13/03/2026
When Online Power Turns Predatory: Why Bullying a Parent and Mocking a Child Is a Line No One Should Cross
March 13, 2026
There is something profoundly disturbing when influence—especially online influence—is weaponized not to enlighten, inform, or uplift, but to humiliate, intimidate, and dehumanize. What began as a routine political disagreement on social media, according to the screenshots and accounts now circulating online, escalated into something far more troubling: private messages allegedly sent by a popular political influencer targeting a critic, insulting his economic status, and even dragging an innocent child into the mockery.
This is not simply another messy internet argument. It raises serious questions about ethics, power, and the moral responsibility that comes with a large digital platform.
The sequence described in the screenshots is straightforward. A netizen criticized the influencer’s defense of certain controversial conduct in Congress. The post itself reportedly had modest engagement—around forty reactions. Under normal circumstances, a public figure with a large following could have easily ignored it. Instead, the influencer allegedly initiated direct messages to the critic, escalating the situation from public disagreement into private harassment.
What followed, according to the screenshots, was a series of insults: mocking the person’s economic status, calling him “poor,” ridiculing him, and taunting him to “file a case.” But the moment that crosses the clearest moral boundary is the alleged sharing and mockery of a photograph of the critic’s baby.
If the screenshots accurately reflect what occurred, that action is not merely rude or tasteless. It is ethically indefensible.
Children are not participants in political disputes. They cannot consent to being dragged into adult conflicts, and they cannot defend themselves against online humiliation. When a child becomes the object of ridicule in a political argument, something fundamental has gone wrong.
This is precisely why Philippine law recognizes the special protection owed to minors. Republic Act No. 7610—the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act—explicitly affirms the state’s duty to shield children from acts that demean or exploit them. While the application of the law would depend on the full facts and context, the principle is unmistakable: children are off-limits.
Moreover, the broader culture of online harassment intersects with the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175), which addresses harmful online conduct including forms of cyber harassment and abuse. Again, whether a specific legal violation occurred would be for proper authorities and courts to determine. But the ethical threshold is far lower than the legal one. You do not need a court ruling to know when a line has been crossed.
And this is where the issue becomes bigger than a single online exchange.
Influencers occupy a unique position in today’s information ecosystem. With thousands—sometimes hundreds of thousands—of followers, their words do not merely express opinions. They shape narratives, mobilize audiences, and often direct the emotional temperature of online communities.
That power carries responsibility.
When an influencer humiliates a critic, the message sent to followers is clear: harassment is acceptable. When an influencer mocks a person for being poor, it normalizes class contempt. And when an influencer drags a child into the crossfire, it signals that nothing—not even a baby—is off-limits in the pursuit of online dominance.
This is not just a personal failing. It is a cultural signal.
The Philippines already struggles with a toxic social media environment where trolling, coordinated harassment, and digital mobbing have become disturbingly common. Researchers studying online political discourse in the country have repeatedly documented how influencer-driven narratives can amplify hostility and polarize communities. When leaders in that ecosystem behave irresponsibly, the damage multiplies.
That is why the outrage expressed in the widely shared commentary calling out this behavior resonates so strongly. The anger is not simply about political disagreement. It is about decency.
Mocking poverty is morally bankrupt. Targeting a parent’s child is reprehensible. And using a large platform to intimidate critics corrodes the very idea of democratic debate.
Healthy political discourse requires disagreement. It requires argument, criticism, and sometimes sharp rhetoric. But it must still be grounded in basic humanity. The moment a person’s dignity—and worse, a child’s dignity—is treated as collateral damage in an online feud, the conversation ceases to be about ideas and becomes something uglier.
Accountability, therefore, is not about partisan rivalry. It is about standards.
Regardless of political affiliation—whether one identifies as pro-government, opposition, or somewhere in between—there should be universal agreement on a few basic principles: children must never be targets; poverty must never be a punchline; and influence must never be abused to bully.
These standards are not ideological. They are human.
What ultimately matters is not the identity of the influencer involved. What matters is the precedent that society allows to stand. If behavior like this is normalized or excused simply because someone shares our political views, then the digital public square will continue to deteriorate into a place where cruelty becomes currency.
But if citizens collectively insist on higher standards—if audiences demand responsibility from those who claim influence—then social media can still be a space for meaningful discourse rather than intimidation.
The issue, at its core, is simple: disagreement should never justify cruelty. And no child should ever become collateral damage in someone else’s online ego war.
If the evidence circulating online accurately reflects what happened, then this moment should serve as a wake-up call—not just for one influencer, but for the entire culture of digital politics in the Philippines.
Because a society that cannot protect its children from ridicule in the middle of political fights is a society that has forgotten its moral compass.
And that is something no number of followers should ever be allowed to excuse.
-------------------------------------------------
For reference, below is the full verbatim Facebook post of Lovely Granada about this incident/issue:
THE IGIT FILES. When your platform becomes your venue for bullying the poor simply for opposing your views, and mocking a parent's innocent children, hindi ka lang masamang impluwensiya, demonyo ka.
It took me some time to put this out here kasi when I first learned about this directly from the victim, nanginig ako sa galit. I needed time to compose myself and to be sure if I really wanted to expose this.
And yes, I feel the need to expose this kasi hindi ka pwedeng hayaan sa kademonyohan mo.
Ang simula? Simple lang. A netizen called you out for defending the bastos sa kongreso. The post had 40 reactions. Sa laki ng following mo, you could have just ignored it. Pero no, you slipped into his DM para mambalahura. Ang masaklap dinamay mo pa ang mga inosenteng bata.
'Pobre ka.' Nilait mo yung tao sa pagiging pobre. Di ba mga mahihirap na tao ang ginagamit niyo to advance your propaganda para sa mga Duterte? Diba pobre ka din yourself pero nilalait mo yung dapat niyayakap mo kasi ramdam mo? But no. You despise the poor. Nakatikim ka lang ng pera akala mo na kung sino ka.
Ang nakakasuka? You'd send the photo of your target's baby—naked—and mock her. Balak mo pa ipost ang pictures ng mga anak niya para ipa-bash? Just how low low can you get, igit?
'File a case.' Lakas ng loob mo to challenge the parent cos you're too confident you'd get away with this. This might not be the first time you've done this. Mayabang ka kasi feeling mo forever maghahari-harian ang kasamaan mo. Nasanay ka na marami kang nauuto.
Shame on you, DDSh*t (I never use this term, pero bagay na bagay sayo). Shame on those who follow your ways and join you in mocking others simply for holding different opinions.
Tapos hihingi ka ng respeto? Igit nimo.
------------------
To his fellow DDS:
Kahit DDS ka, ganitong klaseng kultura ba ang gusto mong mangibabaw sa social media? Ganito ba kalupit at marahas na mundo ang gusto natin ipamana sa mga kabataan? Alam kong ayaw niyo rin.
This is no longer about you being green or others being yellow, red or pink. This is about us Filipinos standing together to protect our children from a menace to our society.
