Identity Verification on Social Media: Why This Hasty Move is Doomed to Fail

The plans of the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) to introduce mandatory identity verification on social media platforms seem like a simple solution to complex problems. However, this approach is not only shortsighted but also carries significant risks that the government has probably not fully considered. A closer look at the proposal reveals: the system is more vulnerable to abuse than its proponents admit.

The DICT has submitted a draft government circular and is inviting public comments. Despite ongoing debates on this topic, a renewed discussion is worthwhile—because the risks are real.

The Justification and Its Internal Contradictions

The agency argues with valid contemporary challenges: deepfakes, AI-generated deceptive content, automated bot accounts, and coordinated inauthentic behavior all require a regulatory framework. The circular aims to serve as a deterrent and assist law enforcement in identifying perpetrators—while respecting due process.

The goal sounds reasonable: detect fraud, curb disinformation, protect national security. But the solution itself presents a conceptual problem. The DICT wants to “verify all social media accounts with a legal identity”—meaning billions of citizens would have to give up their anonymity and right to privacy. The justification? To protect freedom of expression. This is an internal contradiction.

Disproportionate and Uncomfortable: Why the Real Work Isn’t Being Done

A fundamental problem with this draft: it treats all social media users as potential criminals. Instead of effectively enforcing existing laws, it attempts to force everyone to relinquish their rights—a shortcut that seems more about control than cybersecurity.

The real question is: why can’t the government enforce existing laws properly? There are enough legal frameworks. There should be sufficient resources to deploy specialized anti-cybercrime teams. The issue isn’t that a verification system is needed—it’s that the agencies responsible for enforcement are unwilling to do the hard, daily work.

For example, Meta resists pressure to curb fraud because their revenue depends on it. Even developers at Grok try to promote better behavior when countries like the Philippines exert pressure. The authorities could do the same. They simply choose not to.

A Dangerous Shortcut: The Reality of Data Security

Deeper issues become apparent when considering practical questions the circular does not address:

• Which platforms fall under this regulation? Who defines that?
• Who processes this sensitive data? Which private or government entities?
• Who stores and manages a national identity database?
• Where will this data be stored geographically?
• Who is responsible in case of data breaches? What complaint and compensation options do citizens have?

History shows that shortcuts in data management often end catastrophically. The Comelec data scandal—the exfiltration of voter data—is just one prominent example. The mandatory SIM card registration was supposed to prevent fraud. It didn’t. It merely created another database that potential attackers find attractive.

It only takes one corrupt official or a single day of security negligence to put millions of identities at risk. The digital transformation that the public sector eagerly advocates is precisely why data leaks are becoming more frequent.

The legitimate question for every citizen: why should I trust the government with more personal data when those responsible repeatedly prove they cannot handle security challenges—except with excuses?

What Now?

The time to act is limited. Stakeholders and affected citizens can voice their opinions by submitting comments on the draft. The consultation process is open—those who recognize the shortcut this approach represents and take the risks seriously should participate.

The decision is not solely in the hands of the government. It also depends on those willing to ask the questions that need to be asked.

– According to Rappler.com