A country where social media need a franchise before they can operate

[aioc]

Only in the Philippines. A congressman filed a bill requiring a congressional franchise before they can operate; they want social media to maintain their office or representation.

There was a bill threatening to ban Facebook if Mark Zuckerberg did not appear in their invitation to show up in Congress   

Do you think they are asking too much, and they think that it's a big loss for social media if our country loses them.

Who's going to lose here, the people or the social media? Does your country have a similar proposal?

A Philippine lawmaker has filed legislation requiring major social media platforms to secure a congressional franchise before operating in the country, seeking to classify digital networks as public services under national law.
The measure would declare covered social media platforms as “public services of significant public consequence” operating as critical digital infrastructure, placing them under a regulatory framework similar to telecommunications providers and traditional broadcasters.

Under the proposed Social Media Platform Franchise Act, foreign and local digital platforms exceeding a user threshold to be set by regulators must obtain legislative approval to operate.
Covered companies would also be required to establish a registered legal entity or branch office in the Philippines, designate a local compliance officer and maintain a functional grievance system for local users.

Lawmaker Proposes Congressional Franchise Requirement for Social Media Companies

[Soldroplet]

The big social media platforms certainly need to have some responsibilities, but if the government starts putting political pressure on them, that won't be a good thing. Looking at the proposals that are being discussed in the Philippines right now, I also think that this is being taken a bit too far. If a big platform suddenly shuts down, the common people and small businesses will suffer the most, because many now rely on them for everything from finding customers to daily communication. Large companies may be able to continue their business from other countries, but local small sellers don't have that opportunity.

It is also true that social media cannot be completely abandoned, because they also need to be accountable for fraud, harmful content and the safety of children. However, I think it is more effective to have clear rules and strictly enforce those rules than to threaten to ban them. It is okay for the government to regulate, but it also needs to be clear where that control stops, otherwise later on there could be pressure on expression.

[crwth]

I'm not sure if the votes are worth it for that. I don't think it should be "franchise," but maybe just a license. It should be treated differently because it's the internet, not radio stations, where frequencies should be reserved for a specific station, etc.

Is there any other country that deals with social media like this?

[mu_enrico]

It's not a "business franchise" as far as I understand the term used in the Philippines, but more like a special privilege given by Congress. Well, it's understandable that countries want to regulate any business entity whose customers are from their country. They need to collect taxes, regulate information, etc., to abide by local laws. In Indonesia, we already regulate social media and relevant entities under the Penyelenggara Sistem Elektronik (PSE) law. One of the things that's concerning me about this "franchise" is that the company needs to have a local office, which they might opt out of if it's not worth it. As a consequence, Philippine people might get cut off from such a service.

[Coyster]

Just like some of the users above me, i am wondering why they called this a "franchise". The only reason i can think of is because the bill mentions that the companies must establish a branch office in Phiippines, but that's not just what a franchise is, in business terms.

That said, we've established that the legislation proposes that social media companies that fit certain requirements should have a license to operate in the country, and that's what this is about. While this is not something that is common globally, if the legislators vote in favor of it, then the companies would have to comply or stop offering their service to people from the Philippines.

[Cryptomultiplier]

The Philippines government is simply asking for too much with such absurd legislative franchise because social media is not like physical infrastructures but are more like digital websites on the open global internet.
Social media answers to international powers and not just country or region specific governments seeking to control them and this might cause these social media platforms to stop their services in a place like Phillipines if this franchise becomes a hindrance or challenge to their operations.

Afterall, there are countries in the world that have their own social media platforms strictly monitored and controlled by their governments and do not have Facebook or tiktok or the likes that are more popular because they intend to control what their citizens are exposed to and that's the media.

[Shadiq]

The Philippine government's move is understandable. It only wants to bring those social media companies under local laws and ensure that their own country controls its own information. There will be both advantages and disadvantages for the people of the Philippines. If those companies do not agree to the Philippine proposal, the people of the Philippines will have to refrain from using social media services.

Although there may be no country in the world that has such a law, most countries in the world are still trying to keep social media open. It is very difficult to say what the Philippine government's motives are, but the proposal ("Included companies must establish a registered legal entity or branch office in the Philippines, appoint a local compliance officer, and maintain an effective complaint resolution system for local users." ) seems to indicate that data is safe and the benefits of users.

[arallmuus]

Only in the Philippines. A congressman filed a bill requiring a congressional franchise before they can operate; they want social media to maintain their office or representation.

So they can tax them more and control the outflow of the content on those social media?  

Do you think they are asking too much, and they think that it's a big loss for social media if our country loses them.

Who's going to lose here, the people or the social media?

Its actually a standard request except that they want Mark to show up on the Congress, kinda hilarious on this part. Meta most likely will comply to the request because there is no reason for them to move out of this country considering that Facebook is the most popular social media with over 90% active user according to this Source

It is very difficult to say what the Philippine government's motives are

Its obviously more money taxes because if Meta sets up an office there, it will be easier to audit them which would lead to higher taxes

[Taricoins]

I'm not sure if the votes are worth it for that. I don't think it should be "franchise," but maybe just a license. It should be treated differently because it's the internet, not radio stations, where frequencies should be reserved for a specific station, etc.

Is there any other country that deals with social media like this?

I think there are lots of people that operates within said ideology and I like the fact that you substituted franchise to licensing, that's far more understandable, some countries like Iran, China and a few I have heard of have one or two restrictions on X, Facebook and other social media but I don't know whether it is due to licensing disagreement, but still it will hurt the citizens more because alot of them use content creation as a source of living