Pakistan has issued a stern warning to global social media companies, declaring that if they do not comply with the country’s demands to curb extremist and anti-state content, they could soon face the kind of tough enforcement measures seen in Brazil. The announcement, made on December 11, 2025, by State Minister for Law Barrister Aqeel Malik during a press briefing in Islamabad, marks a significant escalation in the government’s ongoing struggle to regulate online platforms and combat digital propaganda threatening state security.
“The Brazil model involves blocking platforms and imposing heavy fines,” Malik told local and foreign journalists, referencing a recent June 11 ruling by Brazil’s Supreme Court. That landmark decision held social media companies accountable for certain types of illegal content posted by users, opening the door to potentially massive penalties for non-compliance. According to Reuters, six out of eleven Brazilian Supreme Court judges voted to hold platforms responsible for third-party content deemed illegal, a move that has rippled through the global tech industry.
For Pakistani authorities, the message is clear: platforms such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and others must step up their cooperation or risk being shut out of the country altogether. “We are left with no choice if platforms fail to curb terrorist activity and comply with national regulations,” Malik said. He further warned that Pakistan is prepared to take the matter to the International Court of Justice if social media companies continue to resist cooperation, particularly when it comes to assisting investigations into terrorism-related cases.
The government’s frustration is rooted in what it perceives as glaring double standards by tech giants. Malik pointed out that content related to Palestine is often removed within 24 hours of being flagged, yet when Pakistan requests information on accounts linked to terrorist activity—such as IP addresses or user data—those requests are routinely ignored. “There are double standards,” Malik asserted, highlighting the disparity in response times and the apparent selectiveness in platform enforcement policies.
According to Pakistani authorities, 47 foreign accounts have been identified as being involved in terrorist activity: 19 originating from India and 28 from Afghanistan. Despite this intelligence, platforms have declined to share crucial data such as IP addresses, hampering Pakistani efforts to trace and prosecute those responsible for inciting violence or destabilizing the state. The lack of cooperation has only fueled Islamabad’s determination to push for stricter oversight.
Minister of State for Interior Talal Chaudhry echoed Malik’s concerns and reiterated Islamabad’s long-standing demand that social media companies establish local offices in Pakistan. This, he argued, would ensure swifter coordination and a more responsive relationship between the government and tech firms. “Some applications’ responses are extremely weak,” Chaudhry said, lamenting the platforms’ sluggishness in addressing Pakistani security concerns.
Chaudhry also questioned the priorities of these companies, drawing a pointed comparison to their handling of child exploitation content. “If content related to child pornography is being auto-deleted, why not content related to terrorism?” he asked, challenging the platforms to apply their advanced automated systems and artificial intelligence tools to the fight against extremist propaganda. The government’s position is that if AI-driven mechanisms can detect and remove illegal sexual content, there is no technological barrier preventing similar action against accounts and posts that promote terrorism or threaten national security.
Pakistan’s demands are not limited to appeals for cooperation and transparency. The government wants social media companies to introduce robust, AI-driven mechanisms that can automatically detect, disable, and remove accounts spreading extremist content. This approach, officials argue, would mirror the technological sophistication already employed to combat other forms of online harm.
The pressure on social media firms comes as Pakistan intensifies its crackdown on digital anti-state campaigns. The National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) has taken center stage in this effort, registering 356 First Information Reports (FIRs) across the country for online propaganda up to September 13, 2025. In addition, 789 inquiries have been launched into users suspected of targeting state institutions through digital platforms. These figures, shared by both Malik and Chaudhry, underscore the scale of the challenge facing Pakistani authorities in the digital age.
The NCCIA’s efforts reflect a broader trend of governments worldwide grappling with the complexities of regulating online speech and policing digital spaces. The Brazilian precedent cited by Malik is particularly significant: after years of debate, Brazil’s Supreme Court ruled that social media companies must be held liable for certain types of illegal content published by users, a move that could result in substantial fines and even the blocking of non-compliant platforms. While some digital rights advocates have raised concerns about potential overreach and threats to free expression, governments like Pakistan’s see such measures as necessary tools in the fight against terrorism and destabilizing propaganda.
The Pakistani government’s warnings are not entirely new. Chaudhry recalled a July 24, 2025, warning in which social media platforms were urged to open offices in Pakistan. At that time, officials cautioned that terrorists were taking advantage of the lack of local oversight to operate freely online. The current escalation, however, signals a willingness to move beyond words and adopt concrete punitive measures if tech giants do not act swiftly.
The standoff between Islamabad and the world’s largest social media companies is emblematic of a broader global debate over the responsibilities of tech platforms in the digital era. On one side, governments argue that platforms must do more to prevent their services from being used to incite violence, spread extremist ideologies, or undermine state institutions. On the other, technology companies often cite privacy concerns, jurisdictional complexities, and the potential for government overreach as reasons for their cautious approach.
For now, Pakistan’s message is unambiguous: comply with our regulations and assist in the fight against online extremism, or face the prospect of platform bans, heavy fines, and even international legal action. Whether this hardline stance will prompt a shift in the policies of global tech giants remains to be seen. But with the stakes so high and the digital landscape growing ever more complex, the world will be watching closely as this story unfolds.
Pakistan’s push for accountability in the digital sphere reflects both the urgency and the difficulty of balancing security concerns with the realities of global internet governance. As the government doubles down on its demands, the next moves by social media giants could set important precedents for how nations and tech companies interact in the years to come.
