Early last year, following Elon Musk’s takeover, X (formerly Twitter) introduced paid API access tiers, dealing a deathblow to its long-standing role as a uniquely valuable resource for academic research.

APIs, or Application Programming Interfaces, act as bridges that connect two software applications, enabling data exchange. For instance, an API can be used to request data from X and store it in a structured format like a CSV file. Paid API tiers mean that the previous official Twitter/X API is no longer functional, which further means data cannot be scraped from X for free.

This measure, alongside introducing ‘rate limits’ (limits to the number of tweets users could view per day), was ostensibly taken to prevent what Musk referred to in a July 2023 tweet as “...extreme levels of data scraping & system manipulation…”, which were slowing down the site and hindering the user experience. However, no further explanation was provided by Musk to support the claim of “extreme levels of data scraping”. X users pointed out that if these indeed exist, they would likely manifest as anomalies that can be identified as request spikes, and thus easily narrowed down to identify and ban users requesting abnormally large amounts of data.

Unreasonably priced paid API tiers

Nevertheless, Musk’s crackdown on data scraping continued, and as of now there are four API tiers: free, basic, pro, and enterprise. The free tier allows 100 reads per month, a negligible amount for researchers and academics looking to analyse posts on X for meaningful insights, patterns, and key data points. The most affordable paid tier only offers around “0.3 percent of [data] [third parties] previously had free access to in a single day”, with  enterprise tier prices shooting to upwards of $42,000 per month. It is also impossible to read posts without being logged into X.

X’s crackdowns on data scraping

As a means to enforce these measures, X has regularly been cracking down on third-party API access, blocking IP addresses and mass suspending developer accounts, and bringing costly lawsuits against non-profits whose research utilises data scraped from X without authorised access.While one might believe Musk’s policies aim to combat misuse and preserve platform integrity, the fact that X, a year after introducing paid API tiers, amended its terms of service to permit training its generative AI model on user posts without their consent makes such intentions harder to trust.

The value of data scraping to social media research

These recent and ongoing changes to X’s policies represent a strange and worrying landscape for data accessibility in academic research. Academic researchers have long relied on X’s open model and public data for producing valuable medical research, including enriching datasets for cancer treatment methods, and tracking mental health trends during public health emergencies like COVID-19.

In addition to X, scraped data across platforms has also been used to collect evidence for studies that have offered positive benefits to society, such as uncovering illegal markets for adopted children on Yahoo bulletin boards, revealing overlaps between law enforcement and extremist Facebook groups, and identifying problems with TikTok’s algorithm targeting youth. From the digital rights lens, this model has improved understanding of the implications of harmful online content for society and provided the rights community an opportunity to share policy recommendations. Without it, tracking social media companies’ adherence to their own content moderation rules for regulating harmful content is increasingly challenging.

To the dismay of researchers, X is not the only platform that restricts access to their API. Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn, have long restricted access to user data.

The legal debate around scraping public data

Legally, social media companies like X and LinkedIn have come under fire for bringing claims against the scraping of public data on their platforms. In X Corp. v. Bright Data Ltd. (2024), X Corp asserted breach-of-contract and tort claims against a data scraping company, Bright Data, to prevent it from extracting and copying public data from X, and selling tools that enable users to extract and copy public data from the same.

The case was ultimately dismissed because none of the claims passed muster, and in its ruling the U.S. district court quoted a previous judgement for a case brought by LinkedIn against data scraping by an airline website in 2022:

…giving social media companies ‘free rein to decide, on any basis, who can collect and use data - data that the companies do not own, that they otherwise make publicly available to viewers, and that the companies themselves collect and use - risks the possible creation of information monopolies that would disserve the public interest.’

HiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., 31 F.4th 1180, 1202 (9th Cir. 2022) qtd. in X Corp. v. Bright Data Ltd., C 23-03698 WHA, 2 (N.D. Cal. May. 9, 2024)

These recent court rulings highlight the risks posed to public interest by the arbitrary crackdown on data scraping. They underscore how social media platforms hold “arms length”, non-exclusive rights to user data, and have no written exclusive copyright license over user’s works. Users own sole exclusive rights to their data, and only owners of exclusive rights can seek protection and remedies from courts. Litigation brought by X against data scraping of public data is an overreach of its rights, as explained in the X Corp. v. Bright Data case judgement:

…invoking state contract and tort law, X Corp. would entrench its own private copyright system that rivals, even conflicts with, the actual copyright system enacted by Congress. X Corp. would yank into its private domain and hold for sale information open to all, exercising a copyright owner's right to exclude where it has no such right.

X Corp. v. Bright Data Ltd., C 23-03698 WHA, 2 (N.D. Cal. May. 9, 2024)

Tools that bypass data scraping restrictions

Irrespective of legal woes and crackdowns, developers have started building third-party tools, which allow users, including researchers, to ‘informally’ scrape data from social media platforms.

These tools avoid the hassle of requiring official API access from platforms by mimicking human browsing behavior to extract data instead of relying on APIs. Since many of these tools offer low-code and no-code solutions to data scraping, they expand the user base of a practice that was in the past only limited to programmers with at least an intermediate understanding of Python and other programming languages. Now the layperson or researcher also has a wealth of data at their fingertips. Additionally, in the case of X, some of these tools allow for access to historic data going back to 2006, which even the official X API does not offer. At the same time, their unofficial status leaves these tools at a constant risk of bans, and open to litigation, making them unreliable options for long-term research.

How platforms can address data scraping responsibly

As such, the most practical, reliable, and legal option would be for platforms to address their duty towards offering researchers above-board methodologies to continue their noble and essential aim of knowledge production. Blanket bans on data scraping are not a one-size-fits-all solution. It is necessary to consider context and intent of use for each instance of scraping. It is true that the open web runs the risk of being ‘spidered’ by massive web crawlers that not only require massive bandwidth and overload servers, but are also being used to train Large Language Models (LLMs) without user and website owner consent. This is and should be a genuine cause of concern for tech companies and other stakeholders. At the same time, as discussed in detail above, data scraping specific sites and pages has time and again proven to be useful, valuable, and in need of protection.

For some skeptics, the problem then is not data scraping, but platforms evading accountability when it comes to contextualising use cases for data scraping. Legitimate, positive use cases can be identified by looking at research objectives, the size of data collection, and the use of appropriate safeguards to protect data and sites. By facilitating researchers with authorised free access for these legitimate use cases, platforms can reduce unofficial scraping on their sites, while also upholding their duties towards the public good. Putting significant amounts of data behind unbreachable paywalls, regardless of its intended use, represents a fundamental failure of platform accountability in supporting essential research and knowledge production.

By Sara Imran, Research Associate, Digital Rights Foundation

DRF investigates the dissemination of harmful content on social media platforms against transgender community member Dolphin Khan and identifies gaps in the implementation of platforms’ content moderation rules

Trigger Warnings: Discussions of Non-consensual Nudity, Threats of Bodily Harm, Technology-Facilitated Gendered Violence, Blurred/Obscured screenshots from a non-consensual video (for information purposes).

Context:

Pakistan’s transgender community has persistently experienced violence, ostracization at the societal level, and sexual exploitation over the years. In the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa alone, 267 cases of violence against the transgender community were reported during 2019-2023, but which resulted in only one conviction. To make matters worse, the community has long been a victim of online hate on social media platforms. In October 2024, DRF released “Gendered Disinformation in South Asia Case Study - Pakistan”, which focused on the discrimination and online hate speech directed at Pakistan’s trans community. According to the report, it was found that at least 22% of harmful social media posts (including TFGBV, gendered disinformation, gendered hate speech)  were aimed at the transgender community. However, as the report noted, meetings and escalations with social media platforms concerning trans-specific hate speech were unsatisfactory, owing to the latter’s responses - or, in the case of X, largely unresponsive post-change in ownership.

Dolphin Khan Case:

On 29 October, a non-consensual video of a Pakistani trans woman was leaked online, with users on multiple social media platforms sharing it. The video, which the victim Dolphin Ayan Khan - also known as Dolphin Ayaan - has described as being “forcibly recorded”, shows her being forced to strip down entirely and dance, by someone in the background who can be heard but not seen by the viewer, after being abducted at gunpoint.

