POFMA should not stifle constructive criticism

The recent Bill called Prevention against Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act is a well intended one.

My key wishes for this bill and now enacted law is that the actions carried by the Government of the day must be fair and balanced, as must the actions, posts and comments of thousands,no millions of blogwriters, people who have FB accounts, Instagram accounts and even Whatsapp accounts to exercise due restraint when posting articles, and so called "news". 

There are so many ways to 'spin' or 'frame' the event so much so that the type of language used, the facts presented, the audience the article or post intends to reach out to, and the expected response or impression created must all be well thought through. 

The spreading or passing of so called 'news' I normally check and double check the source of the 'news' for a) history b) credibility and c) ensuring that there are numerous other news outlets reporting the same event before I consider even passing the information on. If I think there is something dubious or that the 'news' will spark some unease, I will hesitate and probably not pursue putting up that post. It is obvious the more factual and unbiased new sources would be the BBC, Agency Press France, NY Times and South China Morning post although these sources also have inherent 'biases' in their articles from time to time.

Coming to the social media. This not so new media, the open sea, where there are bad people with all kinds of dubious intentions. We need to be very mindful of what we are posting, who the target audience is and what are the ramifications if any if there is indeed bad intent. 

I for one, will not be afraid of the POFMA, as if  it is executed properly, is a good check and balance of the multitude of news and so called facts there both for and against the establishment. 

There is also some doubt that the Government of the day may themselves use this as a means to stifle constructive criticism against their policies. I hope this is not the case.