LAST weekend, Iloilo First District Representative and Deputy Speaker Janette Garin told a press conference that the House of Representatives would consider banning Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, if it continues to ignore the Congress’ demand that the company establish a local office in the country. Garin said the warning was meant to “send a strong message” to Meta to establish a physical office, and “not just a marketing office,” in order to address concerns over scams and other abusive and exploitative content.
Garin’s warning came after the House deferred the proposed P19.49-billion budget of the Department of Information and Communications Technology for 2027, out of frustration at the agency’s lack of progress in regulating harmful online content on Meta platforms. In that hearing, Philreca Party-list Rep. Presley de Jesus issued a demand that Facebook founder and Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg appear at the House to “really show us how important and serious the Philippines is to Meta,” and to answer questions about his platforms’ management of user safety.
To be clear, there are legitimate concerns about social media safety, particularly for young people, that must be addressed, and they are not at all imaginary. Facebook recently settled a landmark lawsuit brought by a number of states in the US that accused the social media giant of intentionally creating a platform that is addictive. While the $17.1-billion figure publicized as the settlement amount is misleading — and only represents about a day’s worth of Meta’s revenue, anyway — Facebook was compelled to agree to a number of improved security features, including limiting time of use for minors, muting content notifications during school hours, and removing features that encourage engagement such as “like” counts and cosmetic filters.
While we can appreciate the ardor of lawmakers to be seen as “doing something” about the potential harm from social media, and perhaps even give them the benefit of the doubt that their intentions are sincere, their chosen method of addressing the issue by grandstanding and making hollow threats is frustrating, and frankly embarrassing.
The Philippines is a significant market for Meta, with approximately 110 million monthly Facebook users accounting for a bit more than 3 percent of the platform’s global user base. That might be enough for Meta to practice a bit of public relations to respond to politicians’ concerns, but in that case, all it would have to do is extend the terms it agreed to in its recent civil settlement to this country. The social media megalith is not going to be the least bit cowed by lawmakers threatening to block it from doing business here, because Meta knows full well it is an empty threat.
That user data is the clue. Facebook specifically is the largest source of news for Filipinos; the most-used platform for communication between overseas Filipinos and their families and friends back home; and a significant engine of local online commerce supporting tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of small entrepreneurs. Perhaps most pointedly, it is the main platform for communication between every elected official with an internet connection, from the president to the captain of the smallest barangay, and including the ones who are now making the loudest calls for its ban, every government department and every provincial, city and municipal government in the country. Whatever the platform’s shortcomings, it has become critical to social connection, public information, and engagement between government and the people, and Facebook undoubtedly is fully aware of this; and likely also fully aware that the likes of peacocks such as Janette Garin and Presley de Jesus absolutely cannot afford to face the apocalypse-level political firestorm that will descend upon them if they were to push through with their threats.
The problems are real, and efforts should be made to correct them. Facebook can and should indeed improve measures to prevent harm. But the way to encourage the social media giant to do that is to highlight the value of doing so; it has no reason to respond to a threat from a market that clearly needs it more than it needs the market, because the more serious harm that would be suffered if that threat becomes a reality falls on the latter. Congress and the rest of the government do not need to lower its expectations for online safety to accommodate Facebook’s commercial aims, but by the same token, they should approach the matter with more seriousness and an appreciation of reality.