On the back of this incident, transgender rights activist Dr. Mehrub Awan brought the video to everyone’s attention on X on 30 October. Expressing disdain towards the persistent harassment of the trans community, Dr. Awan stressed:

 “...We have literally written papers, done podcasts, book chapters, and spoken to media and officials about “Beela violence” and how organised it is. We, ourselves, have presented data and identified hotspots - Mardan and Peshawar - and profiled the criminals involved. We have done everything that we, as a broken and battered community, could do. Ayyan (sic) was on the roads just a month ago organizing protests, and a year ago injured with bullets. When does this end? What else is expected from a community literally on the receiving end of genocidal murders in Pakhtunkhwa to do?”

Following the incident, Ms. Khan issued a video statement naming the alleged perpetrator behind the video and confirming that police authorities had been informed about the incident. Seeking  justice on the matter, she vowed to hold a press conference on this issue in November. According to news reports, on 01 November a case against the perpetrators of the video - which was filmed in 2023 - was filed in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 (PECA).

Harmful Content On  Social Media Platforms: DRF’s findings

DRF conducted preliminary investigations into the matter to understand whether or not these videos were available on social media platforms especially X, Facebook, Instagram, Youtube and Tiktok. Social media platforms were reviewed on 31 October between 0900 AM-0300 PM, using the search terms “Dolphin Khan”, “Dolphin Ayan”, and “Dolphin Ayan Khan”. Owing to capacity and time constraints, DRF was unable to look at other platforms such as WhatsApp/Snack Video or Snapchat.

• Non-consensual nude content:
  As per initial investigations, it was found that at least two accounts on X had reportedly posted clips of the actual video. However, none of these video clips were posted or available on Facebook, Tiktok or Instagram. Furthermore, DRF came across at least two concrete instances where a link shared by an account on X led to an uncensored video being hosted on at least two different pornographic websites (screenshots provided, but with URLs removed and images blurred). As of the 31 of October, these X profiles were still up, and with active links.
  Platform rules on non-consensual video:
  The availability of Dolphin’s non-consensual videos on X are in violation of X’s non-consensual nudity policy. It underscores how users cannot “post or share intimate photos or videos of someone that were produced or distributed without their consent.” In violation of these policies, an account can either be suspended or temporarily locked.
  While the accounts posting Dolphin’s videos had not been suspended at the time of data gathering, it was unclear if they were locked or not.  Irrespective of the restrictions, merely locking an account without removing the harmful post seemed an ineffective strategy in this case. DRF’s Cyber Harassment Helpline in the past has recorded similar incidents like these where transgender activists had their pictures/videos shared on the platform which were in violation of this policy, and yet had not been removed by the platform.

Accounts on X actively sharing clips from the leaked non-consensual video

 

Digital Rights Foundation Research and Policy Department 

21-5-2024

In November 2023, following the events of October 7th there was a surge in posts online containing the phrase “From the River to the Sea” - a phrase used by people across the world to show their support for Palestine. The complete slogan, “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free” is a reference to the land across the historical state of Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. The slogan has been used since the 1960s by Palestinian nationalist and resistance groups such as the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Hamas. Over time the phrase has become increasingly popular among Palestinians, and Palestinian diaspora around the world as it speaks to their personal ties to the land. Many identify themselves strongly with the village or town they or their ancestors come from, stretching across the land, from Jericho and Safed near the Jordan River, to Jaffa and Haifa on the shores of the Mediterranean sea. 

As the phrase is used globally by different actors, the context and intent varies depending on who is using it. Despite that, the chant is mostly used to support and empower the struggle of all Palestinians, regardless of religion, striving for a free and sovereign homeland. However, there have been instances where variations of the phrase have been used to support the movement for a Greater Israel. For example, the founding charter of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party states: “Between the sea and the Jordan River there will only be Israeli sovereignty”. In 1977, their platform called for Israeli sovereignty over the land between Jordan and the Mediterranean sea, openly demanding complete annexation of the West Bank. 

