Expert opposes social media franchise requirement: address the root causes

Technology expert Edison Go Tan has questioned a proposal to require social media platforms to obtain a franchise from Congress before operating in the Philippines. In a report published by Abante on 28 September 2026, he said the measure would not be enough to address the root causes of the problem, even if it could speed up communication between the government and platforms.

Rationale for regulation questioned

Go Tan’s objection centres on why a service should need special permission to operate. He explained that one key justification for regulation is the scarcity of resources needed to provide a service. In his view, no comparable justification applies to social media.

This distinction is central to his argument: before introducing a franchise requirement, there should be clarity about which problem it would directly solve. He did not consider more direct contact with the companies running the platforms to be sufficient justification on its own.

His objection focuses on the chosen regulatory approach. In the reported comments, he also acknowledged the potential benefit of faster responses from platforms. However, he distinguished between speeding up communication and tackling the underlying problem.

Faster responses, but not a complete solution

According to Go Tan, direct communication could help when requesting the removal of threatening content. He described faster responses as a potential benefit, rather than a guaranteed outcome of the proposal.

But that is only part of the issue, he said. He stressed that not every company can be required to establish operations in the Philippines. For this reason, he does not see the proposed franchise requirement as addressing the root causes of the problem.

The report provided did not set out a detailed alternative policy from Go Tan. Nor did it specify how quickly platforms should respond to government requests. His comments therefore clearly highlight the limitations of the proposed mechanism, rather than present a complete replacement for it.

For those following the debate, this is the distinction to watch: having an easily reachable representative does not automatically mean that harmful content, complaints or other problems involving a platform will be dealt with effectively.

Accountability is the proposal’s aim

At the centre of the debate is House Bill 4786, or the Social Media Platform Franchise Act. According to a Philstar editorial published on 24 September, it aims to classify major social media platforms as public services and require them to obtain a franchise from Congress before continuing to operate in the country.

The editorial also reported support from the Department of Information and Communications Technology. Its stated rationale was the difficulty of holding overseas-based companies accountable for content moderation, consumer complaints and data privacy.

Meanwhile, Technobaboy reported on 23 September that Malacañang, the Philippine presidential office, was open to the proposal, but that President Ferdinand Marcos Jr still needed to review it. At the time of that report, no specific penalties for non-compliance had been set out.

In the reports provided, the franchise requirement remained a proposal. It should not be understood as an existing obligation for platforms or for businesses using social media.

What should the franchising community bear in mind?

For the franchising community, it is important to distinguish between two different uses of the word “franchise”. Here, it refers to authorisation granted by Congress through a specific law, allowing a service to operate. It is not an agreement to use a business’s brand and operating system.

The proposal concerns social media platforms, not the granting of business franchises to retail outlets. Nothing in the research provided supports the claim that a franchise owner now needs congressional permission simply because they use social media.

Practical reminder: Monitor the official text and progress of the bill. Do not change business procedures on the assumption that it is already law; distinguish the aim of strengthening accountability from the question of whether the proposed approach would be effective.