Regulatory Control and Self-Censorship in Social Media: Stifling Freedom of Expression in Bangladesh

Abstract

This article examines the impact of regulatory control and self-censorship on social media in Bangladesh, focusing on the Digital Security Act (DSA). The regime employed the DSA to suppress dissent, monitor online activity, and stifle freedom of expression, creating an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship among citizens, journalists, and activists. Social media platforms became tools for political control, with users facing legal consequences for criticizing the government. This regulatory environment undermined democratic participation and restricted the diversity of public discourse, impeding the free exchange of ideas essential to democratic governance. By exploring the legal frameworks and user behavior, the article highlights the tension between protecting national security and safeguarding free speech, questioning how these regulations align with international human rights standards. The findings emphasize the broader implications for democracy and freedom of expression in Bangladesh.

Introduction

In summer 2024, Bangladesh experienced a transformative political uprising that ultimately toppled the Awami League’s (AL) hybrid regime, which was in power for over 15 years. The uprising was in response to the regime’s systematic oppression, including socioeconomic discrimination, corruption, political suppression, and human rights violations that had become endemic under its rule.

The regime’s authoritarian nature was evident in its attack on free expression, enforcing stringent social media rules masked as measures for national security and social harmony. Law enforcement agencies evolved into digital overseers, fostering a widespread sense of fear and self-censorship that deeply eroded democratic dialogue and public engagement (Riaz, 2021b).

The government consistently took advantage of legal gaps and institutional vulnerabilities to stifle dissent, often focusing on journalists, activists, and social media users who had the courage to question its policies or authority (Human Rights Watch (HRW), 2020a). The actions sparked significant international backlash and heightened worries regarding the regime’s intentions and dedication to democratic values (USDS, 2022; Zaman, 2018).

This systematic undermining of constitutional freedoms, particularly freedom of speech, severely compromised citizens’ ability to participate in public discourse and hold authorities accountable. Social media platforms, which typically strengthen democratic expression by providing spaces for unrestricted dialogue and dissent (Diamond, 2010; Schleffer and Miller, 2021), were heavily restricted and monitored, effectively limiting their role as catalysts for democratic participation.

While social media inherently presents challenges in balancing free expression with responsible content moderation (Gillespie, 2021; Tufekci, 2017), non-democratic regimes often use “societal stability” and “national security” as pretexts to impose excessive restrictions, violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (HRW, 2023). Although some limitations may be necessary to protect public order, security, or health, they should be minimal, proportionate, and strictly aligned with international human rights law and democratic standards (OHCHR, 1966).

The Bangladeshi case exemplifies how authoritarian control of social media can effectively suppress democratic participation and highlights the ongoing tension between government regulation and free expression in the digital age. The eventual overthrow of the regime through student-led protests demonstrates the resilience of democratic aspirations and the potential for social movements to overcome even well-entrenched authoritarian systems. This case serves as a powerful reminder of the essential role of free expression and digital platforms in modern democratic movements, even in the face of systematic suppression.

Objectives and methodology

This exploratory–interpretive study (see Denzin and Lincoln, 2018; Schwandt, 2000; Stebbins, 2001, 2008) investigates the underexplored dimensions of regulatory control and self-censorship in Bangladesh’s social media landscape. Focusing on the impact of government restrictions, such as the Digital Security Act (DSA), it examines behaviors like self-censorship and their implications for freedom of speech and democracy. By analyzing user perspectives, legal frameworks, and regulatory practices, the research uncovers patterns and generates new frameworks specific to Bangladesh. Rather than testing theories or undertaking ground research, it seeks to explore the complex interplay between social media regulation, self-censorship, and freedom of expression.

Observing how social media users perceive and feel self-censorship and control requires interpretation. Interpreting norms is necessary since people’s answers are subjective and shaped by their social context. This research seeks to understand how people interpret social situations and how social media users internalize regulatory frameworks and self-censor. This involves studying complex sociopolitical issues including fear, government trust, and legal knowledge.

Setting up this study within an exploratory–interpretive framework is appropriate, as it investigates uncharted territory (the intersection of media regulation and self-censorship in Bangladesh) and aims to interpret the subjective experiences of social media users within a particular sociopolitical context. This method is essential to uncover how people perceive, react to, and maneuver around the regulatory demands imposed on digital expression.

