THE state seems to be concerned about the growing influence of extremists and terrorist outfits on social media platforms, which is a good thing. But its efforts to clamp down on online hate and violent narratives will be hampered by its tendency to blur the line between objectively dangerous content and what is simply strongly worded criticism of power or expressions of dissent. Before delving deeper, it is essential to clarify that the digital frontier poses significant threats to national security, and the state`s concerns should not be viewed solely from a cynical perspective. Security experts and analysts have long warned that violent extremists have been using digital platforms, especially social media, for nefarious purposes, including propaganda, fundraising and recruitment. In that context, the authorities here are justified in demanding that the operators of mass contact digital platforms cooperate in their efforts to counter violent extremism and terrorism. Unfortunately, the same authorities` track record in ensuring transparency, due process and constitutional safeguards when dealing with security-related issues discourages foreign entities from providing assistance, given the risk of trouble if they are accused of complicity in human rights abuses.

The interior ministry has notified 481 accounts it claims are linked to terrorist outfits and has asked social media platforms to take them down. Its report should be taken seriously, especially in light of ongoing violence and attacks on security forces. However, the government also needs to provide concrete reassurances to stakeholders that it does not mean to use counterterrorism as a pretext for curbing dissent or targeting critics. It must also demonstrate that the process it uses to identify and shortlist problematic accounts and content is independent of political considerations, verifiable and legally sound. It may be recalled that the government recently sought to block scores of YouTube channels in the `national interest`. However, it quickly became evident that many of the channels that it was seeking to gag were being run by critics of the present regime. The order was eventually suspended. This time, it has not disclosed the names of accounts it has sought to ban, or the rationale for seeking action against them.

Unless it offers transparency and ensures fairness, it is unlikely to find support for its drive. The public`s distrust is unfortunate, but a direct consequence of mixing national security with politics.