The arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte over allegations of crimes against humanity has sparked a deluge of “fake news” on social media. The claims and outright lies have been ridiculous like the International Criminal Court (ICC) facilitated the “kidnapping” of Duterte, victims of drug-related killings were a massive hoax, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order against Duterte’s arrest, and the Philippine National Police had a mass resignation, to name a few.

The sad part is that many people believed these claims. It doesn’t help that allegedly paid trolls helped spread and amplify these posts, making it appear that there is a public clamor to bring Duterte home. 

The recent Congressional hearing exposed that the claims of the so-called vloggers are baseless. In an attempt to justify their posts, one of the alleged “influencers” claimed that what may be “fake news” today could be true in the future. 

In the Philippine context, “fake news” refers to any post containing false or incomplete information with the intention of misleading the public. Studies have shown that these disinformation networks are paid and maintained by people in power to push for their political and economic agenda. 

The question now is how to deal with this. The proposal to establish a Digital Council of the Philippines which would formulate a code of conduct and outline regulations for online content creators may be good at first glance but is not sound. The same is true for “anti-fake news bills” filed in Congress before. Allowing the government to determine which is fake and which is true is giving them the authority to censor media content. 

Our experience with the “anti-fake news provision” of the Bayanihan to Heal as One Act during the pandemic illustrates how problematic and dangerous such a regulation is. Local government officials used the law, along with the Cybercrime Prevention Act, against those who criticized the government’s pandemic response. A local radio station in Nueva Ecija, for example, was sued by a barangay official, claiming that the reports on aid distribution were false. 

Notice too that the trolls and Duterte supporters have been active in discrediting journalists and media organizations, calling us as “bias” (sic) and “fake news peddlers.” If an “anti-fake news bill” is passed, the powers that be can use it as another weapon, in addition to libel laws, against legitimate sources of information, or even against ordinary citizens critical of government policies.

Our neighbors in Southeast Asia, particularly Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore, can attest to how similar laws have been used to curtail freedom of expression and political dissent.

Without regulation, what could be our recourse against “fake news”? It is building our own vast network of truth-tellers, which should include people from all walks of life. Journalists alone cannot fight disinformation. Anyone with a social media account can do something to combat “fake news”: support legitimate sources of information, share only verified information, expose the lies peddled by the disinformation networks, engage in offline conversations to promote media and information literacy. (DAA)