ttempts to regulate the internet in Pakistan have been clumsy at best. The nebulous nature of the internet and digital technologies throws up thorny issues regarding free speech and the degree of control to be exercised by the state and private companies. These questions force us to reconsider the information landscape as we know it and the applicability of traditional tools of regulation to a rapidly transforming digital sphere.

In Pakistan, regulation of digital spaces has been used to bolster state and governmental control.

The latest calls to regulate the internet have come from the new government. Citing an ill-advised and widely criticised TikTok ban in the United States, Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi has expressed the desire for “better laws” regulating the internet. He went on to say that the government had no qualms about freedom of expression; its primary concern was digital platforms being used to make “false allegations.” Since the minister is new to governance, he can be forgiven for not remembering that Pakistan already has a litany of laws regulating speech – online and offline, and that the seminal law regulating online speech was in fact passed by a PML-N led government in 2016.

Successive governments continued to lament the prevalence of misinformation or harmful content on the internet as an excuse to regulate these spaces more vigorously, without little stocktaking for why old mechanisms haven’t worked. This failure to reflect or acknowledge existing legislation is by design. It helps to manufacture moral panic regarding the dangers of the vast unknown of the World Wide Web and offer a convenient excuse to tighten the grip on the internet.

The new government has shown great alacrity in putting forward legislation it says will meet the ever-changing and complex problem posed by the digital age. The news that the Punjab government has put the finishing touches on the Punjab Cyber Crime Control, Prevention and Punishment Act, 2024, is confounding as the government seeks to undermine its own cybercrime legislation, namely the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016. Additionally, telecommunications (broadly interpreted to encompass the internet) is a federal subject, meaning that the provincial government cannot legislate on it. Barring the unconstitutionality of such a measure, this approach seeks to shift policing powers to a different set of agencies rather than meaningfully contending with the fact that carceral approaches to regulating speech vest extraordinary powers in the hands of the Executive. This has led to the targeting of journalists, activists and average internet users. The vision of regulation as a punitive device only frames the internet as a space to be controlled, rather than facilitated as an avenue of expression, creativity and connectivity.

The short-term approach does not stop there. The government’s attempts to counter digital misinformation and disinformation have resulted in several legislative and executive-backed attempts – none of which has effectively addressed the problem. Last year, the PDM government passed the PEMRA (Amendment) Act, 2023, which included regulation of loosely-defined misinformation in PEMRA’s ambit. However, the authority has done little by way of addressing the ability of electronic media to fact-check or report independently. Also, the over two-month ban of X (formerly Twitter) in the country has been akin to taking a sledgehammer to address a complex problem. The blanket ban has benefited no one – even government officials are using VPNs to post on the platform. Multiple submissions by government authorities and ministries in the courts across the country challenging the X ban have shown that the state lacks a nuanced understanding of internet regulation.

The government has also claimed that its decision to ban X is due to lack of response from the platform to remove content. The platform has responded that it is working with the government to understand and respond to these concerns. This state-company collaborative approach to regulation relies on non-transparent mechanisms designed to appease governments that wish to remove content critical of the state. The government has already attempted to ensure compliance from companies by enacting the Removal and Blocking of Unlawful Online Content (Procedure, Oversight and Safeguards) Rules, 2021. While all major platforms have refrained from registering local offices, the government hopes to increase compliance with take-down requests using the threat of blanket bans on platforms.

The state’s refusal to listen to the industry and civil society forebodes that new proposals and discussions will not change much. Ultimately, we will need to stop skirting around the underlying truth: justifications of online safety, countering misinformation and national security in cyber spaces are red herrings. The governments are trying to wrest control over discussions online.

The refusal to learn from the past has resulted in a circular discourse about regulation, equal parts frustrating for anyone who has followed these discussions long enough and regressive because they stymie our ability to respond to new challenges such as the emergence of generative AI and its impact on speech and the information landscape. If we keep going in circles, our lack of preparedness for these challenges will be a disservice to the new generation who will then face greater challenges.

The writer is a researcher and campaigner on human and digital rights issues