The study attempts to find answers to the following research questions:

• (a) What are the primary regulatory mechanisms controlling social media usage in Bangladesh, and how do they match international human rights standards?

• (b) To what extent do these regulatory frameworks contribute to self-censorship among social media users?

• (c) How do social media users see the effect of these limitations on their freedom of speech and involvement in public debate?

• (d) What are the broader implications of these regulations for democracy and freedom of expression in Bangladesh?

The study was contextualized within global freedom of speech discourse using democracy, human rights, and social media theoretical frameworks. A review of authoritarianism, media regulation, and digital freedoms literature served as the basis for this study. It has examined Bangladesh’s sociopolitical situation using media reports, legal records, investigatory anlayses, and surveys. These qualitative insights will explain legislative provisions (DSA, CSA) and their implementation, revealing regulatory control’s character and effects.

Following this background, the following section explores the nexus between democratic governance and social media, followed by a section on self-censorship and regulations and their enforcement. The focus then shifts to social media and self-censorship in Bangladesh.

Democracy and social media

The relationship between democracy and social media is a subject of significant academic inquiry (Castell, 2009; Tucker et al., 2017). Social media has transformed the way in which political discourse and civic engagement occur, creating opportunities and challenges for democratic systems. Jürgen Habermas (1991) emphasizes the public sphere as an essential component of democracy, a space where individuals can deliberate, form opinions, and hold governing authorities accountable. The transparency and openness of this public domain are vital for fostering democratic dialogue and ensuring that diverse viewpoints are represented. Social media, as an extension of this public sphere, has fundamentally altered the dynamics of political communication by increasing citizen participation and amplifying marginalized voices (Persily and Tucker, 2020).

One of the most significant contributions of social media is its ability to enhance political transparency and accountability. Platforms enable citizens to scrutinize and critique government actions, exposing corruption, inefficiency, and human rights violations. The speed and reach of social media empower ordinary individuals to document and disseminate evidence of wrongdoing, forcing governments and institutions to respond. Diamond (2010) refers to this phenomenon as “liberation technology,” highlighting its potential to advance democratic governance by fostering greater oversight and enabling grassroots activism.

Moreover, social media facilitates the mobilization of political movements and policy advocacy. From protests against authoritarian regimes to campaigns for social justice in liberal democracies, platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram have been instrumental in rallying support and coordinating action. For instance, movements addressing police misconduct or healthcare reforms have gained traction through online activism, leading to tangible policy changes (Margetts, 2018). Social media also allows citizens to engage in nonviolent political activities, such as signing petitions, organizing rallies, and donating to causes, further strengthening democratic participation.

However, the transformative power of social media is not without its perils. One of the most pressing concerns is the spread of misinformation and fake news, which undermines public trust and distorts democratic dialogue. The rapid virality of unverified information—often fueled by confirmation bias—creates echo chambers where individuals are exposed only to viewpoints that reinforce their existing beliefs (McGonagle, 2017). This phenomenon has been particularly detrimental in regions like South Asia, where digital platforms have exacerbated societal tensions, incited communal unrest, and deepened political fragmentation (Kamdar, 2020). Governments must actively address these issues by implementing strategies to combat misinformation while ensuring the credibility of their own communication efforts.

The digital divide is another critical challenge. Access to social media platforms and digital literacy remains uneven, particularly in developing regions, limiting the inclusivity of democratic discourse (Aleixo et al., 2012). Bridging this divide requires investments in infrastructure and education to ensure that all citizens can participate meaningfully in the digital public sphere. Furthermore, data privacy concerns have emerged as a significant obstacle to the effective use of social media in governance. Citizens are often hesitant to engage openly on platforms where their personal information may be exploited, highlighting the need for robust privacy protections (Kuenzler, 2022).

Social media’s impact on democracy is inherently dualistic, shaped by the intentions and actions of its users. While it can catalyze positive change by amplifying marginalized voices and enhancing accountability, it can also destabilize democratic processes through the spread of misinformation and the erosion of trust. In authoritarian regimes, social media often represents a threat to state control, prompting governments to employ surveillance and censorship to suppress dissent (Pearce and Kendzior, 2012). Conversely, in liberal democracies, platforms have served as arenas for political activism and debate, illustrating the complex interplay between technology and governance.

