In today’s digital age, content creators and influencers continue to emerge—producing engaging content for thousands and millions of viewers. When controversies arise, audiences often expect them to speak up and share their opinions on the issue. But what happens when their views and decisions aren’t what people expect, or want to hear?

Recently, the discussion about Pax Silica in the Philippines has been making rounds online. 

Pax Silica is a U.S.-led international coalition launched in December 2025 to secure supply chains for artificial intelligence (AI), semiconductors, and critical minerals. The project, aimed to boost local technology, create jobs, and secure supply chains, is expected to consume 1,619 hectares in New Clark City, Tarlac.

Many Filipinos, including content creators and influencers, criticized the project over concerns about its environmental impact, the potential displacement of local communities, and issues surrounding national sovereignty. But, one beg to differ.

TikTok content creator Nathan Portez, with over 630k followers, known for his comedy and POV videos, has been the talk of the internet after posting a 5-minute video on his take about the Pax Silica in the Philippines. 

The Facebook video started with Portez apologizing to his audiences and admitting that he is leaning in favor of the proposed Pax Silica initiative—but with reservations.

“Sorry na po agad, I’m actually pro Paxilica. But… I’m not pro-signing a blank check,” the content creator said, clarifying that their support is conditional rather than unconditional.

Portez said they see the project as an opportunity to prepare the Philippines for an economy increasingly shaped by AI, semiconductor manufacturing, and advanced technology. He also added that millions of Filipinos work in the business process outsourcing (BPO) industry, where many jobs could be transformed by generative AI.

“Patuloy lang nagkagawa ang mundo ng chips, automation, and AI whether handa tayo o hindi,” he said. “So, will Filipinos help build the technology or remain cheap labor para sa teknolohiya na pagmamay-ari naman ng iba?”

While recognizing the job opportunities it offers to people, Portez said that industrial development should not come at the expense of communities and the environment. He addressed the possible environmental impact of the project and urged the government to publish the exact parcel maps, resolve ancestral land claims, secure meaningful consultations with affected communities, and release independent studies on the project’s water requirements.

Additionally, Portez presented three key considerations to determine if Pax Silica deserves public support: whether it creates better opportunities for Filipinos, protects local communities and the environment, and upholds Philippine sovereignty.

He said that he will fully support the project if it enables Filipinos “to learn more, to own more, to create more, and [to] earn more” while safeguarding communities and ecosystems.

“My yes belongs to the opportunity, [but] the final deal still has to earn it,” he concluded, adding that he is open to being corrected and his take might change when the evidence changes.

Opinions, responsibility, and expectations

Portez’s video gained attention online, with people criticizing his opinion on the issue.

Others acknowledged his opinion but also shared their own views on why they believe Pax Silica would not be beneficial for the country.

“Gets ko naman point mo, mababawasan ang unemployment rate, advancing technology etc. maraming pros naman talaga, pero you have to think about what will happen after maitayo yan,” one netizen commented under his video. “They will be needing so much electricity and water, then mas konting supply mas malakas ang demand, ending tataas nanaman ang basic bills, who will suffer?”

One user also said that Filipinos should not be afraid of progress but “should always be wise enough to ask who benefits, who is protected, and how our nation’s future will be shaped.”

“Development is meaningful only when it uplifts every Filipino while preserving our dignity, sovereignty, and shared future.”

The situation highlights the responsibility of content creators and influencers to uphold the platforms they have built and be mindful of what they choose to share.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. However, influencers also have a responsibility to use their platforms ethically and recognize the impact their words and actions can have on their audiences. Their reach gives them the ability to shape public opinion and influence conversations, making it important to communicate with accuracy, empathy, and accountability.

There will always be differing opinions and expectations from audiences, and influencers are not obligated to conform to every public sentiment. Nevertheless, they should remain aware that the power to influence comes with the responsibility to engage thoughtfully and consider the broader consequences of their statements.

Portez’s stance became the center of controversy because the issue at hand was not simply another online debate with competing viewpoints. Instead, it involved a matter with potential consequences for the country’s environment, communities, and national interests. In situations like these, audiences often expect public figures to recognize the weight of their platforms and respond with greater awareness of the issue’s wider implications.

Other POP! stories that you might like:

Macaulay Culkin pitches new ‘Home Alone’ sequel to Disney

Zendaya plans acting hiatus after packed 2026 release schedule

‘Alvin and the Chipmunks’ set for major reboot aimed at digital-first generation