Today’s column (No. 616) is the ninth to be censored by the separate editorial team in Inquirer.net. But it was published by the Philippine Daily Inquirer, carried by Inquirer Mobile, and can be accessed on INQ Plus (from which I take these column snapshots). Two main points: “Disallowing” Facebook in the Philippines (not even sure if that would be legally or technically feasible) would be catastrophic for the Duterte social media infrastructure. And the accounts linked to the security services were removed because of fraudulent conduct (fake accounts, hidden identities).
It was a curious way of phrasing a threat. On Sept. 28, about a week after Facebook removed a network of accounts linked to the Armed Forces and the Philippine National Police, President Duterte addressed the social media platform directly. “Is there life after Facebook? I don’t know. But we need to talk.”
I understand the question to be a public weighing of options. While the President did say that he was content to “allow” Facebook to operate in the country (more curious phrasing, but for a different reason), and he did suggest that operations required a quid pro quo (“hoping that you could help us also”), I see the President as still ambivalent about any form of retaliation.
But—listen to this statement: “Now, if the government cannot espouse or advocate something which is for the good of the people, then what is your purpose here in my country?” Isn’t this a real threat? It is an implied one, but very real. We should certainly not underestimate the political will of the traditional politician who ordered the ABS-CBN network shut down.
When the President started attacking the network directly, he did not raise questions about life after ABS-CBN, even though the network is a publicly listed company, employs thousands of employees (or used to), draws millions of loyal viewers and listeners.
Facebook is a different matter—because even up to today, it remains a congenial environment for Diehard Duterte Supporters. Just take a look at the doubly misnamed Mocha Uson Blog. (It is not in fact a blog, and it is no longer run by Uson.) It continues to be the most popular pro-Duterte account on Facebook; it has 5.9 million followers, and its hundred-plus posts per week continue to attract high rates of engagement.
If the Duterte administration were to find a legal or legislative justification to “disallow” Facebook in the Philippines, it would in effect force the Mocha Uson Blog to grind to a halt. There would be ways to work around any technical constraint, such as the use of VPNs, but the damage to the Duterte social media infrastructure would be catastrophic.
(Incidentally, the Mocha Uson Blog is very much involved in the high-stakes conflict between Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano and Rep. Lord Allan Velasco. Its main contributor or administrator Banat By [Byron Cristobal in real life] has sided with Cayetano, and is now accusing Velasco of being part of a San Miguel cabal. As I wrote for a still-unpublished country report on disinformation, this is not necessarily the end of the road for Velasco, as far as support from the Mocha Uson Blog is concerned. Cayetano came under heavy fire from the “blog” earlier this year when he proposed a temporary license for ABS-CBN. Banat By even called for supporters to “hit Cayetano.” The attacks ceased only when Cayetano changed tack. My conclusion: “alliances shift all the time; only Duterte is constant.” If Duterte insists that the term-sharing agreement be respected, we can fully expect the attacks on Velasco to die a similar, convenient death.)
The existence of accounts like the Mocha Uson Blog is probably the reason why the President is publicly weighing the question of life after Facebook. Even if he is no techie, he must understand the possible consequences of a shutdown. The implied threat, then, is to put pressure on Facebook.
It is difficult to see how Facebook can be persuaded, or forced, to restore the accounts linked to the AFP and the PNP. For all its troubles, and for all the troubles it has caused, Facebook has been consistent in the last couple of years in removing accounts that show a pattern of fraudulent conduct, what it calls “coordinated inauthentic behavior.”
In the case of the 57 Facebook accounts, 31 Facebook Pages, and 20 Instagram accounts linked to the AFP and PNP, this is what Facebook found: “This network consisted of several clusters of connected activity that relied on fake accounts to evade enforcement, post content, comment and manage Pages.” And: “Although the people behind this activity attempted to conceal their identities, our investigation found links to Philippine military and Philippine police.”
Faking of accounts. Evasion of enforcement. Concealing of identities.
It should be no surprise that the content this fraudulent network posted includes disinformation, but it is not the content that got the accounts removed. It was their conduct.
Faking of accounts. Evasion of enforcement. Concealing of identities.
This is not the first time that Facebook has removed pro-Duterte accounts that displayed coordinated inauthentic behavior. In March last year, Duterte social media guru Nic Gabunada was publicly named, when Facebook removed an even larger network (67 Pages, 68 accounts, 40 Groups, 25 Instagram accounts) linked to him. “In this case, the people behind this activity coordinated with one another and used fake accounts to misrepresent themselves, and that was the basis for our action,” Facebook explained.
And the network linked to the AFP and PNP was not the only one removed the other week. There was a bigger network that violated the social media platform’s policy “against foreign or government interference which is coordinated inauthentic behavior on behalf of a foreign or government entity. This activity originated in China and focused primarily on the Philippines and Southeast Asia more broadly, and also on the United States.”
Never mind gratitude. Where’s President Duterte’s outrage?
John Nery | Newsstand 
You must be logged in to post a comment.