Artwork by Cartoonist ZACH

First Prize Winner: “Play the Game: Fool’s Move”

by Mary Treb Hibaya, Saint Mary’s Academy – Pasay City

The night sky is painted with burning hues of orange, yellow and black as the great cobra spews its venomous kerosene upon the state, letting the burnt smithereens of knowledge and democracy float among the public – this is the kind of dystopian future the Philippines is yet to experience. With the mindless chatter of social media enwrapping the brain of every Filipino, we are doomed to a society that is caged with the kind of technology that is corrupted with ignorance and censorship of our abusive, bloody and burning reality. 

Fahrenheit 451, a novel I once read, talks about a future where books, a source of unbiased knowledge, are burned, banned, and replaced. In turn, advanced technology is used to cage and manipulate people to live in a bubble away from reality – a bubble filled with the toxic gas of state propaganda. The Philippines is already living in this kind of bubble: common sense being smoked by online videos, knowledge being burned by the kerosene of manipulated media, and democracy being tainted with the crimson blood of those who go up against the man. 

The internet is burning the Philippines with complete irrationality. So, on the fiery night of May 9, not a bird nor a plane but a message chimed all over the country: A game has begun. A game of chess with the people of the Philippines. With the government playing as the opposing side  comes the question: Play the Game? 

Death of Human Rights: Queen’s Gambit 

Pawn to D4: the opening to a game of Queen’s Gambit. The government makes a move. Disinformation, online troll attacks, and red-tagging — all pawns in this little game. With the Philippines holding the title for having some of the most active social media users in the world, it is, no doubt, that Filipinos are heavily dependent on social platforms to get their news, gossip, and any kind of information. However, with algorithms professing bias and the platform itself excluding exemption from certain kinds of harmful content, freedom of expression and democracy can be seen burnt. 

Altering civic discourse by manipulating users towards particular ideologies is the type of kerosene that media platforms use to burn democracy. As long as there is money, power and hatred, the business of Satan would continue to scorch in success. Instead of fighting white chess pieces, we are now dealing with crimson red pieces, with the  blood of the oppressed staining the chessboard for every move. In this bloodbath game of logic,  what must we, the defense, do? 

To cure the sickness that corruption is spreading, internet platforms must first get rid of their biased system. Political news and factual information must always appear on one’s feed, not fixed to a user’s specified algorithm.

Pawn to D5: We make a move against the offense. As expected, fixes are being introduced to the corrupted system of social media. Although they seem to serve their purpose, these actions are not enough to save internet users from harmful content. As long as there is power and prejudice, there will be downsides to the actions made to guarantee a safer virtual environment. 

To cure the sickness that corruption is spreading, internet platforms must first get rid of their biased system. Political news and factual information must always appear in one’s feed, not fixed to a user’s specified algorithm. Other harmful content must also be rid of without granting reprieve, especially when multiple users have flagged the said content as negative. It is through the change of algorithm and the proper handling of user data will we find proper balance and ensure democracy. 

Renaissance of Freedom: The Albin-Counter Gambit 

The Albin-Counter Gambit wins against the Queen’s Gambit with a trap. A trap that would seem useless, almost a fool’s move in the beginning, however, would be crowned triumphant in the end as the enemy is deceived. Everyone would vilify the young: criticizing them for engaging in sensitive topics, laughing at them for having a stand in political discussions, and belittling them when fighting for their rights in the virtual world. However, just like the trap of Albin-Counter’s Gambit, the young, perceived as the fool’s move, would, later on, be the trump card that would lead the enemy’s King to a checkmate. 

Let’s not cage our youngsters into a world of sp(ecif)ied algorithms. We must not burn freedom, but rather keep an open fire for change. Go on, belittle the young, and fall to the righteous trap of Albin-Counter’s Gambit. Be the fool’s move, as you can only win against the ignorant when playing with ignorance.

Artwork by Cartoonist ZACH

Second Prize Winner: “A dose of social media problem: What should platforms do to protect its users?”

by Joshua Tristeza, Mandurriao National High School

Social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok provide vast spaces for media users to practice their freedom of speech and expression. These platforms have gone beyond our initial expectations when they first emerged and gained popularity in the recent decades. While they grant us many advantages in communication, entertainment, etc, these social media platforms have flaws that need fixing.

Despite its usefulness, social media is prone to harmful online content. This drawback is always associated with our freedom of expression, among our various individual human rights. Although individual self-regulation is a factor in making social media see less harmful content, the larger burden is still on the platform companies. Yet, how exactly should they handle such content without trampling the rights of media users? 

Some social media platforms contain contents that are not sensitive when it comes to the basic rights of media users. A very common example of this are pictures of random people uploaded without their permission on memes and other social media quirks. Although it is for entertainment purposes only, people’s photos, including that of minors, circulate on social media without their permission, thus invading their privacy. Some of these even include obscene imagery and adult humor which may be visible to minors. 

In order for such acts to be eliminated, social media platforms should include post classifiers and facial recognition scanners that may notify people that their picture might be included on a post. This way, they could report accounts that use their photos without their consent. In such a way, post filtering and fact-checking would also be easier as well as looking for the content you want to have on your feed. It would be helpful to parents in guiding what their children, especially minors, see in their feeds. 

Although individual self-regulation is a factor in seeing less harmful content on social media, the larger burden is still on the platform companies.

Moreover, platforms should be responsible in taking down posts and stories that violate their community standards. Recently, I observe a lot of online posts (especially on Facebook) that contain nudity, violence, hate speech, and discrimination. These obviously violate community standards, but for some reasons these videos remain for 24 hours without being taken down. Platforms must be cautious of these bugs in their system and might as well include automatic detectors and more evident reporting buttons. 

