EDITORIAL: Following weeks of obfuscation on the issue, the government had to come out to openly state, albeit reluctantly, that it had banned the social media website X due to its failure “to adhere to the lawful directives of the government … and address concerns regarding the misuse of its platform”. This was revealed in a report that the interior ministry submitted to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on April 17 as the disruption of the microblogging website marked its second month.
It should be recalled that access to X has faced restrictions since February 17 when former Rawalpindi commissioner Liaquat Chattha, accused the chief election commissioner and chief justice of Pakistan of being involved in rigging the general elections, allegations that he later walked back on, but not before they had engendered much uproar online. In its submission to the IHC, the interior ministry detailed that the FIA (Federal Investigation Agency) had requested X to ban accounts that were involved in smear campaigns against the chief justice. X, however, ignored these entreaties, following which the decision to temporarily restrict the website was taken to safeguard “national security and law and order situation” at the request of intelligence agencies.
While it is true that social media platforms have too often become convenient tools to spread dangerous propaganda and misinformation, which can have serious implications for maintaining public order, one is still at pains to understand why the rationale behind the actions against X couldn’t be provided much earlier. In the face of the citizenry and the courts repeatedly exhorting the government to be more transparent on the matter, the authorities instead relied on inane explanations and misrepresentations, with a PTA (Pakistan Telecommunication Authority) official going as far as to deny in court that X was facing any restrictions. In a democratic country, where public officials are at least ostensibly answerable to citizens and the courts, such disregard for the norms of transparency was uncalled for, and only served to give the impression that the restrictions were imposed in a bid to stifle dissenting views.
We also need to consider the far-reaching global paradigm shift that has transformed the way we process information and broadcast news, with social media websites like X playing a crucial role in shaping public discourse. A decision like this, therefore, which is essentially going against the tide, underscores the need for careful consideration of the implications on media freedom and access to information.
At the same time, we cannot ignore that recent years have seen social media giants wield unprecedented influence, often with limited checks, leading to concerns regarding their potential adverse impact on democracy, social cohesion and the proliferation of false information. The disturbing aspect here is that the response of these digital behemoths to the criticisms they face is dependent on the sway and power of the government they are dealing with and the market they are operating in, indicating that accountability and transparency are often secondary to maintaining market dominance and favourable relationships with governmental authorities.
Given this, it is important that X is more transparent about the way it navigates the complex landscape of digital governance while upholding the interests of users everywhere. Its April 18 statement that it would work with Pakistani authorities “to understand its concerns”, therefore, is welcome, and one hopes that an understanding between the two parties will be arrived at soon, enabling X’s services to be restored completely. The government would also do well to realise that its ultimate responsibility is to ensure public well-being, which involves not just addressing security and public order concerns, but also encompasses the safeguarding of fundamental rights of freedom of expression and access to information. It is essential that it works to find the right balance between these equally important concerns, and not just rely on arbitrary bans to achieve its ends.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed.