The promise of the digital age was simple and hopeful. Information would flow freely, citizens would engage more deeply in public life, and power would be held to account through open debate.
Yet the reality has proved far more complicated. Today, social media often spreads confusion faster than clarity, and outrage travels further than truth.
This is not a case against dissent. Democracies cannot survive without criticism, disagreement, and uncomfortable questions.
The real danger emerges when falsehoods are deliberately presented as facts, amplified through coordinated online networks, and used to weaken confidence in constitutional institutions.
At that point, free expression stops serving accountability and begins shielding irresponsibility.
We have already seen how damaging this can be. In the United Kingdom, unrest following the tragic killing of three girls in Southport in mid 2024 was fueled by false claims about the attacker that spread rapidly online.
These narratives were quickly disproven, yet the damage had already been done. Communities were attacked, public order collapsed in several areas, and trust was shaken.
British authorities responded not by debating free speech in the abstract, but by enforcing the law against those who contributed to disorder. The lesson was clear. Digital lies do not remain online. They spill into the streets.
Pakistan is confronting similar pressures in a highly charged digital environment. Allegations now circulate at a pace that outstrips verification, while legal proceedings are often judged through partisan narratives rather than court records.
In this atmosphere, arrests and trials are easily portrayed as political victimization, even when due process is followed. The result is confusion, polarization, and a steady erosion of trust in the justice system.
These challenges are intensified by regional information warfare. Pakistan has repeatedly raised concerns about coordinated disinformation campaigns originating from India, many of which have been documented by independent international investigations.
These efforts rely on fabricated media outlets, manipulated social media accounts, and relentless repetition designed to shape perceptions rather than inform debate. The objective is subtle influence, not open argument.
More recently, social media spaces connected to Afghanistan have also entered this information environment.
While Afghanistan’s internal circumstances are unique, digital platforms linked to the country are increasingly used to amplify narratives hostile to Pakistan, particularly on issues of security and regional stability.
These messages often echo themes already circulating within established disinformation networks, showing how regional digital spaces can reinforce broader campaigns without clear attribution.
This phenomenon is not confined to South Asia. Around the world, social media has been used to weaken institutions, undermine legal processes, and apply constant political pressure outside constitutional channels.
Such efforts rarely announce themselves openly. Instead, they rely on emotional mobilization, repetition, and the gradual erosion of trust in authority. Over time, institutions are not overthrown but hollowed out.
Digital platforms play a central role in sustaining this ecosystem. Algorithms favor engagement over accuracy, while monetization rewards sensationalism and outrage.
False or exaggerated claims attract attention, donations, and revenue, turning political instability into a business model. In this environment, accountability is inconvenient, and legal scrutiny is easily dismissed as censorship.
The challenge, therefore, is not to control speech, but to prevent its abuse from hollowing out democratic institutions. Addressing this problem does not require silencing opposition.
It requires clearer legal boundaries, transparency in judicial processes, stronger digital literacy, and greater responsibility from platforms that profit from political content.
Free expression remains essential, but it cannot be used to justify deliberate falsehoods, incitement, or sustained efforts to undermine public trust.
The real question facing modern democracies is not whether dissent should be protected. It is whether disinformation should be allowed to corrode the rule of law unchecked.
In an age where narratives move faster than evidence, preserving democratic governance demands a careful balance between liberty and responsibility.
Disinformation is not dissent. Recognizing the difference is no longer optional. It is essential.