Self-censorship, laws, regulations, and enforcement

The ubiquity of social media has fundamentally reshaped communication and governance. With over 4.5 billion users worldwide, platforms like Facebook, YouTube, WhatsApp, and Instagram have become integral to political and social life (Backlinko Team, 2024). However, this pervasive influence has also led to increased regulation, particularly in authoritarian regimes where governments seek to control digital narratives. While liberal democracies adopt persuasive approaches to regulate social media, authoritarian states often employ coercive measures to suppress free expression and dissent.

Freedom of expression, though enshrined in international legal frameworks such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), is frequently curtailed under the pretext of safeguarding national security, public order, or morality (OHCHR, 1966). In many cases, these limitations are disproportionately applied, leading to the arbitrary arrest and detention of individuals for voicing dissenting opinions (HRW, 2023). This erosion of free speech highlights the tension between the universal principles of human rights and the practices of illiberal regimes.

Michel Foucault’s concept of surveillance as a mechanism of social control is particularly relevant in the context of social media regulation (Foucault, 2020). Continuous monitoring of online activities compels individuals to self-censor, conforming to societal norms and avoiding dissent. Self-censorship, defined as the voluntary restriction of one’s speech to avoid backlash or reprisal, is a complex psychological phenomenon influenced by political, cultural, and social factors (Jungblut and Hoxha, 2017). While it can promote social harmony by curbing antagonistic behavior, it also stifles critical discourse, undermining the democratic ideal of free expression.

Regulating social media necessitates a delicate approach that balances oversight with individual freedoms, leading to the emergence of two primary regulatory models: rule-based and principles-based. Rule-based regulation provides prescriptive guidelines for acceptable behavior, such as banning hate speech or misinformation, while principles-based regulation focuses on broader objectives like transparency and user safety, granting platforms flexibility in achieving these aims (Nooren et al., 2018). A hybrid model could effectively manage content while safeguarding freedom of expression.

However, implementing social media regulations presents challenges. Authoritarian regimes may misuse these frameworks to suppress dissent, and ambiguous laws coupled with inconsistent enforcement create uncertainty, discouraging open dialogue. This arbitrary application of rules undermines procedural justice and erodes trust in governance (Deibert and Rohozinski, 2010).

Different societies have distinct cultural norms and ethical standards, which may conflict with universal human rights principles. For instance, some nations justify restrictions on free speech by citing cultural or religious values, even when these limitations contravene international standards (Donnelly, 1984). This tension underscores the importance of context-sensitive approaches to social media governance that account for cultural diversity while upholding fundamental rights.

The role of social media platforms in self-regulation is equally critical. Platforms must establish clear policies to address issues such as misinformation, hate speech, and data privacy while promoting transparency and accountability. However, the absence of explicit guidelines often leads to inconsistent enforcement, creating ambiguity about acceptable behavior. Ensuring compliance with regulatory standards requires robust oversight mechanisms and collaboration between governments, platforms, and civil society (Cusumano et al., 2021).

Despite these challenges, social media offers unique opportunities for democratic engagement. In liberal democracies, platforms have been used to critique government policies, advocate for social change, and amplify marginalized voices. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, social media played a pivotal role in disseminating information, mobilizing resources, and challenging misinformation (Margetts, 2018). In authoritarian regimes, however, social media often serves as a double-edged sword. While it provides a platform for dissent, it also enables state surveillance and propaganda, illustrating the complex dynamics of power and resistance (Gunitsky, 2015).

Ultimately, the regulation of social media must strike a delicate balance between safeguarding democratic principles and addressing the challenges posed by digital platforms. This requires a multifaceted approach that includes clear legal frameworks, robust oversight mechanisms, and the active participation of civil society. By fostering a culture of accountability and inclusivity, social media can be harnessed as a force for democratic renewal rather than a tool of division and control.

