Counterspeech as a response to disinformation

By Michael Henry Yusingco, LL.M

Defenders of free speech have consistently pushed this powerful idea: the best response to bad speech is more speech. This principle, sometimes called ‘counterspeech’, is applied to disinformation too. Falsehoods should not be censored but challenged and corrected by civil society. This approach traces its roots to the characterization of the information ecosystem as a marketplace of ideas. Which then anchors the belief that truth ultimately prevails when competing ideas are allowed to contest freely.

The assumption behind counterspeech is that citizens participate in an information environment where facts are reasonably accessible, speakers compete on relatively equal terms, and audiences remain open to persuasion. Basically, it presumes a fair contest between truth and lies. Sadly, none of these assumptions consistently holds in the Philippines today. Our information ecosystem has undergone a profound transformation over the past decade, and not in a good way.

Social media has displaced traditional journalism as the primary source of news for millions of Filipinos. Information is no longer filtered by professional editors but curated by algorithms designed to maximize engagement rather than accuracy. Outrage, conspiracy theories, and antisocial narratives travel faster and farther than careful reporting. In such an environment, the problem is no longer simply that falsehoods exist; it is that the architecture of online communication systematically elevates them.

The problem is compounded by psychology. Research consistently shows that people rarely change deeply held political beliefs simply because they encounter factual corrections. Instead, individuals interpret information through the lens of identity and emotion. Corrections are often dismissed as partisan attacks. Any online exchange always ends up as bangayan and bardagulan. Counterspeech in our context, therefore, operates against both technological and cognitive disadvantages.

This does not mean counterspeech is worthless for us. Far from it. Counterspeech remains indispensable because democracy still depends on the free speech, which includes the ability to challenge falsehood with better arguments. But obviously, the marketplace of ideas can function only when the marketplace itself has not been rigged. Nevertheless, free speech remains a constitutional cornerstone of our democratic culture.

Therefore, our government should exercise extreme caution before deciding what citizens may say online. History offers countless examples of states abusing anti-disinformation powers to silence critics rather than protect democratic discourse. Once governments acquire broad authority to determine ‘truth’, political incentives inevitably influence how that authority is exercised. The cure can become more dangerous than the disease.

Counterspeech remains the least coercive and most constitutionally compatible response available. It encourages citizens to think critically rather than passively accepting narratives. It avoids empowering governments to become arbiters of truth. It reinforces democratic habits of debate and persuasion instead of censorship and coercion.

A good example of how a counterspeech strategy can work in the anti-disinformation context is Taiwan’s approach. Rather than relying solely on state censorship or punitive legal frameworks, Taiwan has cultivated a digital ecosystem where fact-checking technologies and citizen-led initiatives help identify, verify, and correct false information circulating online. Crowdsourced verification networks can process a broader range of online content and adapt more rapidly to emerging falsehoods because they draw on distributed volunteer participation.

This technology-driven responsiveness is particularly important in fast-moving digital environments that are difficult for regulators to monitor. By integrating digital tools with civil society engaging in counterspeech, Taiwan demonstrates how democracies can respond to online disinformation without sacrificing free speech. Our lawmakers should study this approach to see if it can be replicated in the social media capital of the world.

Keep in mind that the constitutional commitment to free speech should not be interpreted as a call for governmental inaction. Rather, it should inspire policies that preserve an open marketplace while preventing it from being overwhelmed by industrial-scale manipulation. We do want less restrictions on speech. But we also badly need an information ecosystem in which truthful speech once again has a genuine opportunity to compete.