Is Facebook Undermining Democracy in the Philippines?

In early January, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) criticized Facebook’s decision to remove several posts that showed documents revealing an alleged compromise proposal between the government and the family of the late Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos. The controversy has raised troubling questions about the social media giant and its role in contested political environments like the Philippines following the election of controversial president Rodrigo Duterte.

“The NUJP condemns Facebook’s baseless takedown of netizens’ posts critical of the government and institutions, as it is a direct infringement on the users’ right to freedom of expression,” the group said in a statement issued on January 3. The statement was widely circulated among activists and media hands, erupting into a full-blown controversy.

The alleged deal would grant immunity to the Marcos family in exchange for the return of the deposed dictator’s ill-gotten wealth. The Duterte government denied that it has signed an agreement with the Marcoses, although it acknowledged that a copy of the proposal was sent to the president’s office. Irrespective of the government’s own claims, Duterte’s publicly expressed admiration for Marcos, along with his own strongman tendencies, meant that any purported link between the two has often taken on a life of its own.

Several journalists who uploaded files of the proposed compromise deal said their posts were removed from Facebook and they received notifications that they violated the website’s “community standards.” In response, Facebook initially said some posts shared contact details of private individuals, which prompted it to censor the content. After reviewing the issue, however, it eventually restored the deleted posts and apologized.

“Upon further review and with additional context, we determined this information was already being shared publicly and therefore does not violate our privacy policy, hence, we restored the content and sent an apology,” Facebook told the media.

In response, NUJP urged Facebook to review its “arbitrary” policies that undermine free speech. “We call out Facebook for its arbitrary ‘community standards,’ which is often used as a basis for expurgating critical and thought-provoking commentaries,” it said. “We urge the social media platform to review its guidelines to ensure that it will not violate the people’s right to freely express themselves.”

Indeed, this is not the first time that Facebook has been criticized for blocking content deemed critical of the state. There have been several instances in the past when some activists, journalists, and members of the opposition complained that their posts were flagged by Facebook for harmful content. They claimed that state-backed trolls often exploit Facebook’s “report abuse” feature by mounting aggressive campaigns that would compel the popular digital platform to censor “anti-government” posts.

Despite the apology issued by Facebook, the issue prompted a call for further investigation among some prominent voices in the Philippines. For instance, Senator Grace Poe, who had been a candidate in the last election but lost to Duterte, said she wanted an official investigation into the issue to determine the standards and processes in blocking content on social media.

“We need to know the clear guidelines of social media organizations in handling the activities of their users, and make sure that these neither infringe on the individual's right to freedom of speech and expression nor allow the abuse of such freedom,” Poe said in a statement.

The recent blocking of anti-Marcos posts also revived an earlier debate about the role of Facebook in enabling politicians like Duterte to wage an aggressive propaganda campaign, which involves the use of fake news as well as shutting down media outlets deemed to be opposing them, as evidenced by the recent case of Rappler.

In an Oxford University study released in 2017, Duterte was included in a list of world leaders who used a cyber army in order to manipulate online discourse. Duterte admitted that he hired a troll army, but only during the 2016 presidential election campaign. Some believe Duterte’s troll army is still active in shaping public opinion in favor of the government’s controversial programs, such as the “war on drugs” and the shift to federalism. This troll army is also accused of viciously attacking Duterte’s critics and even UN officials, who have been demonized for destabilizing the government.

Whether or not Facebook directly or indirectly cooperated with the government in amplifying the reach of Duterte’s trolls, the social media company is being made to account for the proliferation of pages that spread lies, fake news, and hate speech, and its role within this broader phenomenon. As mentioned earlier, this Facebook problem is not by any means restricted to the Philippines. Elsewhere, Facebook is linked to information manipulation during elections and the silencing of independent voices by removing pages of groups and news from the newsfeed of its users.

Recently, Facebook announced that its algorithm will now give less focus to displaying posts from pages by prioritizing content from users’ friends and families. Facebook said the aim is to foster more “meaningful relationships” and provide valuable time for its users.

It remains to be seen whether adjustments such as these will weaken the influence of trolls and fake news peddlers. But it could potentially affect the online presence of groups and news providing independent and critical commentaries. Of course, the broader question in all of this is whether the pace of any incremental changes is in any way proportional to the quick and disruptive changes that troll armies and other forces are making in their countries.

To be sure, it is unfair to blame Facebook alone for the rise of anti-democratic forces in society. But, at the same time, its users have the right to demand that it should be a safe community where democratic values are preserved and promoted, and that its moderation of content is based on transparent standards in a world where shadowy forces often abuse such platforms to advance their questionable ends.