Social media regulation and self-censorship in Bangladesh

The regulatory framework overseeing social media in Bangladesh during the tenure of the deposed regime was a consequence of the nation’s intricate historical, political, and socio-cultural development. What started as an effort to tackle developing digital concerns transformed into a complex apparatus of control, significantly affecting freedom of speech and fostering widespread self-censorship among individuals. This section critically examines the operation of regulatory measures—specifically the DSA, the preceding ICT Act, and the subsequent Cyber Security Act (CSA)—within the context of authoritarian governance, emphasizing their implications for democracy and public discourse.

The regulation of expression in Bangladesh, particularly in the digital space, can be traced to the country’s colonial past, where censorship served as a tool for maintaining control. After independence, while the Constitution of 1972 enshrined the right to freedom of speech and expression (GOB, 1972), successive regimes increasingly relied on “legal instruments” and “extralegal tactics” to curtail dissent, especially as political structures shifted toward a hybrid-authoritarian model (Riaz, 2021a).

The overwhelming dominance of the ruling party, coupled with dysfunctional political institutions like the judiciary, led to a significant erosion of democratic norms. Realpolitik further exacerbated this situation, creating a stark power imbalance between the government and the populace. Governance appeared aimless, lacking a clear direction, while the judiciary became entirely subservient to the powerful executive branch, compromising its autonomy (Islam, 2018). The 16th constitutional amendment distorted the principles of democracy, particularly the separation of powers, and restricted the expression of dissenting opinions through both legal and illegal means (Asano and Minato, 2019; Nughat, 2021).

The lack of accountability mechanisms led to arbitrary discretion within the bureaucracy, undermining the integrity of elections, which were marred by malpractice. The ruling party enjoyed a weak supremacy of law, allowing its supporters to evade legal repercussions, while corruption remained widespread. Security forces operated with impunity, committing serious violations such as enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings (Blair, 2010; HRW, 2020b; Riaz, 2021a). The regime came to power in 2009 under a caretaker system and subsequently “re-elected” itself in controversial elections in 2014, 2018, and 2024; Bangladesh rapidly regressed toward autocratization, particularly in the absence of meaningful opposition (Fair, 2019; Riaz, 2014).

The authoritarian governance approach severely restricted freedom of expression, as the government aggressively regulated social media and employed law enforcement to monitor various digital platforms. This heightened scrutiny stems from the ruling regime’s fear of losing political control, especially given the successful political mobilization seen on platforms like Facebook and YouTube. Consequently, any dissent against the authorities was met with harsh retribution, leading to significant physical and psychological harm for those who voiced opposition to the ruling party’s politics, policies, and actions (HRW, 2023; Nughat, 2021).

The DSA of Bangladesh, enacted in 2018, has ignited significant debate and criticism due to its implications for freedom of speech and press. While it aims to address digital offenses and enhance cybersecurity, it has been widely condemned for restricting online journalism and suppressing political dissent. Modeled after the ICT Act of 2006, the DSA grants law enforcement the power to arrest individuals without warrants, raising alarms among opposition parties, human rights organizations, and media professionals about its potential to stifle free expression. This legislation has created a climate of fear and self-censorship, marginalized investigative journalism, and fostered a culture of digital vigilantism driven by individual rivalries and personal grievances (Riaz, 2021a, 2022; HRW, 2020a; Lacy and Mookherjee, 2020). Its vague provisions further enabled the targeting of dissenters, press, and advocates, effectively quelling opposition to the ruling regime.

The international NGO, Article 19, contended that the DSA was built upon existing restrictive laws, yet contained vague provisions that infringed upon global human rights standards. The Act empowered state agencies like the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) with extensive authority to obstruct communication and impose restrictions on speech that had the potential to defame individuals or religious groups, or anything labeled “objectionable.” Furthermore, it allowed the government to regulate the acquisition and retention of data, leading to intrusive monitoring by the Digital Security Agency (Article19, 2019). This agency employed sophisticated surveillance tools, such as Pegasus spyware, to block access to critical news outlets and regulate social media platforms without adequate legal protections for privacy (Haque, 2021). Consequently, global news organizations and local media, such as Al Jazeera, Deutsche Welle, The Wire, and Netra News, faced significant barriers in sharing content that critiqued the Bangladeshi government, resulting in arbitrary restrictions on various online platforms (HRW, 2020c).