The chant can be equated to the commonly supported ideology for a ‘Greater Israel’ - an Israeli Jewish state that extends from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. If we consider Palestinian usage of the chant for liberation as a call for the expulsion of Jews from the region, then in all fairness, the same should hold true for a call for a Greater Israel. It is no secret that the current Israeli government and those that came before have supported the complete annihilation and expulsion of Palestinians from the land. Supporters of the zionist ideology perceive the chant as a violent call because it threatens their vision of a solely Jewish state. The liberation of Palestine means that Israel will have to treat Palestinian Arabs and Israelis as equal citizens, adding millions of Palestinian Arabs to their citizenship rolls - a decision that goes against their aim of establishing a Greater Israel, diminishing the “Jewishness” of the state.

  In the past claims have been made that the slogan is antisemitic, however in truth the slogan and its use reflect a long history of attempts to silence Palestinian voices and those speaking in solidarity. Palestinian-American writer Yousef Munayyer argues that those who perceive “From the River to the Sea” to have genocidal connotations or any desire for the destruction of Israel, were simply reflective of their own Islamophobia. He argues that the phrase was instead merely used to express people's desire for a state where “Palestinians can live in their homeland as free and equal citizens, neither dominated by others nor dominating others.” Some Palestinians say that the slogan refers to a single state where Palestinians and Israelis can live together, and not as a call to remove anyone from the region. According to Rama Al Malah, an organizer with the Palestinian Youth Movement, the chant in no way calls for the killing of Jewish people but is a way for them to say that they want liberation from 75 years of occupation, and to advocate for the return of refugees who have been forced out of their land from 1948 till now. 

Now that the intended use of the phrase through online and offline platforms is established, it is important to highlight how Meta’s policies and content moderation practices have been heavily censoring content relating to Palestine since October 7th, 2023. Users across the globe have reported that the content they share that is pro-Palestine is being ‘shadow-banned’, limiting their reach and engagement on the platforms. Users have also reported the removal of pro-Palestine content from the platform after being flagged for ‘violating community guidelines’.When content regarding conflict areas is removed by Meta from its platforms, the risk of erasure of crucial evidence to be used in international criminal courts for prosecuting perpetrators increases. In addition to silencing voices that advocate for Palestinian rights, the deletion of the phrase “From the River to the Sea” among other pro-Palestine content creates gaps in potential digital evidence on human rights violations. As per Leiden guidelines, digitally derived evidence including photographs, social media content and videos is being increasingly used as documented evidence in international criminal prosecutions. The UN Fact-Finding mission using Facebook posts as evidence in the case of brutalities against Myanmar’s Rohingya population is one such example that signifies the crucial role played by social media platforms for the preservation of records. Similarly, Meta’s removal of content related to the Palestine-Israel conflict, in any capacity, creates a dent in the repository that has the potential to serve as crucial evidence for legal decision-making against violations within conflict zones.   

According to a report by Human Rights Watch from October to November 2023, there have been 1050 takedowns on Instagram and Facebook relating to Pro Palestinian content. Of the 1050 takedowns, written primarily in the English language from over 60 countries, 1049 cases contained peaceful content in solidarity with Palestinians. Since the October 7 conflict, there has been a surge in hateful content against Palestinians on social media platforms. 7amleh’s AI-powered language model has been monitoring the spread of hate speech in Hebrew against Palestinians and pro-Palestine users on these platforms. Since October the model has classified 6,026,492 hateful and violent cases on platforms. The distribution of violence according to the tool has been the highest on X (79.7%) followed by Meta platforms (19.1%). Additionally, it is difficult to overlook Meta’s biased approach towards pro-Palestinian content on the platform when in October 2023 Meta started inserting the word ‘terrorist’ into profile bios of Palestinian users on Instagram; later issuing an apology stating that the platform was experiencing a bug in auto-translation on Instagram. Previously, Meta’s track record in the May 2021 crisis between Israel and Palestine showed a similar pattern when Palestinian voices were censored and shadow-banned on the platform, as was later confirmed by the Sustainable Business Network and Consultancy (BSR) report. The continuous removal of pro-Palestine content on the platform indicates that Meta has repeatedly censored the voices of users on its platform even before the events of October 9. Post-October 9, the censorship has been further aggravated by big tech platforms. 

