ARRIETA, Mary Irish Alve

DERRAMAS, May Anne

DELOSO, Tertius Cyle
SAMANIEGO, Rosalou Kaye
VILLANUEVA, Al Glejan
1R

An analysis of the emerging trends in fake news as a propaganda in Hostile Social

Manipulation and Post-truth Politics in the Philippines

In the era of the society where the platform of connectivity and sharing of information
is the social media, perspectives on authentic information, digitized rumor spreading,
misinformation and disinformation becomes more alarming, relevant and relative.
The bunch of information poses new challenges and drives a question of “what is true
and what is false?”. A more pressing concern to this current digital society is the extreme
question with the reliability of information, spread to millions of people in a matter of seconds
to couple of minutes at a very least cost since people are now in a highly interconnected world
through the internet technology. This connectivity is made effortlessly possible through the
power of social media where an individual is wirelessly visible to both real and virtual friends
across the globe.
In lieu of this, in theory, this was a wonderful advancement that leveled the playing
field. Fake news had always been around, but nowadays, the main differences lie in the way
its being spread and read. At present, information, whether true or false, travels faster. Fake
news has seriously caught on. It has greatly influenced the way media platforms operate, the
public’s perception of information, and even how governments confront its proliferation. The
internet radically changed the way news is published. Much like the invention of the printing
press, the internet allowed more people to publish their thoughts and chipped away at the news
from publishing giants. Moreover, one of the most hotly-debated socio-political topics of
recent years. Websites containing hoaxes and misleading information pop up across the
Internet and are often shared on social media to increase their reach – by both human users and
artificial bots, deliberately or unintentionally spreading disinformation.
The spread of ‘fake news’ has seen to be a global concern and threat not only to
business and politics but also to educational institutions. This alarming concern prompted the
Philippine Senate to conduct two hearings in aid of legislation on ‘fake news’ on how to control
if not totally legislate pertaining to the issue.

To further illustrate the nature and objectives of fake news, the researchers provide a
few studies and journals relating to the topic mentioned.
 During long stretches of professional vote-based system dissents that have included a
huge number of individuals and much of the time turned brutal, online bits of gossip, and fear
inspired notions sow perplexity and extend doubt in Hong Kong. Jeffrey Ngo, a pro-democracy
activist, said the sheer volume of clashing and false news circling on the web left individuals
confounded. In a world with an excess of data, what is genuine and not genuine is dubious to
decide. It at last plays well for people with great influence, when conventional individuals
choose not to look for truth since they thoroughly consider it's so difficult to figure what is
valid and what isn't. Notwithstanding, committed actuality checking administrations, kept
running by autonomous or predominant press gatherings, have risen as of late over the globe.
AFP's own Asia Fact-Check service has exposed in excess of twelve false or deluding claims
about the Hong Kong challenges, distributed in English. Some nearby autonomous media
associations have likewise distributed Chinese-language actuality check reports about the
challenges. However, Hong Kong still can't seem to see the sort of solid truth checking society
develop as found in India and Indonesia over ongoing years.
A University of Oxford study on the 2016 US decisions demonstrated that report from
expert associations and what they call "junk news" were shared in a one-to-one ratio on social
media. This implies content with unsubstantiated data or even non-certainties is as generally
shared as genuine news. Moreover, another study by Dr. Gillian Murphy of the University
College Cork in Ireland found that individuals recall false memories if the fake news supports
their political convictions or predispositions. In the study, 3,140 members were indicated 6
news reports about Ireland's 2018 abortion law referendum. Two of these were created
anecdotes about campaigners on either side of the issue taking part in criminal behavior. The
members were then inquired as to whether they had known about the occasions delineated in
the story already. Assuming this is the case, they were gotten some information about it.
Almost 50% of the members "recalled" a memory around one of the made-up occasions – a
large number of them even shared "rich subtleties. They likewise didn't rethink their memory
even in the wake of being recounted to that a portion of the tales they read could be created
with a few notwithstanding relating subtleties excluded in the accounts. The members were
additionally asked how they were going to vote in the referendum, before being given the new
stories. Those for the choice were bound to recall false data about those against it and the other
way around, recommending that the bogus recollections fortify inclinations. The wonder of
fake news framing recollections has been examined previously, however it's the first occasion
when that it has been tried in connection to a real-world referendum.
The role of information warfare in global strategic competition has become much more
apparent in recent years. Hostile social manipulation utilizes targeted social media campaigns,
sophisticated forgeries, cyberbullying and harassment of individuals, distribution of rumors
and conspiracy theories, and other tools and approaches to cause damage to the target state.
These developing instruments and systems speak to a conceivably huge risk to U.S. what's
more, allied national interests. The report speaks to a push to all the more likely characterize
and comprehend the test by concentrating on the activities of the two driving creators of such
systems — Russia and China. The authors of the study direct a detailed evaluation of accessible
proof of Russian and Chinese social control efforts, the conventions and techniques behind
such endeavors, and proof of their potential adequacy. This takes on an advanced type of long
traditions of propaganda. The report concentrated on the utilization of data to shape perceptions
and demeanors in different social orders and accomplish harmful effects. Nations utilizing both
conventional and non-customary media to scatter their pro-government content and associate
with their intended interest groups were observed. On account of Russia, the researchers
noticed that President Vladimir Putin and individuals from his internal circle are “trained to
view information through a specific lens.” Coming from a vocation in the KGB, the Soviet
Union's ancient security office, Putin's interests rotated around the administration keeping up
power over data. Different instruments were utilized to plant disagreement, disturb a political
divide, debilitate confidence in public institutions, and control US political and social
outcomes. To cite an example, Russia utilized toolssuch as automated social media bots,
political advertising on Facebook, and state-possessed media channels to direct propaganda to
the targeted release of stolen documents to influence electoral outcomes. The report found a
few studies that demonstrated Russian and Venezuelan online networking records
overwhelmed Spain with pro-independence messages during the Catalan separatist crisis in
2017. In the interim, China utilizes both defensive and hostile objectives trying to delegitimize
pundits of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as an “extremely tiny handful” often serving
“hostile foreign forces.”