The Bangladesh polity was described as an “Orwellian dystopia” following the murder of a student by ruling party activists over a harmless Facebook post criticizing the government’s failures (Ahmed, 2019; New Leam, 2019). This incident sparked serious concerns regarding freedom of expression. The government increasingly targeted social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and WhatsApp, often blocking or filtering their content (Islam and Anzum, 2019). The DSA was used to identify, prosecute, and detain social media activists on tenuous grounds, such as “derogatory” remarks about the prime minister or criticisms of her government’s policies, prejudicing the “image” of the state and the “founding father,” threatening national security, hurting religious beliefs, supporting students’ legitimate protests, and so on (Asaduzzaman, 2020; Katatare Prajapati Collective, 2018).

With the DSA in full bloom after the 2018 general election, the Bangladesh state became predatory and “certain groups of self-seeking ‘citizens’ and sycophants [got] involved in surveillance and making accusations as local and digital vigilantes” (Lacy and Mookherjee, 2020: 295). These groups close to the political epicenter employed the Act to advance their narrow agendas and, of greater significance, to curry favor with a regime that had become increasingly autocratic.

The DSA led to over 7000 cases against journalists, bloggers, and social media users, with 21,770 individuals charged under the law (Ahmed, 2023; FE, 2023; Riaz, 2022). The UN criticized it as a mechanism for the apprehension and persecution of journalists and human rights advocates, arguing that it suppressed dissenting opinions online and failed to align with international human rights standards. Consequently, the UN urged for the Act’s suspension (DigWatch, 2023). By contrast, the government considered a Data Protection Act (DPA), which could increase the risk of arbitrary surveillance of citizens under the guise of privacy protection (FIDH, 2023; HRW, 2023; Shaon, 2022).

Some social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, and Google, came under scrutiny and surveillance. The initial measure involved compelling the SMPs and major technology firms to remit taxes on the advertising revenue generated through their platforms. The second proposition under the DPA mandated the storage of user data produced locally on servers situated within Bangladesh, which required the disclosure of social media accounts identified by the government as sources of propaganda or misinformation (Nikkei Asia, 2021). The nation’s apex judiciary participated in the regime’s efforts to suppress dissent and regulate media expression by instructing the government to formulate a policy aimed at regulating and obstructing “objectionable” and “indecent” content on streaming platforms (Prothom Alo English, 2023).

The Millennium Challenge Corporation employs various metrics (freedom of expression, press freedom, Internet censorship, and pertinent legislation) to assess a government’s dedication to civil liberties and freedom of expression, with Bangladesh receiving low scores of 24 and 27, respectively (MCC, 2023). Freedom House said that, in 2022, Internet freedom in Bangladesh was severely restricted and the DSA was used by authorities to detain people who voiced protest government ministries and political figures on social media, thereby fostering a culture of self-censorship in the digital sphere. Security services continued to invest in surveillance technology, increasing the vulnerability of social media content to exploitation (Freedom House, 2022).

The government frequently engaged in the undemocratic practice of implementing shutdowns or throttles, thereby complicating Internet access for users, despite officials attributing these actions to purported “technical” reasons. These shutdowns mainly occurred during protests against government policies or actions to curtail social media activities (AccessNow, 2022).

A study indicates that nearly 78% of young people in Bangladesh aged 20–28 years who used platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp, and X (Twitter) believed that the DSA negatively impacted freedom of expression. Despite this, over half of the respondents felt it was essential to promote responsible Internet use among their peers. While a minority may have faced threats for their social media expressions, the majority advocated for significant changes to the existing legislation (Etee and Mukta, 2022). In addition, another study highlights that social media users experience diminished self-regard and self-respect.

Thus, the fear of being monitored by law enforcement and intelligence agencies produced a phenomenon of self-censorship on social media. The disclosures pertaining to surveillance methodologies and the monitoring of virtual pursuits generated an atmosphere of cynicism and apprehension regarding confidentiality and instigated a tendency among social media users in exercising moderation to evade scrutiny, particularly when participating in discussions that pertained to politically charged topics or criticisms of government policies and personalities.

