[Op-Ed] Ann Cuisia: You Shouldn’t Need ID to Speak

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. BitPinas has no commercial relationship with any mentioned entity unless otherwise stated.

📬 Get the biggest crypto stories in the Philippines and Southeast Asia every week — subscribe to the BitPinas Newsletter.

By Ann Cuisia, January 22, 2026 (Republished with permission from the author. Originally posted on the author’s blog.)

Technologist and entrepreneur Ann Cuisia, Trustee at Qadena Foundation, argues that mandatory identity verification on social media threatens anonymous speech, proposing a risk-based alternative to fight online abuse without silencing dissent.

I understand why government wants to act.

Anyone who spends even a little time online knows the damage that scams, fake accounts, and coordinated disinformation can do. Filipinos lose money to online fraud every day. Public discourse is polluted by bots and manufactured outrage. Children are exposed to harm. These are not imagined problems. They are real, and they deserve serious solutions.

That is why I see the intention behind the proposed policy on mandatory identity verification for social media accounts. The goal is accountability. The goal is safety. The goal is a healthier digital public space. As someone who works in technology and cares deeply about this country, I respect that impulse.

But intention is not the same as outcome.

The moment we require identity verification as a condition to speak online, we change the nature of that space. Social media is no longer just entertainment. It is where citizens criticize government, report abuses, organize relief, and speak when no one else will listen. Requiring people to register their identity before they can participate, even if their real name is hidden from the public, creates hesitation. And hesitation is often enough to silence the people who most need protection.

We should be honest about this. Pseudonyms are not the same as anonymity. Knowing that your identity exists in a database, linked to your speech, changes behavior. It discourages whistleblowers. It chills dissent. It makes ordinary citizens think twice before speaking about powerful interests. These are not edge cases. They are part of our democratic tradition.

There is also a legal reality we cannot ignore. Policies that affect free expression face the highest level of scrutiny. Unlike SIM registration, which was debated and passed by Congress, this proposal relies on administrative authority alone. Courts are unlikely to accept a system that places a blanket condition on participation in a modern public forum without clear legislative backing.

Still, the answer is not to do nothing.

We can protect Filipinos online without treating identity as an entry fee to speech. A smarter approach is possible, and it is already used in many parts of the digital world.

Instead of forcing verification on everyone, we should adopt a risk based framework. Ordinary users should be free to speak anonymously or under a pseudonym by default. Verification should be required only in higher risk situations. These include accounts that run paid political ads, accounts that reach massive audiences, accounts that seek algorithmic amplification, or accounts flagged through due process for coordinated inauthentic behavior. This targets harm without burdening every citizen.

At the same time, platforms must be held accountable for their systems, not their users’ identities. Strong bot detection, transparency in political advertising, rapid takedown of scams, and cooperation with lawful court orders already give government powerful tools. What matters is enforcement that is precise, proportional, and respectful of rights.

As a technologist, I know that collecting more data does not always make systems safer. As a Filipino, I know that freedom is rarely lost all at once. It is often lost through reasonable sounding rules that slowly narrow who feels safe enough to speak.

We should pause, refine, and narrow this policy. We should invite public debate and legislative participation. We should choose solutions that are strong enough to fight abuse but careful enough to protect the freedoms that define us.

We can have safer social media and free expression at the same time. We just need the humility to design policy that understands both technology and people.

Again, I don’t just criticize without a suggested solution in mind. Here is the outline of the proposed alternative policy for DICT’s consideration .

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE POLICY

Title: Risk-Based and Rights-Preserving Framework for Account Verification in Social Media Platforms

Policy Objective

To combat online fraud, bots, and coordinated inauthentic behavior without imposing blanket identity verification on all users, thereby preserving constitutional rights and minimizing legal risk.

Core Principles

1. Risk-Based Regulation
2. No Prior Condition to Speech
3. Preservation of Anonymous Expression
4. Data Minimization
5. Due Process–First Enforcement

Key Policy Features

A. Tiered Verification Model (Instead of Universal Verification)

Tier 1 – Unverified Accounts (Default)

• No identity verification required
• Full access to posting, commenting, and browsing
• Pseudonymous and anonymous speech preserved

Tier 2 – Verified Accounts (Voluntary or Triggered)

Verification required only if:

• Account engages in paid political advertising
• Account reaches a defined reach/engagement threshold
• Account is flagged through due process for coordinated inauthentic behavior
• Account seeks algorithmic amplification privileges

B. Platform-Level Accountability (Not User-Level by Default)

• Platforms must demonstrate robust bot-detection and moderation systems
• DICT audits systems, not individual users
• Focus on behavior, not identity

C. Law Enforcement Access via Existing Legal Tools

• Identity disclosure only:
  • Upon court order
  • For specific accounts
  • In active criminal investigations
• No pre-emptive identity stockpiling

D. Child Protection Measures

• Enhanced safeguards for minors
• Platform-based age assurance rather than universal identity linkage

E. Legislative Pathway

• Any move toward universal verification must be:
  • Explicitly legislated by Congress
  • Subject to public consultation
  • Accompanied by sunset clauses and oversight mechanisms

Advantages of This Alternative

• Constitutionally defensible
• Technically feasible for platforms
• Targets actual harms
• Avoids chilling effects
• Aligns with international best practice

This Opinion article is published on BitPinas: [Op-Ed] Ann Cuisia: You Shouldn’t Need ID to Speak

What else is happening in Crypto Philippines and beyond?