Social media, unhinged

The Cebu Citizens-Press Council has a slogan that highlights the role of the press in society: “Being accountable comes with being free.” The Philippine Press Institute echoes a similar stance: “In a democracy, a free press is essential. This freedom comes with responsibility and accountability to the public.”

I mention this because a group of social media influencers, or 'vloggers,' has petitioned the Supreme Court to halt the congressional probe into disinformation on social media platforms. These vloggers even had the gall to cite the “chilling effect” of the probe on their “constitutionally guaranteed rights to free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press.”

This comes after the House of Representatives Tri-Committee that is looking into possible regulations for social media platforms, invited around 40 vloggers and content creators. Only three of them attended the House committee hearing last February 4. The others merely sent excuse letters, prompting the committee to issue show-cause orders to those who declined the invitation.

The latest development is that the Supreme Court has ordered the House to respond to the petition filed by the vloggers. I don’t particularly follow any of them, but I assume that, like any vlogger worthy of a congressional invitation, they have amassed a considerable online following and are regarded as social media influencers.

It's about time we introduce regulations for these content creators and the social media platforms they use. But will this run contrary to the tenets of press freedom and free speech that our Constitution holds sacred?

Indeed, the Supreme Court in Chavez v. Gonzales (2008), quoting the U.S. case Near v. Minnesota, pronounced that while “liberty of the press may be abused by miscreant purveyors of scandal, it does not make any less necessary the immunity of the press from previous restraint in dealing with official misconduct.”

Yet, this was a pronouncement made during the era of mainstream legacy media, when social media did not yet exist to spread polarizing influence online through toxic content and false information. It was a time when false news and disinformation traveled more slowly, allowing journalists and media professionals who vet information and pursue the truth the opportunity to catch up and counter fake news.

Today, in the age of digital media, we must reexamine whether the 'chilling effect' doctrine can be applied to social media content without qualification. The doctrine refers to the need to prevent a situation in which free speech is suppressed due to fear of retaliation from authorities or other forms of intimidation. Such a 'chilling effect' leads to self-censorship, creating an undesirable atmosphere where the media becomes too careful, ultimately weakening its role as society’s “Fourth Estate” or watchdog.

My question is this: Can the miscreants of social media invoke the same doctrine as a shield for their bad behavior?

I say no, and this is where I advocate for a clear dichotomy between legacy media (print and broadcast) and social media. We cannot equate social media with legacy media when applying press freedom principles. To treat the two in the same breath is the height of regulatory naiveté.

In its probe, Congress must carefully examine the nature of digital platforms in comparison to legacy media. Assuming equal treatment of the two is fundamentally flawed due to the stark differences in their structure, technology, operational dynamics, and societal impact.

One fundamental difference lies in editorial control. Legacy media content is curated and managed by editors and journalists who largely adhere to established fact-checking and accountability standards. They belong to institutions with known personnel and physical addresses, bearing legal responsibility for the content they produce.

On the other hand, digital platforms—such as social media, search engines, and online forums—are driven by algorithms that determine what netizens are exposed to (visibility). More often than not, these algorithms prioritize virality over credibility. Social media platforms, meanwhile, deny responsibility for such content, arguing that they are merely neutral tech intermediaries. Yet, they design these algorithms with only commercial interests in mind, primarily revenue from advertisers.

Legacy media can be held accountable for their content, while digital platforms profit from content but evade oversight. When a journalist writes libelous content, the publisher can also be held responsible. But digital platforms simply wash their hands of the mischiefs of their often anonymous or unreachable content providers, allowing disinformation, scams, and harmful content to spread unchecked. (to be continued)