Performative regulation strikes

Not everything performative is negative. I have described the way in which our coast guard punches way above its weight as “performative martyrdom,” because essentially that is what its mission is: to face peril in order to uphold bedrock principles. As you read this, the radical Left is preparing to do what it does best in the halls of Congress: strike heroic poses even as it submits less-than-impressive impeachment complaints. But such drama is par for the course in politics.

There is other performative behavior, though, which is simply that: striking a pose.

Last Jan. 15, 2026, everyone’s favorite Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) Secretary Henry Aguda announced a government ban on Grok (an AI chatbot developed by xAI, an artificial intelligence company founded by Elon Musk and featured on X, the app formerly known as Twitter) in reaction to news reports that Grok allowed users to produce deepfake content of an explicit nature that sexualized innocent people (celebrities and others).

The Philippine ban was officially implemented on Jan. 16, 2026, and followed in the wake of similar bans from Malaysia and Indonesia, even as the European Union and India launched inquiries into “digital undressing” claims.

On the same day (Jan. 16, 2026), the DICT announced that xAI (the entity that owns Grok AI) would be meeting with the DICT, the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center, and the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) to resolve Grok-related issues.

Also on the same day, X Corp. sent a written response (dated Jan. 16, 2026) to Aguda and to the NTC detailing what it claimed were the proactive measures taken and already implemented to address misuse concerns (recall that there was already an anti-Grok backlash in other countries going back to late December 2025). In other words, X Corp. had already put additional safeguards in place by the time Aguda announced the Philippine ban.

What is a rooster to do but crow? As the showbiz motto goes, “the show must go on!” And so it was that a visibly excited and seemingly triumphant Aguda announced during a Jan. 21, 2026, press conference that he would meet with X representatives and that the DICT and NTC were ready to lift the ban as soon as possible.

Do you see what happened? A ban was announced on the basis of a situation that, if the supposed culprit had been asked, no longer existed. In other words, a ban was imposed without any investigation into the claims made, making it seem to be another knee-jerk reaction from Aguda, who was quoted as saying that he wanted to “prevent public harm.”

The extent of DICT prevention can be gleaned from Grok remaining accessible to premium users (of the stand-alone Grok website) and to X users despite the ban, which arguably leads to the conclusion that it was not really much of a ban at all.

What’s more, Art Samaniego Jr. (cofounder of Scam Watch Pilipinas and IT and cybersecurity professional) criticized the action, saying: “There is also a policy contradiction. The Philippine government is pushing for AI regulation, not AI disappearance. The goal is responsible deployment, not digital erasure. By choosing a ban over proper governance, the DICT risks sidelining the country from serious global discussions on AI policy and accountability.”

It seems that good old Aguda is fond of shooting from the hip to land in the headlines (Remember “Blockchain is 101% hack free”?) when the more sober observer might expect the country’s ICT department to methodically develop initiatives with clear implementation plans and policies that actually deliver results.

I remember when an “akyat-bahay” gang or another struck a mall, leaving shattered display cases in a jewelry store in its wake, and netizens and the media alike fell over themselves in mocking an official who announced the first step they’d take was to ban the sale of hammers in malls—because the gang had used hammers in their heist.

Banning Grok is akin to banning hammers because someone used one to commit a crime. Instead of using the tools available to prosecute bad actors who misuse platforms, he issued a blanket ban that affects ordinary users and sends the wrong signal that Filipino policymakers aren’t just autocratic but self-important, too: the Taliban of the ICT.

We need policymakers who actually perform; performative action, or empty virtue-signaling, won’t cut it.

Aguda’s performative interventions are not harmless; on the contrary, this sort of thing unconsciously weighs down an administration already struggling with a -3 percent approval rating and barely keeping its head above water; it contributes to the general sentiment that there is a lack of concrete action on the part of government when it comes to urgent national issues.

—————-

Email: mlquezon3@gmail.com; Twitter: @mlq3

******

Get real-time news updates: inqnews.net/inqviber