Moreover, hate speech and discrimination should also be taken down as immediately as possible. With media users being immensely vulnerable to such acts, platforms should have hate speech detectors on their system with various languages registered to be notified of those posts and to take action faster. If news stories include graphic images, then a warning would be appropriate for users. Post classification system could also help in these circumstances.

Despite the immense responsibilities of social media in ensuring basic human rights in the virtual world, governments, too, have the duty to empower its constituents to access these platforms without hindrances. They could create laws to protect the public and forge partnerships with social media for effective multi-stakeholder solutions.

Platforms should be eagle-eyed most importantly during the election and campaign periods. Considering the circumstances that we’ve experienced in the past elections on both local and national levels. Fake news and troll farms are very prevalent. Platforms should employ more fact-checkers and not just rely on third-party independent fact-checkers to counter these problems. In addition, rules and community guidelines must be strictly implemented. There should be no special treatment, be it a politician, a public figure, celebrity, etc. High-profile users who break the rules of certain platforms but were given exemptions due to being newsworthy must be neutralized. If such exemptions exist for high-profile users, then verified local news outlets must also be exempted by the same rules due to them being likewise newsworthy. 

Despite the immense responsibilities of social media in ensuring basic human rights in the virtual world, governments, too, have the duty to empower its constituents to access these platforms without hindrances. They could create laws to protect the public and forge partnerships with social media for effective multi-stakeholder solutions. 

With the continuous upgrades of social media and the skyrocketing numbers of new users, problems will continue to arise in the digital world. Nevertheless, platforms must take responsibility of the digital environment they have created and ensure a safe space for human rights to prevail.

Artwork by Isang Tasang Kape

Third Prize Winner: “Conglomerate Global Connections and the Glass Divide”

by Anika Mei Cunanan, University of Santo Tomas

What is the difference between a rally and a hashtag campaign? Fundamentally, they are nothing more than a collective stance on a belief while utilizing different platforms for expression. Yet, they serve the same purpose under our freedom of speech. 

From the beginning, democracy was founded on freedom. The collaboration of free ideas and expression in politics created the ideology of democracy, hence its self-ruling nature in society.

In questioning freedom in modern democracies, its limitations come into light when it contradicts other human rights. To some, this does not count as “true freedom” since regulations in place constrain free thought. Yet others would continue the chase for the feeling of freedom — the desire for open expression free from any judgment. Tim Berners-Lee once shared his thoughts on the future of managing an open-source project like the Internet: How must we help it survive in the face of excessive bureaucracy and political or commercial pressures? Striking a balance in dealing with harmful online content without abolishing too much of society’s freedom of expression lies within the subjectivity of the content itself, what it represents in different societies globally, and how it is handled by the hosting platforms. 

With how vastly different societies around the globe function in comparison to one another, not everyone can be protected on platforms that focus on connecting. While common interests are bound to stay afloat in online spaces, different opinions and viewpoints will persist and can always spark controversy in one way or another.

What was once thought to be the downfall of the Internet’s free nature has now become part of modern Internet culture. Take the case of Reddit’s supposed downfall from its former vision of being a completely free wall for anonymous opinion exchange to how it exists today, consistently moderated by millions of active users, which ultimately silences voices that are seen as way too controversial to host. While the app’s history holds clear reasoning to its dramatic shift, online communities like Reddit which are originally built based on specific interests with limited moderation are almost nonexistent due to the role of outside governance trying to play everyone’s advocate. With how subjective every topic could be, all-encompassing governing bodies would ultimately fail to safeguard every human right. With how vastly different societies around the globe function in comparison to one another, not everyone can be protected on platforms that focus on connecting. While common interests are bound to afloat in online spaces, different opinions and viewpoints will persist and can always spark controversy in one way or another. 

More regulatory mechanisms continue to be put in place, but due to cost reduction attempts, mechanisms such as content moderation and filtering are automated. One prominent example is YouTube, a video-sharing site known for numerous controversies regarding its moderation of children’s content. As the platform grows, it continues to cater to a younger audience, which in turn slowly silences creators who make content for more adult viewers. While cost reduction is a business trend done to increase profits, companies and governing bodies should have the rights of all its users protected in their best interests. 

While automation and policy generalization benefit the market and Internet connectivity, an individual’s human rights should always come first and not be violated by merely having an online presence.

Keeping the focus on a smaller community rather than adopting universal decisions would be preferable in determining what counts as “harmful online content,” as smaller societies that interact with one another more frequently tend to share the same ideals. They tend to agree better on what counts as harmful and what counts as controversial yet necessary. Take for instance when Facebook permitted an unnamed Brazilian politician’s post uncovering female nipples, which violated the platform standards on depiction of nudity. However, modern feminists have honed the discourse surrounding this with the normalization of female anatomy, equating it to that of men. Nonetheless, the newsworthy post was bound to gain traction due to complaints that it promoted nude content on a platform that is accessible to minors over the age of thirteen. 

While automation and policy generalization benefit the market and Internet connectivity, an individual’s human rights should always come first and not be violated by merely having an online presence. Free speech should be protected by the regulations that govern both internet platforms and real-world society. In a democratic state, it should not matter how people express themselves, as it is theorized that discourse and debate usually lead to the best courses of action. Yet, these practices should promote critical thinking among the citizens of a community, as this will in turn create a domino effect of effective discourse. The belief is that prioritizing an individual’s freedom of expression while promoting a more open mindset and rejecting unnecessary violent threats can ultimately balance out expression and other human rights.