Taking all of these into consideration, one can say that the Internet has disrupted every
aspect of our lives including how we gather information, communicate with friends and family,
and conduct our businesses. But the good always comes with the bad. While the Internet has
revolutionized every sphere of human activity, it also facilitated the criminal activities of
nefarious individuals. Recognizing this dual aspect of this paradigm shifting activity, Congress
enacted Republic Act 10175, also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
This new law defined and punished offenses, which may be grouped as follows:
offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data systems;
computer-related offenses, such as computer forgery, fraud and identity theft, and content-
related offenses, such as cybersex, child pornography and, most significantly, cyber libel. The
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 does not really define cyber libel. It penalizes libel, as
defined under the Revised Penal Code, but imposes a higher penalty because of the use of
information and communication technologies. In Disini, the SC explained this qualifying
circumstance arises from the fact that in “using the technology in question, the offender often
evades identification and is able to reach far more victims or cause greater harm.”
 It is imperative to dig deep on it at the present as we are all aware of the effects of fake
information and how it can ruin reputation. It is timely as more and more people gets access to
this information with the touch of the fingertips. Although ignorance of the law excuses no one
from compliance therewith it is our responsibility as safeguards of the law to reach out and
disseminate to them that although it is your fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution
to freely express yourself, there are attached responsibilities.
On the other hand, there may be different sides on this particular issue. Many found the
SC ruling on Cyber Libel as draconian and repressive as it is an imminent threat against
freedom of speech and enjoyment of civil liberties. Criminal libel is frequently criticized as
one of the most abused means in infringing the freedom of expression and suppressing press
freedom in the country. It stifles the citizen’s right to freedom of expression but in the world
wide web. The internet is a free market placce of ideas. Any legislation which purports to
decriminalize libel on the Internet cannot only deter free willing of thoughts but can also
obscure the truth, as that legislation can instill fear of possible punishment to citizens at each
moment online. For example, a journalist may choose to remain silent instead of divulging
news on fraudulent acts of a public official to evade the risks of being imprisoned.
Since the freedom of expression is one of the fundamental liberties that everyone
should possess, the government should, by all means, be duty-bound to protect (and not
trample) this right. Curtailing someone’s freedom of expression online is allowing human
rights to be under threat by people who want to manipulate the public. Essentially, the Internet
should never be an instrument of fear, but a potent tool capable of empowering people;
mobilizing the citizens to demand for responsive governance, justice, and public
accountability; and advancing the ideals of democracy.
The Cybercrime Act of 2012 also does not specifically provide for the place or venue
where the aggravated party may file the criminal case for internet libel. However, the Supreme
Court managed to resolve this through prevailing jurisprudence; in the case of Bonifacio v
RTC of Makati in 2010, the Court laid down the rules on the venue of criminal actions for
internet libel as follows: “(I) If the offended party is a private individual, the criminal case can
only be filed in either of two places, namely: (a) where the complainant or offended party
actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense; or (b) where the alleged
defamatory article was printed and first published. (II) If the offended party is a public official,
the criminal case can only be filed in either of two places, namely: (a) in the place (whether in
or outside Manila) where he holds office at the time of the commission of the crime; or (b)
where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published”
Information most likely to be utilized will be coming from reputable news agency
sources. With years of credibility and experience in handling accurate and precise information.
The Statutory Law sources will be included as well to gauge the responsibility as well as the
possible penalties that will be incurred if one violates. Case law sources will be added to give
credence on the information and to know how the High Courts of the Philippines responded,
applied and interpreted the law.
This simple paper will revolve only on social media posts that may be libelous. It will
delve into the nature of what entails a libelous act. It may or may not tackle social media posts
that instigated harm and violence as that is another spectrum of effects of social media. This
paper aims to enlighten people on the effects of social media and how it can be weaponized to
alter truth.
Sources
Disini v. Secretary of Justice. G.R. 203335, 11 February 2014
Vital to the paper because it assailed the constitutionality of the provision of cyber
libel, however, SC ruled that libel is not a constitutionally protected speech. It
follows, therefore, the cyber libel is not unconstitutional as well

Hostile Social Manipulation, Present Realities and Emerging Trends

Mazarr, Michael J., Abigail Casey, Alyssa Demus, Scott W. Harold, Luke J.
Matthews, Nathan Beauchamp-Mustafaga, and James Sladden, Hostile Social
Manipulation: Present Realities and Emerging Trends. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation, 2019

Bonifacio v RTC of Makati, G.R. 184800, 5 May 2010

The Court laid down the principles and rules as to the place or venue where the crime
of internet libel may be filed since the Cybercrime Act does not provide for it.

Fake news war divides, confuses in Hong Kong

France-Presse, A. (2019, July 25). Fake news war divides, confuses in Hong Kong.
Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com/world/regions/asia-pacific/236301-fake-
news-war-hong-kong

False Memories for Fake News During Ireland’s Abortion Referendum

Gillian Murphy, Elizabeth F. Loftus, Rebecca Hofstein Grady, Linda J. Levine,
and Ciara M. Greene, False Memories for Fake News During Ireland’s Abortion
Referendum, School of Applied Psychology, University College Cork