MANILA, PHILIPPINES – In today’s digital battlefield, it is no secret that information is power. Whether it comes in the form of “troll farms” that disseminate disinformation or carefully rebranded “community engagement programs” aimed at rallying supporters for progressive causes, both sides of the political spectrum are investing in online operations designed to control narratives, generate sympathy, and discredit opponents. In the Philippines—a nation often dubbed “patient zero” in the global disinformation epidemic—this convergence of tactics underscores a troubling truth: the methods to manipulate online discourse remain fundamentally similar regardless of the political or moral banner under which they operate.
When Digital Manipulation Becomes a Necessary Tool
Traditionally, the term “troll farm” conjures images of covert operations run by corrupt politicians or authoritarian regimes. Indeed, multiple studies have documented how the 2016 presidential campaign of Rodrigo Duterte reportedly allocated around US $200,000 to hire a keyboard army designed to flood social media with pro-government messages and to discredit critics reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk.
Similarly, paid operations linked to political campaigns in the Philippines have been estimated to cost from 300,000 to 500,000 pesos per month for minor local engagement—and up to 800,000 or even 1,000,000 pesos per month for national-scale operations channelnewsasia.com.
Yet as these tactics have become more commonplace, progressive politicians, civic groups, and even international human rights organizations have begun to harness similar strategies. Rather than being branded “troll farms,” these initiatives are often marketed as “digital grassroots mobilization,” “online community engagement programs,” or “supporter activation networks.” The rebranding is not just cosmetic—it is an attempt to present what is, functionally, the same orchestration of paid or organized online activities in a more palatable, even noble, light.
The Cost of Crafting an Online Narrative
Behind the scenes of both the murkier corners of political manipulation and the ostensibly noble digital mobilization efforts lies a business of numbers. For example, while anti-democratic forces may pay a significant sum to flood digital spaces with disinformation, progressive political campaigns and social movements often allocate substantial budgets toward digital engagement. These funds—whether labeled as payments for “social media consultants” or “online volunteer coordinators”—aim to enhance the visibility of their messages, counter negative press, and mobilize a base that is increasingly active online.
Both sides understand that control over algorithms and the ability to generate manufactured online “buzz” are decisive factors in modern electoral contests. Veteran journalist Inday Espina-Varona emphasized the blurred lines in digital engagement, stating, “Disinformation and manufactured noise are the same, regardless of the color or cause their practitioners espouse.” While not all paid community engagement programs deliberately spread lies or disinformation, she pointed out that financial incentives can create a misleading perception of support or opposition. She underscored this concern by saying, “Ang problema ay dahil hindi disclosed ang payments.” (The problem is that the payments are not disclosed.)
Meanwhile, former Division Chief of the National Privacy Commission, Francis Euston Acero asserted, “It’s never been ethical, and as such, it’s never been okay. Noble cause corruption is still corruption.” Yet, in today’s highly polarized global political landscape, one must ask: What truly defines ethics? Who has the authority to set these moral boundaries when perspectives on what is “right” or “wrong” vary globally? Echoing this sentiment, Mr. Acero posed a deeper challenge: “The real question is, what does integrity mean? When fighting people who have no regard for the social contract?”
Why Both Sides Play the Digital Game
The reasons behind the widespread adoption of these digital tactics are straightforward. In an era when traditional media has ceded much of its influence to online platforms, political actors—regardless of ideology—must contend with a fragmented, algorithm-driven ecosystem. Online engagement allows them to:
- Amplify Support: By creating artificial “grassroots” momentum, both regimes and reformists can attract attention, frame political debates and boost advocacy support.
- Attack Opponents: Whether through overtly aggressive trolling or subtler way of educating the opposition, sustained campaigns of criticism, online armies are used to discredit adversaries.
- Mobilize Voters: The strategic manipulation of digital content can generate sympathy and drive voter turnout, especially during election periods when every impression counts.
- Shape Narratives: Controlling or diverting the online conversation is tantamount to controlling the political and advocacy narrative, thereby influencing public opinion in both subtle and overt ways. In a nation where online connectivity is near-universal and where social media users can be swayed by orchestrated narratives, the deployment of these techniques is seen as a necessary, even if ethically dubious, tactic to win political and advocacy battles.
The Great Digital Dilemma: Ethics in the Online Arena
The convergence of these practices—whether under the guise of a troll farm or a community engagement program—forces us to confront a critical question: Does the noble intent of a cause justify the use of such manipulative tactics? In the Philippines, the answer is not clear-cut. While progressive groups may argue that their efforts to mobilize voters, advocates or defend human rights are in the public interest, the reality is that the methods they employ mirror those used by regimes intent on sowing division and suppressing dissent.
The ethical conundrum is profound. Even when a campaign’s motive is for the “greater good,” when it employs paid digital armies to manufacture online support or to educate and silence critics, it inevitably undermines the trust that should underpin genuine grassroots engagement. The irony is stark—regardless of whether the agenda is repressive or reformist, the digital weaponization of social media undermines the authenticity of public discourse.
Let us not forget that some of these good and bad actors also have alliances, networks, and supporters across local and national media/press—both traditional and digital. Even vloggers, bloggers, and journalists are allegedly paid to or contributes to this already chaotic digital battle over who controls or hold the truth.
Toward a Future of Authentic Digital Engagement
If there is a lesson to be drawn from this digital arms race, it is that the power of organic, human-driven online interaction should not be sacrificed at the altar of manufactured support or necessary noise. Genuine engagement—rooted in transparency, dialogue, and mutual accountability—remains the ideal for a healthy democracy. While the tactics of troll farms and progressive digital campaigns may overlap, the ethical distinction lies in the commitment to truthfulness, openness, and respect for the audience’s autonomy.
For progressive movements and political leaders alike, the challenge moving forward is to harness the power of digital technology in a way that respects democratic principles. Only by fostering authentic communication and encouraging real grassroots mobilization can society ensure that digital engagement becomes a force for genuine change rather than a mere extension of the same manipulative tactics employed by both “good” and “bad” actors.
Ultimately, the power of the internet should be seen as a tool for empowering citizens rather than as a weapon for manipulating them. As we navigate the complexities of the digital age, let us strive for an online ecosystem where transparency, ethics, and genuine human connection prevail over manufactured propaganda.