On the contrary, the proliferation of misinformation, disinformation, rumors, and fake news (MDRFN) in Bangladesh raised significant concerns among those seeking reliable information, particularly regarding political affairs, the economy, and social harmony. On several occasions, social media saw a surge in false narratives that threatened religious peace, yet there was a lack of organized efforts to combat this issue. Only a few independent groups attempted to filter through the overwhelming amount of disinformation, while mainstream media failed to take a proactive stance in debunking false claims, allowing social media to exacerbate turmoil (Bhattacharya, 2022; Shishir, 2022). Although the DSA was intended to tackle MDRFN challenges, instead it was misused to target journalists, activists, and citizens who criticized the government. Critics argue that the vague wording of the legislation gives officials excessive discretion, leading to self-censorship and stifling free expression (Hammadi, 2021).

The spread of “fake news” could not be solely attributed to the government; however, prominent political figures from the ruling party and their supporters were known to disseminate misleading narratives regarding the nation’s history, economy, and development (Shishir, 2023). Notable individuals, including close relatives of the government head, ministers, and party activists, inordinately praised the prime minister and her administration, often distorting facts. In addition, pro-regime supporters, including university educators, professionals, and senior journalists, impulsively lauded the regime’s fictitious virtues on social media that led to sarcastic responses, which were then challenged under the DSA (Mahmud, 2018; Netra News, 2023; Riaz, 2022; Shishir, 2018). The government reacted more to certain social media topics, such as exposure of corruption by political leaders and bureaucrats, criticisms of prominent individuals (including the prime minister, her father and relatives, and ministers), and Islam-related comments and “wrong doers” charged and persecuted (DFAT, 2022; HRW, 2018).

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, MDRFN became the order of the day on social media. One study reported that SMPs were used widely for information and communication with detrimental effects on public health and the efficiency of the pandemic response (Hossain and Haque, 2023). People were misinformed about the virus, its transmission, prevention measures, and accessible therapies, undermining efforts to contain the pandemic and potentially contributing to a lack of adherence to public health guidelines.

The results of an online poll among netizens (vis Facebook, Twitter, and email) conducted in late-2023 provide insights into the perceived impact of the DSA on social media usage in Bangladesh (Zafarullah, 2023). On increased self-censorship, a significant proportion of respondents (67.78%) strongly agreed that the DSA led to increased self-censorship on social media platforms, suggesting a widespread perception of fear or caution in online expression. Similarly, 64.05% of respondents strongly agreed that users were more cautious and mindful of their online activities due to the DSA, which created a cautious online atmosphere. The fear of legal consequences was a major driver of this self-censorship, with 58.51% of respondents strongly agreeing that it influenced their social media posting behavior.

A chilling effect on freedom of expression was evident, with 66.39% of respondents strongly agreeing that the DSA restricted free expression—a key concern as it undermined democratic values. Echoing this sentiment, 67.77% strongly agree that the DSA significantly restricted the ability to express oneself freely and 58.51% of respondents agreeing that the DSA undermined the open and democratic nature of social media platforms, further supporting the argument that freedom of expression was under threat. A majority of respondents (64.05%) strongly agreed that the DSA contributed to a decline in the diversity of opinions shared on social media. This could suggest that users were less likely to express controversial or opposing views. Over 70% of respondents reinforced the idea that the law fosters a restrictive environment for personal expression. The findings of the poll indicated that the DSA significantly influenced social media conduct in Bangladesh, fostering a climate in which users became increasingly prone to self-censorship, exhibited a reluctance in voicing their opinions, and perceived a restriction on their freedom of expression.

With the increased regulation of the digital environment in Bangladesh from 2009 to 2024, the phenomenon of “self-censorship” or “internalized restriction” of personal expression surfaced as a significant reaction among social media users. This behavior often manifests as a proactive strategy to evade potential legal consequences, societal backlash, or political retaliation (Jungblut and Hoxha, 2017). The extensive surveillance and repressive strategies implemented by the DSA have fostered an atmosphere of apprehension, prompting users to self-censor and refrain from participating in discussions that may be deemed contentious.