Meta’s handling of Palestinian content, particularly the removal of pages such as Eye of Palestine and the suspension of Palestinian journalist Motaz Azaiza’s account, raises serious concerns about the platform’s commitment to human rights and freedom of speech on the platform. Despite Meta’s newsworthy policy, which protects journalistic content, these accounts have faced undue restrictions and reach limitations. This biased enforcement is in stark contrast with Meta’s approach during the Russia-Ukraine conflict, where the platform displayed clear bias by promoting content favoring and showing solidarity with Ukraine. This discrepancy underscores an inconsistency in Meta’s content moderation practices, undermining principles of freedom of expression, freedom of association, and equality and non-discrimination. Although Meta has since issued an apology for its unfair treatment of Palestinian solidarity voices, the platform persists in limiting content that supports Palestine, further perpetuating digital apartheid and the use of social media algorithms that disproportionately impact marginalized voices. This ongoing issue highlights a significant gap between Meta’s stated policies and its actions, calling into question its commitment to upholding human rights responsibilities.

In its recent policy changes, Meta has introduced new default limits on political content, weakening free expression online by disproportionately affecting political content from marginalized groups. The time and context of this particular policy raise questions about the potentially biased approach of the platform in controlling narratives. This not only undermines democratic values of free speech and association but also exacerbates existing inequalities, particularly for voices supporting the Palestinian plight. The biased application of Meta’s policies reflects a broader trend of digital discrimination, where algorithmic decisions and content moderation policies reinforce existing power imbalances and suppress dissenting voices. Meta’s inconsistent and biased handling of Palestinian content, coupled with its preferential treatment of other geopolitical issues, not only raises grave concerns around adherence to global human rights principles but also potentially undermines systematic freedom of expression, freedom of association, and non-discrimination. Tech platforms need to create more transparent and equitable content moderation policies that are sensitive to contextual nuances.

Meta’s response to the phrase “From the river to the sea” on its platform revolves around several key human rights principles. Facebook, as a platform with 3.03 billion monthly active users, has the responsibility to protect the fundamental human rights of its user base. This includes allowing individuals to express political opinions, advocate for political changes, express solidarity with a cause and ensure equality and non-discrimination. The cases highlight contexts where the aim of the phrase “From the river to the sea” is to advocate peacefully for Palestinian civil rights without promoting violence or hatred towards people under protected characteristics. Upon reviewing the content mentioning the phrase on Meta platforms, it was found that a large majority of it only mentions and sympathizes with Palestinians with no discussion being anti-semitic or anti-Israel. The question that arises is in a case where the world has seen the extent of atrocities that Palestinians have been subjected to, are expressing personal opinions around the current crisis considered promoting terrorism on platforms? Many Palestinian activists have expressed that the complete phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” does not insult or violate the sovereignty of the state of Israel, the Jewish community, or Meta’s content moderation policies. Through a more subjective perspective where the phrase is used critically against state institutions, Meta does not categorize the use of the phrase as hate speech, particularly when the phrase is against state institutions rather than any specific recognized individuals. In all three cases, the phrase has been provided more context with additional text, for example “#DefundIsrael”, “Zionist State of Israel”, and “Zionist Israeli occupiers”, highlighting the cases as an association with a political cause rather than to support any dangerous organizations (as categorized by Meta and/or the United States Government). Although the cause is controversial in the current global political landscape, the phrase and its use in these cases do not violate Meta’s community guidelines on “Hate speech”. The first case where the user claimed the phrase “violates Meta’s policies prohibiting content that promotes violence or supports terrorism” refers to Meta’s rules on “Violence and incitement”, “Dangerous Organizations” and Individuals. The phrase “From the river to the sea” is used to show solidarity with Palestinians in general, rather than an affiliation with any political or resistance group. None of the cases presented by the Oversight Board insinuate or show affiliation and alliance, or promote dangerous organizations. Moreover, Meta’s categorization of dangerous organizations needs further transparency and context. The issue of contextual categorization of keywords and associations has been a long-standing debate, especially with Meta’s content moderation policies. For a platform that deems its policies global and standardized for every country, specifically using “United States designated terrorist organizations” contradicts their global policies agenda. These policies need more robust and inclusive parameters to be globally inclusive throughout different regions. Moreover, the categorizations of “Dangerous organizations” should be transparently communicated with Meta’s trusted partners to make them aware of the kind of content that should be escalated to Meta.

