Platform bans and the cost of internet regulation

The case for internet regulation, not platform bans

Muzamil opens by asking a direct question: does the government need the power to remove content, or should the conversation be about which content to remove and how? Osama agrees the answer is both. “It needs to be regulated when it causes harm,” Osama says, but the mechanism matters more than the intent. The current system hands one authority, the PTA, enormous power with minimal checks.

Osama walks through the legal problem. Section 37 of Pakistan’s digital crimes law gives the PTA power to block websites for “unlawful online content.” But the language is ambiguous, drawn from Pakistan’s constitution, which reserves interpretation to the courts, not the PTA. “The Constitution’s interpretation of power is only higher judiciary. But when PTA decides something is unlawful, they act as judge and executioner,” Osama explains. The courts have already challenged this imbalance. An Islamabad High Court decision told the FIA that these crackdowns under the digital crimes law are procedurally flawed.

YouTube’s ban and the cost to creators

Muzamil shares his own story. His first viral video dropped on September 13, 2012, shared by YouTube officials and global media. “It went globally viral,” he says. Seven days later, YouTube was banned across Pakistan for a month. Within that window, his career trajectory shifted. “I started LOL Studio and we moved to Facebook because YouTube wasn’t available.”

This wasn’t just personal disruption. The ban accelerated a brain drain. Viral Fever, Muzamil notes, started in Pakistan during YouTube’s early years there, but when the platform was blocked, the company relocated and eventually received 10 to 15 million dollars in Netflix funding. “The industry got incrementally impacted. YouTube getting banned definitely impacted us,” Muzamil reflects.

Osama points to the broader economic cost. When platforms are blocked, investors lose confidence. “If they want to invest in Pakistan, they will see that tomorrow TikTok is blocked, YouTube is being blocked, then video games are blocked. It becomes a very uncertain climate,” Osama says. The bans also affect ease of doing business rankings that Pakistan needs to attract foreign investment.

The child safety argument and its logical gap

Muzamil raises the counterargument: aren’t there real harms that justify bans? He points to the PUBG case, where a child’s suicide was linked to the game and parents sued. The courts told the PTA to investigate whether PUBG had proper child safety mechanisms before deciding to block it. “But the conversation is always constantly coming: censorship, control, censorship. And very little actual understanding of what happened,” Muzamil says.

Osama agrees the process was flawed. PTA wrote to PUBG, PUBG responded, the case went to court, and the court eventually ruled the ban was not justified. “Maybe not an efficient methodology, but at least it happened,” Osama reflects. The deeper issue is that child harm involves many causes: academic pressure, family stress, mental health. Blaming PUBG alone misses the picture. “The relationship is not okay with parents, then the kids do it,” Osama notes.

Osama draws a distinction that matters: child pornography and non-consensual intimate images should absolutely be removed. But that falls under different law, Section 22, with specific removal mechanisms. Section 37, which is used for platform bans, is overbroad. “We support removal of child pornography 100%. But these are different issues,” Osama says.

The tension between platform power and government power

Muzamil asks about the real tussle: companies set global standards, governments demand local compliance, and citizens get caught between them. Osama nods. “There are powerful actors. A powerful actor is a company with global content moderation standards. And on the other side, governments wield power. And they say we are enforcing these standards,” Osama says. But the standards often reflect American foreign policy, not local values. Kashmir posts get deleted, Palestinian content is flagged, because the companies are American. “They are aligned with them,” Osama notes.

Pakistan’s government has made more removal requests than any other government in the first six months of Facebook’s transparency reports. Some requests censored academics asking for university autonomy. Others targeted political speech. But this isn’t just about government abuse. Companies also abuse power by serving profit, not users. “They’re profit-oriented. So when they’re profit-oriented, what they’re trying to do is get more and more data, right? And who will be more and more addictive. That’s their basic goal,” Osama observes.

Why democratic process is the real protection

Muzamil raises what he sees as a procedural failure. Pakistan rushed through regulations, and when civil society complained, the Prime Minister suspended the rules in a way that bypassed the cabinet, which is technically unconstitutional. “A prime minister cannot suspend or denotify a cabinet’s decision. The cabinet itself has to do this, right?” Osama says. This sent a message: the government doesn’t follow its own rules, so why should people trust new laws?

Osama contrasts this with the UK, which took two and a half years to consult on online harms. “There are rounds of it. What happens here? There is an eyewash,” Osama says plainly. The government asks for feedback but never explains why it rejected concerns. Osama’s ask is simple: “If you don’t add feedback, justify why. It’s not very difficult.”

A path forward

Both agree the answer is not libertarian chaos or authoritarian control, but informed regulation. Osama explains his work now: Bolo Bhi does post-legislative scrutiny of how digital crimes law is actually used in court. “We have a dedicated lawyer sitting in court observing cases, seeing what are the gaps in implementation. Every year we review it,” Osama says. They also train journalists, activists, and ordinary people on encryption and online safety because informed citizens are the best check on power.

Muzamil closes with a question about democracy itself. “At the end of the day, at the heart and quote, that’s the demand. That the process is democratic. At the end of the day, maybe it will agree with it or not, but at least the majority does. And I think that is the beauty of democracy,” Muzamil says.

Osama agrees. The goal is not to block every regulation, but to ensure every regulation is evidence-based, well-informed, and built through genuine consultation. “You have to see that you uphold the rights and you listen to the courts. Courts also give a lot of decisions. And the most of your stakeholders, the most of your users, journalists, lawyers, academics, practitioners. You listen to them,” Osama says.