What people will do to make money

IN this day and age, and during this seemingly infinite state of poverty in our country, Filipinos are adapting to their current financial situations and woes in differing approaches: some positive, some downright irresponsible, but all are quite innovative. Imagine if these innovations were channeled into something good for the country.

I recently came across some news and video tidbits that dwelt more on the desire of some people to make money through outrageous behavior, in the hope that the videos they upload on social media sites would go viral, and when viewership hits a certain minimum threshold, the account holder receives financial rewards. This is the quite a prevalent practice that perplexes me.

Most content creators have substance in their featured videos, focusing on travel diaries, food, shopping ideas, etc. — all targeted for those who can afford. The lower-middle-income brackets include DIY projects for hobbyists and those who can save money by making or fixing things themselves.

For the great majority of the working class who, instead of finding ways to improve themselves either through higher education or enhancing work and professional attitudes, decide to find quick fixes and shortcuts, mistakenly equating money with success.

And then there are the entertainment videos which dwell from the funny to the “laughing out loud” category, through tearjerkers and emo episodes. I have no beef with these types, except when they try to influence people’s mindsets, attitudes and even hopes. When people feature videos that show blatant disregard for the law, when they create videos to solicit a certain number of views and comments for fame and money, then I join the ranks of the traditionalists who condemn this behavior.

While both are content creators, “bloggers” write articles, essays, reviews, tutorials, and more, which require a certain level of intellect and are relatively less involved in notoriety; the “vloggers,” or video bloggers, create content primarily in video formats and publish on platforms like YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Vimeo, and the like, even short films.

Let me comment on two vloggers, whose videos created an uproar and have gone viral, yet pose a danger to a society vulnerable and gullible enough to believe and take every word said as the whole truth and nothing but. Having more of these types leads to mis- and disinformation.

1. GMA Integrated News reported that the Land Transportation Office (LTO) has suspended the driver’s license of a motorcycle rider for 90 days for performing a viral traffic stunt in a public road in Manila. The rider, on RBabianoTV, was seen dancing on top of his motorcycle in traffic in Manila, which went viral on social media, attracting public attention and intervention from the LTO. The rider beside him even gave him a high-five, showing approval. A show-cause order (SCO) was issued and scheduled on Aug. 20, requiring the rider to explain in writing why his driver’s license should not be revoked for being an “improper person to operate a motor vehicle.” The SCO also stated that “Failure to appear and submit the written comment/explanation as required shall be construed by this office as a waiver of your rights to be heard, and the case shall be decided based on the evidence at hand.” The rider is facing potential penalties for violating Republic Act 4136. The LTO emphasized the importance of road safety and responsible driving, noting that the rider’s actions endangered other motorists and pedestrians. The incident serves as a warning to all motorists to refrain from risky stunts on public roads.

2. A memorandum issued by the PNP Station Commander of PS-10 to the OIC of QCPD regarding an alleged violation of Section 4 of Republic Act 10175 (the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012).

The station received a call expressing serious concern over a viral video/online content on Facebook (FB), involving two main characters: Richard Carillo (the owner of the FB page “Madam Paloma”) and Ronald Francisco Ortiz, who posed as a parking barker in the said video.

The setting was in front of a pizza restaurant at Tomas Morato, Barangay Laging Handa in Quezon City in May 2025.

The video depicted Carillo, who was paying Ortiz P10 for parking. However, Ortiz refused to accept the payment and retorted in the vernacular: “Hindi ako tumatanggap ng sampung piso, P200 ang parking, ’yan ang patakaran dito!” (A verbal tussle ensued — I saw the video). This received mostly negative feedback from the online community, besmirching the image and reputation of Quezon City, particularly the area of Tomas Morato, a road known for food places.

The video caption indicated the analytics of the page (11 million views and 87,000 reactions). I can imagine the public furor.

The thing was, an initial inquiry regarding the viral video was conducted, and Ortiz manifested in his sworn statement that the video was a fabricated form of online content without factual basis and purposely made up to receive online reactions.

It was therefore determined that Carillo’s action of uploading online content to defame and tarnish the image of the Quezon City government is encompassed in Section 4 of Republic Act 10175, and the case was turned over to the OIC QCPD for proper disposition.

I understand that, as of today, Carillo issued an apology and has taken down his video from Facebook. Does this absolve him of his crime? Eleven million viewers saw this video, 87,000 of them reacted.

I checked out his FB page. Carillo has similar videos with the same concept. I strongly suspect that most, if not all, are all staged.

And these are only two of many malpractices on online videos. Do they really crave popularity and money so badly at the expense of others?

And please, let’s not even discuss flood control projects.