Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's defamation suit against blogger and financial adviser Leong Sze Hian concluded early on its second day.

Leong did not take the witness stand for cross-examination, with his lawyer, Lim Tean stating that they had "the necessary material to defeat the plaintiff".

The second day of the four-day trial only saw the cross-examination of Phan Tuan Quang, an Associate Professor of Innovation and Information Management at the University of Hong Kong who has taught and researched social media for over 15 years.

He was called in as an expert witness for the plaintiff to testify that the actual size of the audience for a post Leong had put up was "many times larger" than the number of people who reacted to the post, PM Lee's lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, said in his opening statement.

Leong was sued by PM Lee in late 2018 over a public Facebook post that Leong shared on his page, containing a link to an article by Malaysian website The Coverage.

The article contained allegations that PM Lee helped former Malaysia prime minister Najib Razak launder money in relation to Malaysian state fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).

Phan: Estimates are conservative and based on how fast fake news spreads

Phan stated that at least 200 to 400 users on Facebook would have seen the article and further added that this was a "conservative" estimate.

In addition, his estimate also took into account the rebuttals to the article put out by Minister for Law and Home Affairs K Shanmugam, and other government outlets.

In response, Lim stated that Phan had not taken the government’s official statements into account as there was no mention of them in his report.

Lim also argued that the information in the report presented by Phan is "not really expert evidence at all", emphasising that it was "just guesswork and assumptions".

Lim said that Phan's report was based on various assumptions, drawn on trends and predictive behaviours, with "hardly any data, or evidence to work on."

Phan disagreed with Lim's claims.

Phan replied that it might not be necessary to consider the government statements, given the speed at which fake news spreads.

Phan highlighted that he had worked with Facebook's data science teams extensively and that the figures he was presenting were what he had seen based on public data and statistical analysis.

The professor said that while he was not able to access Leong's Facebook post, he did see screenshots of the post in question, and Leong's timeline.

He also further explained that based on his research, fake news moves faster than real news and can achieve “maximum penetration” in 1,000 minutes, or around 16 hours, and spreading up to 15 levels removed from the person who initially put up the post.

On Facebook's algorithm and the visibility of Leong's post

Lim questioned Phan if more people might have seen the official statements and rebuttals than those who saw Leong's post.

This refers to statements from the government agencies and officials, along with news articles and outlets which reported the statements.

He also asked Phan if those who had seen Leong's post may have already been aware that it was fake news.

Phan argued that the people who saw Leong's post may not be the same people who saw the official statements carried by mainstream media news outlets.

The professor added, noting that it has been "well-studied" that users who follow certain types of people are seeking for certain or similar information to that person.

Phan stated an example where if he was following someone on social media for cats, he will be fed with more information and posts about cats.

In response, Lim argued that he could be anti-establishment, but his Facebook feed will still be filled with articles from the mainstream media.

He also said that Phan had "no idea" or understanding about the Facebook algorithm as "it's a secret".

Phan responded that the newsfeed algorithm would reflect content the user was interested in, such as anti-establishment related content, for example.

Phan added that the algorithm is "well-studied" and the interest in content being the the biggest contributing factor.

On the "novelty" of the 1MDB saga and the allegations

Lim also picked on the justification of the article and post's "novelty", a factor mentioned in a study by three Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) scholars on fake news based on Twitter to justify the rapid spread of fake news.

The same study was used and referenced in Phan's report.

Phan pointed out that in his paper he had concluded that novelty and falsity are "highly correlated", and he also mentioned that while novelty may not be the only reason someone shares the fake news, novel information is more likely to be shared.

Lim argued that 1MDB has "been a long-running saga" that was reported many years even before the article by The Coverage had come out and that Phan cannot say that 1MDB or the role of Singapore banks was novel.

Phan argued that on the contrary, as it was connected to PM Lee and the context has been localised, users would pay attention to the article more in spite of 1MDB being a long-running saga.

In this case, Phan explained, the post and article's shocking allegations would have made them novel in the eyes of readers, which contribute to the virality of fake news.

Questioning Phan's independence and bias

Besides questioning Phan over several aspects of his report, Lim questioned Phan's credentials as well.

Lim said that Phan had received research grants in the past when he was a professor at the National University of Singapore (NUS), and therefore could not be considered an independent expert, as he would have "a certain bias towards [PM Lee]".

Phan was an associate professor in NUS from August 2011 to May 2020.

Phan argued that it is common to get grants when academics conduct research projects that involve government bodies.

Phan also clarified that he had never met PM Lee in person, and the report was also reviewed by independent reviewers inside and outside of Singapore, with the grants being objectively awarded by an assortment of institutions, Phan added.

The professor also mentioned that he had private academic freedom to pursue objective research.

Totally unrelated but follow and listen to our podcast here

Top photo by Matthias Ang