How Do Fake News Laws Impact Online Opposition in Nondemocratic Regimes? Evidence from Singapore

Restrictive Internet regulations enforced in nondemocracies, such as “fake news” laws, have been widely criticized by human rights defenders for their repressive potential and their propensity to induce self-censorship among the public. However, there is limited empirical evidence on their impact on online opposition. This study examines whether and how opposition figures in nondemocratic contexts adjust their online discourse in response to these laws. I argue that restrictive Internet laws function as signalling institutions that delineate the boundaries of permissible online speech and provide procedural justification for state retaliation. As a result, opposition actors refrain from discussing politically sensitive topics and temper their direct criticism of the government. Drawing on an analysis of 8,751 social media posts produced by Singaporean dissidents before and after the law’s introduction, and after their posts were flagged as “fake news,” I employ LLM-assisted k-means clustering for topic modelling and sentiment analysis. The findings demonstrate that restrictive Internet laws framed as anti-disinformation measures prompt opposition channels to engage in self-censorship, thereby reducing the regime’s need for targeted repression. This study offers empirically grounded insights into how autocracies adapt their strategies to maintain information control amid technological development and deepens the understanding of authoritarian resilience in the digital age.