Better regulation of hate content a must

There is no denying the role played by social media in spreading misinformation and hate content in Bangladesh. While this has been more or less the pattern since the 2024 uprising, recent weeks have sharply highlighted the dangers of the unchecked circulation of such content, with open calls for violence preceding vicious attacks on The Daily Star, Prothom Alo, Chhayanaut and others. Against this backdrop, we support the call of the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) and the National Cyber Security Agency for Meta, which owns Facebook, to take urgent, responsible action to prevent its misuse.

 The BTRC's letter rightly situates the problem within Bangladesh's fragile political transition, with the law enforcement agencies struggling, and often failing, to uphold the rule of law. In such a context, the unchecked spread of incendiary content online has emerged as a big obstacle. The speed with which online incitement sometimes translated into physical attacks, including vandalism and arson, has been terrifying. When social media posts precede and seemingly facilitate such acts, platforms can no longer hide behind claims of neutrality or abstract commitments to "freedom of expression."

 In this connection, we note BTRC's concerns about delays in removing or blocking incendiary content. "The amount of time being taken by Meta to take action… is creating an opportunity for further incitement and mobilisation of violence through those accounts," it said. In moments of volatility, time is critical. Even a few hours of inaction can allow harmful content to spread and mobilise groups. Meta's lack of a local office here further compounds the problem, creating a gap between reported content and meaningful intervention. For a platform with such deep penetration and influence in the country, this absence is increasingly indefensible.

 At the same time, content removal is only one part of the solution. Equally important is strengthening Bangla-language moderation, investing in local expertise, and applying community standards with sensitivity to prevailing sociopolitical realities, as blanket algorithms designed elsewhere cannot adequately grasp local triggers, historical grievances, or the coded language often used to incite violence. That said, responsibility does not lie with Meta alone. Our state institutions and political camps must also do their part.

 First, they must avoid selective outrage. Condemning online incitement while tacitly tolerating or exploiting it when convenient only deepens cynicism. Any engagement with social media platforms must also be transparent, rights-respecting, and free from the temptation to use "security" as a pretext for suppressing dissent or critical journalism. We must remember that the integrity of the ongoing political/electoral process, the safety of vulnerable groups, and the survival of an independent media ecosystem are all intertwined with the digital space. We must all be very careful.