Cyber governance, fake news and Peca

Listen to article

Pakistan stands at a critical crossroads in its digital transformation. In an era where falsehood travels faster than truth, a single viral lie can unsettle communities while a data breach can topple industries. With more than 87 million social media users, and a $6 billion e-commerce sector, the nation's digital potential is immense — yet fraught with vulnerabilities. Misinformation erodes social trust, and cybercrime imperils economic progress, making the balance between free expression and regulatory oversight a pressing challenge.

Pakistan's digital landscape is a study in contrasts. E-commerce platforms showcase a thriving tech ecosystem, yet weak governance allows criminals and disinformation networks to exploit gaps. Fake news manifests in myriad forms: from well-meaning Covid-19 cure rumours to politically charged deepfakes and blackmail schemes using hacked data. In 2023, phishing scams against banking apps drove a fourfold surge in digital fraud (State Bank of Pakistan) while cybercrime costs the economy $2.5 billion annually (Pakistan Software Houses Association). Such losses deter investors, and over 65% of citizens now avoid online transactions, stifling growth for startups and SMEs (Gallup Pakistan, 2023).

Traditional electronic media operates under Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) guidelines, but social platforms often evade similar scrutiny. Engagement-driven algorithms amplify sensational content, sparking rumour-induced crises. During the 2022 floods, fake charity appeals diverted funds from legitimate relief efforts. A baseless claim about a bank's solvency could trigger mass withdrawals, underscoring the chaos unchecked platforms may unleash. To counter this, the government introduced the amended Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2025, aiming to curb cyber threats and misinformation.

Critics opine that PECA 2025's vague prohibitions on "false" or "fake" content risk violating constitutional freedoms (Articles 19 and 19-A). Ambiguous definitions, they argue, grant authorities unchecked power to block content or target dissent. Additional concerns include opaque criteria for regulating platforms, government-dominated oversight bodies threatening editorial independence, and harsh penalties that may deter investigative journalism. These fears highlight the delicate equilibrium between security and liberty.

Proponents counter that the Constitution permits reasonable restrictions to protect national security and public order. They emphasise that misinformation inciting violence or endangering health can be addressed through judicial oversight. While terms like "false" may seem broad, courts have historically interpreted such language in defamation and fraud cases. Policymakers could adopt similar frameworks, requiring clear standards for labeling content unlawful and mandating due process, such as notice and response opportunities before removal.

Content-removal powers exist in various countries to address urgent threats. Singapore's Online Safety Code (2023) empowers the Infocomm Media Development Authority to compel social media platforms to remove "egregious content", fining violators up to SGD 1 million. The tiered approach, bolstered by the Online Criminal Harms Act, includes pre-emptive orders, judicial review, and appeals. Alongside POFMA's correction directives against disinformation, annual reports maintain transparency, and exemptions prevent blanket censorship. This calibrated model, akin to Germany's Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), offers a blueprint for Pakistan's PECA 2025. A similar model in Pakistan, incorporating a tiered response - from warnings to outright blocking - could deter harmful activities without imposing blanket censorship. Transparent procedures and appeal pathways would allay fears that the government could silence dissent arbitrarily.

Debates around enlisting social media platforms focus on preventing discriminatory enforcement. By publicising uniform standards - based on user numbers, content volume, or operational scope - the law can lessen suspicions of capricious decisions. If platforms can appeal a refusal or removal, the process becomes fairer. Many jurisdictions require platforms to adhere to local regulations without entirely stifling innovation, suggesting a balanced approach that involves stakeholder consultation.

Government supervision need not inevitably suppress free speech. An inclusive body with representatives from civil society, the judiciary, and industry experts can provide a diversity of perspectives. Statutory autonomy, mandatory reports to parliament, and judicial confirmation for major actions can buttress the idea that this entity serves as an impartial regulator rather than a tool for censorship. Such measures promote transparency and counter concerns about unchecked state control.

Critics of severe penalties worry that journalists may self-censor, fearing lawsuits or steep fines. Proponents argue that penalties are necessary to deter malicious actors who thrive on producing inflammatory and destructive content. A nuanced legal framework could distinguish honest mistakes from deliberate falsehood, offering good-faith exemptions for journalists who diligently verify their information. Stronger sanctions could be reserved for individuals who repeatedly spread proven falsehoods, especially those intended to incite violence or sow confusion.

Although these arguments may appear polarised, they converge on a shared recognition that unchecked fake news and cybercrime can destabilise society and cripple the economy. PECA 2025, if carefully implemented, could preserve civil liberties while curbing digital threats. Achieving this balance depends on explicit definitions, fair procedures, and credible oversight. The law must undergo regular review and refinement to keep pace with rapidly evolving technologies, ensuring it neither becomes toothless nor excessively draconian.

Pakistan's digital trajectory depends on fostering innovation while shielding citizens from harm. By refining PECA 2025 through sustained dialogue among policymakers, tech experts, journalists, and civil society, the nation can craft a model framework that balances freedom and security. Transparent criteria, procedural fairness, and accountability mechanisms will build public trust, ensuring Pakistan's digital future is both dynamic and resilient.