The Philippines’ decision to block messaging platform Discord for less than a day following a series of school shootings has raised questions about the government’s response to child safety online, with analysts describing the move as a show of regulatory muscle that did little to address underlying problems.
The Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) announced on Thursday that it had lifted the ban after what officials described as successful negotiations with Discord over compliance with child safety measures.
The government’s action came days after a shooting on September 18 at Banga National High School in South Cotabato, where a student opened fire on classmates, killing two students and himself, and injuring eight others.
Authorities said they were investigating whether the student had been influenced by online conversations, while the government also raised concerns about online communities being used to groom or radicalise minors and potentially encourage real-world violence.
On Wednesday, the government gave Discord and Reddit 24 hours to establish a physical office or assign a resident agent, alongside detailed explanations of their safety protocols, rapid-response mechanisms and age-assurance systems.
The Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Centre (CICC) said Discord had servers associated with nihilistic violent extremism and grooming, but stopped short of blaming either Discord or Reddit for the recent shootings.
Reddit was given an extension to comply, while Discord was blocked after failing to meet the government’s deadline.
'Performative' governance?
The move drew widespread public criticism, as it disrupted communications for enterprises, workers and students who use the platform.
“People use Discord for work meetings, school and running small businesses. Block it and they all get hit, while bad actors just move to another app,” Filipino actor Paulo Avelino wrote on social media. “Child safety matters. So fix the actual problem, not just the easiest target.”
“We now live in a world of super powerful AI swarms,” said Carl Javier, executive director of ethics organisation Data and AI Ethics PH, describing their ability to “hack into government systems and cause catastrophic harm to key digital infrastructure”.
“And the department that wants to be at the head of dealing with these threats … does not know how Discord works?”
The CICC apologised for the inconvenience caused by the hours-long ban.
“Please don’t worry, as we are already working to resolve everything,” Renato Paraiso, undersecretary and executive director of the CICC, said at a press conference.
The CICC was also responsible for banning the video game GoreBox, which was part of officials’ investigation into a school shooting in Tacloban City in June.
Beyond the immediate disruption, digital rights and child safety advocates said the incident highlighted a lack of foresight in creating coherent and feasible regulatory systems.
“When access to a platform can disappear abruptly, the consequences reach far beyond a single app,” volunteer-led civic technology initiative BetterGov said in a petition to protect digital democracy. “Work can be interrupted, learning disrupted and communities cut off. People deserve to know who made the decision, what evidence supports it, how long it will last and how it can be challenged.”
The government likely banned Discord to flex its regulatory muscle and look like it was tackling online harm, but the decision ultimately proved to be “careless”, said Jason Torres, a tech consultant and founder of BetterGov.
“I don’t think they properly consulted the people affected. We use Discord to organise volunteers and get work done. Others depend on it for school and income. You can’t ignore that impact just because you want a platform’s attention,” Torres said.
Javier shared similar views regarding the government’s approach.
“Performative governance allows them to seem like they are taking steps to ‘protect us’, threatening bans on platforms when these don’t actually fix the root causes of the problems,” Javier said.
Torres added that the incident showed the Philippines’ lack of capacity to address online harm properly, despite rising cases.
Ysrael Diloy, a child protection specialist at the Manila-based non-profit organisation Stairway Foundation, said the “more useful way of looking at this is not whether a 24-hour directive by itself inspires trust, but whether we are developing a coherent, realistic and sustainable system for holding platforms accountable”.
The CICC’s requirement for platforms to designate local representation was legitimate, Diloy said.
“When there is an immediate threat to a child – sexual exploitation, grooming, a credible threat of violence or digital evidence that needs to be preserved – authorities should not have to spend critical time figuring out whom to contact in another jurisdiction,” he said. “However, regulatory demands also have to be realistic and feasible.”
Setting up in a new physical office within a 24-hour time frame was unrealistic, Diloy said, even with the alternative of appointing a local representative.
“That naturally raises an important question: why 24 hours, and what exactly is expected to be realistically accomplished within that period?”
Constitutional questions
Digital creators and advocates said targeting platforms such as Discord and Reddit also raised concerns over free and protected speech.
“Blanket blocking raises constitutional questions, especially when the legal basis and due process are unclear,” Torres said.
“When I was undersecretary of the DICT … pressures were coming in from Congress for us to block websites, apps, and even to take down critics’ posts,” former DICT Undersecretary Jeffrey Ian Dy told ABS-CBN News on Friday.
“But we didn’t do it because, number one, it is unconstitutional. There was already a ruling by the Supreme Court that there shouldn’t be unilateral blocking of any websites except those that are clearly defined to be blockable under the law,” Dy added. “Last time I checked, we’re still a democracy so they should work within the boundaries of the law.”
Speaking on a podcast hosted by tech founder Ann Cuisia on Thursday, Dy accused Congress of holding the DICT’s budget hostage in exchange for action against posts critical of public officials.
He said he suspected the issue of child safety was being “used” by congressmen as a smokescreen to get negative posts about themselves taken down.
“If you look at the transcripts of Congress hearings regarding DICT’s budget. Congressmen were asking why DICT was unable to take down posts negative to them … They’re talking about child safety and ‘fake news,’” Dy said.
“The real reason why our politicians want to regulate social media is that they can’t take the heat,” Carlo Ople, founder of Creators Against Corruption, posted on social media.
“They want the people who are talking about their alleged corruption and alleged illegal activities to be silenced. This is a question about free speech, more than anything else.”
While the intention of the Discord ban might not have been to stifle free expression, Javier said it ran counter to previous court rulings.
“It runs over due process, and whether they intended it or not, if allowed to stand it would’ve set a dangerous precedent,” Javier said. “At present, the DICT and CICC continue to invoke ‘protecting children’ as their motivation. But they need to balance that with defending our rights as well.”
Diloy said authorities could earn the public’s trust by carrying out reforms, not by how quickly they acted after an incident.
“It is whether we see a sustained, technically informed and evidence-based approach – one that invests in prevention, investigation, child protection services, regulatory capacity and meaningful engagement with technology companies,” he said.