This phenomenon could be comprehended through the framework of democratic theory, especially the interplay between freedom of expression and deliberative democracy. Social media, in its capacity as a medium for unbridled discourse, possesses the potential to augment democratic engagement by facilitating citizen involvement in public deliberation, ensuring accountability of those in power, and allowing for the articulation of dissenting views (Diamond, 2010). Under the regulatory regime of the AL, social media in Bangladesh transformed into a constrained environment, compelling citizens to exercise caution and often choose silence over the potential repercussions of state reprisal.

The regulations imposed a notable chilling effect on public discourse, as young social media users recognized that the DSA substantially limited their capacity to articulate opinions freely in the online sphere. The self-imposed restraint had significant ramifications for the overall quality of democratic deliberation within the country. Habermas (1991) posited that the public sphere is fundamentally dependent on the unencumbered exchange of ideas, which serves to cultivate critical discourse, mold public sentiment, and impact policy formulation. In Bangladesh, the contraction of this space resulting from self-censorship has significantly undermined a fundamental aspect of democratic existence—the ability of citizens to participate in open and substantive dialogue.

Furthermore, the regulation of social media not merely suppressed dissent but also facilitated a troubling “homogenization of perspectives.” The essential plurality of perspectives vital for a robust democracy was suppressed when individuals abstained from expressing dissenting or critical viewpoints. The apprehension of potential repercussions, be they legal or social, drove numerous individuals to conform their public identities to the prevailing political discourse, thereby bolstering the state’s authority over collective sentiment. This phenomenon, wherein “political conformity” is maintained not by overt censorship but rather through the subtle pressures of regulation and surveillance, serves as a prime illustration of the intricate dynamics of control present in semi-authoritarian regimes (Gunitsky, 2015).

Advocates of the regulatory framework contend that initiatives like the DSA are crucial in the fight against misinformation, disinformation, and fake news. By contrast, detractors assert that these regulations are intentionally vague, facilitating potential misuse against political adversaries. The state’s emphasis on regulating digital environments and its stringent enforcement of regulatory frameworks indicate a deliberate effort to curtail the liberating possibilities inherent in technological advancements aimed at emancipation (Diamond, 2010). The potential of social media to amplify dissenting voices is significantly compromised when individuals perceive themselves as restricted by legal and societal constraints.

Indeed, Bangladesh reflected wider global patterns of digital authoritarianism, wherein regimes employ digital instruments not merely for surveillance and suppression of dissent but also to orchestrate online discourse to their advantage. Entities and individuals supportive of the government faced allegations of spreading “misleading narratives” on social media, employing these platforms as instruments of political propaganda. This phenomenon not only distorts the digital public sphere but also exacerbates the decline of democratic accountability, as dissenting and critical perspectives are overshadowed by narratives supported by the state.

Conclusion

Modern democracy fundamentally relies on free speech, which fosters open discussions, diverse viewpoints, and the sharing of information. This freedom enables individuals to engage in critical thinking, participate in meaningful public discourse, and hold authorities accountable. Without the ability to express their opinions and address governmental wrongdoings, democratic accountability is compromised. In addition, social media plays a crucial role in contemporary society by offering a platform for self-expression, enhancing free speech, promoting progressive ideologies, and amplifying dissenting voices.

The connection between democracy and human rights was significantly undermined by laws like the DSA and its successor, the CSA, which imposed vague restrictions on free expression, particularly online. These laws have been exploited by the deposed regime to monitor and control digital activities, targeting dissenters such as journalists, activists, and even students, leading to enforced disappearances and torture. As a result, citizens became increasingly cautious, engaging in self-censorship out of fear of legal repercussions and surveillance. This stifled the diversity of ideas on social media and diminished the role of independent media and civil society, despite government claims that such measures are necessary to combat misinformation. Ultimately, this chilling effect on free speech has had detrimental consequences for democracy, limiting the exchange of ideas and perspectives.

The future direction of social media in Bangladesh following the AL era must prioritize the safeguarding of freedom of expression, the promotion of inclusivity, and the nurturing of open discourse, all while establishing innovative frameworks to combat misinformation and online intimidation. The digital ecosystem necessitates reclamation as an arena for civic involvement and democratic discourse. Regulation and oversight of social media must be driven by transparency, grounded in rights, and aimed at fostering a diverse digital space. This approach should protect all citizens, particularly those who are critical of the government of the day and its policies and actions.