in the process.

Cloak of anonymity

Assoc Prof Dr Anasuya Jegathevi Jegathesa, programme director of Psychology at Taylor’s University, concurs that anonymity allows people to speak without fear.

“If you have to put your name to it, there may be consequences for speaking the truth, ” she said.

Dr Anasuya Jegathevi Jegathesan will be speaking at the Star Empowerment: Healing Hearts 2020, a forum on grieve management.Dr Anasuya Jegathevi Jegathesan will be speaking at the Star Empowerment: Healing Hearts 2020, a forum on grieve management.

“When you’re anonymous, you can avoid the consequences. The Internet and social media allow people to remain anonymous and there is a certain power in this.

“In certain situations, when you say your truth, you may be put in jail or you may be harassed and abused by other people because they don’t agree with you.

“In such situations, people choose to be anonymous because they need a voice and there’s no other outlet.

“Of course, even without the consequences, many still hide behind anonymity when they want to insult others or stir up disagreement. Online drama can be an interesting thing for some people!”

Digital culture expert Dr Niki Cheong of University of Nottingham feels that there are many strong arguments that can be made in defence of anonymity – victims and marginalised people and communities rely on the cloak of anonymity to speak truth to power.

“This is particularly so when they have been wronged or taken advantage of. This is also the case when it comes to larger institutions whereby acts like whistleblowing have shown to be a powerful tool.

“Journalism has for the longest time used anonymity for very good reasons – not just to protect the identity of sources speaking out against, among other things, corruption and misdeeds, but also to protect people who share important stories from being stigmatised or targeted.”

Cheong agrees that anonymity has emboldened many to engage in anti-social behaviour, both offline and online.

“We are seeing severe repercussions from an individual level with personal attacks and bullying, and at a more societal level with political suppression and information manipulation.”

Sharing stories

The advent of social media has also seen the rise of citizen journalism – which is the creation or collection, dissemination and analysis of information by the general public.

“It’s trendy to create news these days because when you have more likes, that translates to more interest in your channel, and that’s how you make more money.

“There is a financial reward for being popular – whether you’re a blogger, YouTuber or TikTok artist, ” Anasuya explains the psychology behind the obsession to create content and share it with the world.

“The other reward is an emotional reward. Research shows that when you see ‘likes’ and ‘comments’, there’s dopamine released in your system, and dopamine is a pleasure hormone that makes you feel good.

“So when people get more posts, or become more famous, they feel good about themselves.”

When it comes to sharing, she says that when “news” calls for attention and is fun or shocking, people naturally want to be the first to tell others.

“It’s a high, you get a good feeling when you are the first person to tell somebody some interesting or important.”

Because of this, people often make the mistake of not verifying information before hitting the forward button. Often a headline is enough to make someone share a post without even reading the story. Admit it, many of us have made that mistake, right?

Spreading rumours takes that scenario one step further, because a rumour usually has a negative tilt to it.

So why do certain people get off on spreading rumours? Anasuya says it’s because some people like to create flame wars.

“When you’re anonymous, after all, you don’t even have that platform where you can get popular, so why do people still share and spread rumours or false information? The dopamine is still there.

“They know they are in the midst of a drama unfolding, they are getting hits, creating issues and they enjoy this. They enjoy people ‘believing’ them.

“And sometimes they believe it themselves. Truth can be based on perception, after all, and there are lots of people who perceive truth in a different way from the norm. That doesn’t mean they are crazy, they just perceive truth differently, ” she says.

Cheong reckons that a lot of this boils down to the individual.

“Some people don’t always feel that there are real life consequences to their online actions.

“We’ve seen cases where trolls have been confronted by their victims and regret their actions once they get to know them better because they suddenly realise they are real people with real feelings and real family members feeling threatened.”

He cites the case of American writer/activist Lindy West who responded to the guy who stole her dead father’s identity to abuse her. West received an apology from the person who she had earlier billed her “cruellest troll”, and went on to talk to him which ended in forgiveness.

“There is also this culture on the Internet, from the early days, of doing things just for the sake of it, which may have partially influenced this disconnect, ” says Cheong, explaining the catchphrase

“I did it for the lulz” (IDIFTL) which serves as a description for any trolling you do or any Internet drama you cause. To explain further, “lulz” translates to “fun, laughter or amusement at another’s expense”.

“Increasingly we’re seeing in many cases around the world that there are few consequences for people’s actions especially when they favour those in power or are perceived as ‘public sentiment’, so people feel they can act with impunity, ” Cheong adds.


Check and balance

What can we do to prevent this situation from plunging?

“Censorship isn’t the answer, ” Anasuya offers. “Because then you will be going backwards, and people will find ways around it.

In journalism, anonymity protects sources who provide information, and victims from being targeted, says Cheong.In journalism, anonymity protects sources who provide information, and victims from being targeted, says Cheong.

“Instead we should be educating people about best practices: how to check on false media, how to verify news, how to spot fake accounts, ” she says, using the anti-vaxxer movement as an example of how things can go terribly wrong without proper check and balance in place.

In that case, research fraud – a study led by the now discredited physician-researcher Andrew Wakefield involving 12 children – suggested there was a link between the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and autism.

This study was subsequently thoroughly debunked, and Wakefield was stripped of his medical licence. Yet, today there is still a growing number of parents who buy into the whole anti-vaxxer argument and refuse to vaccinate their children.

“Because of some fake research and false findings, this ‘correlation between vaccinations and autism’ went viral and people started posting scary stuff, so much so that even a few in the US Congress believe this false news!” says Anasuya.

“So why do people believe it? Because they need somebody to blame, they want to be able to point a finger and say this is why the world is going bad, this is why things are going wrong, this is why my child got sick. It’s not me, it’s something else.

“People feel power in thinking that they are not sheep being told what to do, when in fact that’s exactly what they are. They don’t check their news, they don’t check their facts.

“You have to educate people to recognise what is real news and what is false. And it has to be a repeated learning.

“The checks and balances do exist, if people know how to use websites like FactCheck, Snopes and Sebenarnya.my.

“There’s a huge bunch of very logical, very factual people in cyberspace who are constantly correcting false news but as a user you have to be able to use those channels.

“It is whether each individual who creates and receives news is willing to do all the checking required. And sadly this is not something that we teach our children in school.”

Cheong agrees that education is the best policy, but it needs to be a multi-pronged approach.

“We need better media literacy education at all levels, we need political will to ensure that any response to these actions is fair across the board, we need to pressure digital platforms to take a more proactive role in managing these sort of behaviour.

“And we need better leadership and role models.”

Source link