While governments have contended that shutdowns and the blocking of websites are necessary to counter mis- and disinformation and the spread of hate speech, critics argue that internet shutdowns curtail freedom of expression, cut access to information, and can inhibit people from assembling and associating peacefully, online and off. In addition, during shutdowns, many victims are unable to reach their families, get accurate information to stay safe, or reach emergency services. Shutdowns disrupt businesses, schools, and ordinary lives, often exacting a significant financial cost. (Taye and Access Now 2018) Critics have also questioned whether social media bans are in fact effective in curtailing the spread of mis- and disinformation. For instance, it has been noted in Sri Lanka that social media bans have been overcome by using virtual private networks (VPNs) (Funke and Benkelman 2019). GOVERNMENT ACTIONS TO MANAGE THE COVID-19 INFODEMIC Governments have also taken many actions to deal with mis- and disinformation related to Covid-19. Many have passed laws, which will be discussed in the following section. One example of another type of initiative is found in Taiwan, where the digital minister adopted a “humor over rumor” risk communication strategy, which included comic messages to discourage the hoarding of toilet paper in response to a rumor about toilet paper shortages, and also to encourage safety measures (Bendix 2020). The Singaporean In the Philippines, the government has used traditional Department of Health media, social media, government launched a campaign called websites, and the Gov.sg Telegram and WhatsApp channels to debunk #ChecktheFAQs to combat mis- and disinformation (Mahmud mis- and disinformation related 2020). In the Philippines, the Deto Covid-19 and to highlight the partment of Health launched a importance of fact checking campaign called #ChecktheFAQs information. to combat mis- and disinformation related to Covid-19 and to highlight the importance of fact checking information. Tech companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok have stated that they would support the effort (DoH 2021). The Department of Information and Communications Technology in the Philippines reported on its website that it “has combined efforts with the Philippine National Police (PNP) to create ‘Task Force COVID Kontra Peke’, a group tasked with preventing and reporting fake news” I N FO R M ATI O N D I SO R D ER IN THE GLOBA L SOUTH (DICT 2021). The government of Bhutan has created a Covid-19 page with a section called “Myth Busters;” the page also displays a warning against spreading fake news.12 Once again, however, critics have expressed fears that government responses to mis- and disinformation related to Covid-19 were stifling free expression and criticism of government responses to the pandemic in Asia. A release by the OHCHR noted: [Michelle] Bachelet [the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights] said the COVID-19 pandemic had seen a further tightening of censorship in several countries, along with the arbitrary arrest and detention of people critical of their Government’s response or for simply sharing information or views about the pandemic. Arrests for expressing discontent or allegedly spreading false information through the press and social media, have been reported in Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Viet Nam. The High Commissioner recognised the need to restrict harmful misinformation or disinformation to protect public health, or any incitement of hatred towards minority groups, but said this should not result in purposeful or unintentional censorship, which undermines trust. “While Governments may have a legitimate interest in controlling the spread of misinformation in a volatile and sensitive context, this must be proportionate and protect freedom of expression,” Bachelet said. (OHCHR 2020) 3.7 LEGAL RESPONSES TO INFORMATION DISORDER Various legal tools have been deployed in Asian countries to regulate information disorder. While some laws explicitly address false information or hate speech, other types of legislation contain certain provisions that are applicable to information disorder, such as legislation related to defamation, cyber/digital security, sedition, electronic transactions, and media regulation, as well as legislation drafted to address specific situations, such the Covid-19 pandemic. The use of legal tools to address information disorder is the subject of great controversy. While proponents argue that the problem of information disorder needs to be dealt with through binding regulations, critics contend that such legislation Asia – 2 1 8