These cases are a testament to addressing the contextual application of Meta’s community standards. Ideally, there should be no room for specific targeting of any religious groups thus anti-semitic content should be taken down right away, however in cases where the content is associated with a peaceful socio-political movement, the content should be left up as it does not go against any of Meta’s content moderation guidelines. Hence, the three cases should not be removed from the platform as long as they have been posted in solidarity with a political cause and are categorized as freedom of speech and freedom of association. 

The use of the phrase has also been widely scrutinized at the state and educational institutions level. The phrase was labeled antisemitic by the US House of Representatives in a resolution that was passed with a 377 majority against 44 who voted against it in January 2024. US Representative Rashida Tlaib was censured by the House of Representatives through a resolution as a consequence of her using the phrase on social media. Several House Republicans and Democrats came together to condemn the pro-Palestine statements of the only Palestinian-origin representative. According to them, the phrase’s genocidal nature encourages the eradication of the state of Israel. It is important to note that the resolution was passed and supported by the majority of House Representatives despite Tlaib clarifying on the House floor that her criticism is targeted at the Israeli government, not the people. In the UK, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak condemned the slogan and called the people who use it either gravely misinformed or supportive of the threat that the slogan signifies towards Israel’s existence. Last year, Pro Palestine rallies across the UK were condemned by former Home Secretary Suella Braverman. She was of the opinion that the rallies were “hate marches” against Jewish people and the state of Israel, encouraging the police to use brute force with zero tolerance. Braverman has repeatedly expressed her contention with the rallies and the phrase asking why it has been justified under claims of religious struggle. She has also proposed to alter the Terrorism Act 2000 as in its current state, evidence of incitement and encouragement of terrorism is required to charge the protestors, calling for laws to tackle “mass extremism” on the UK streets. Individuals holding office encouraging the police to take strong action against protestors without distinguishing between peaceful and non-peaceful elements is deeply concerning as it paves the way for influencing and forming a collective narrative that eventually infiltrates the general public. The encouragement of violence against the protestors in itself comes off as a threat to people’s right to protest and freedom of expression; just as Rashida Tlaib’s clarification on her stance being against the Israeli government and not the people was ignored, condemning her pro-Palestine stance.

The pro-Palestine student protests taking place across university campuses have been labeled anti-semitic resulting in several students being arrested by the police. Upon being asked about the phrase being used, the Columbia University President pointed out that although she feels that the phrase is antisemitic, there are people who do not hold the same opinion. Since April 18, the arrests have taken place at 40 different US campuses resulting in more than 2100 students being arrested. The arrests and the administration’s sympathetic stance towards anti-protestors have widely challenged freedom of speech and expression where students are being penalized for voicing out their opinion and publicly protesting against a genocide. Such practices are discriminatory and promote a greater divide within the community. 

Censoring public opinions on platforms is not only an undemocratic practice but also sets a questionable global precedent where silencing the masses becomes an acceptable norm. Although drawing a clear binary between free speech and hate speech is important, institutions and government bodies need to demarcate through careful consideration. As mentioned earlier, the particular phrase under scrutiny is used during peaceful pro-Palestine protests to showcase solidarity with Palestinians and their struggles. It is more to sympathize with them than it is to acts of terror. As the binary is defined, it is important to remember that calling out states participating in genocide cannot and should not be categorized as hate speech let alone students being penalized for the same. Several universities including New York University and Columbia University have barred graduating students from attending their graduation ceremonies as a consequence of their participation in the protests. This has led the protesting students to create their own events under the name of “The People’s Graduation” to provide support to the barred students by celebrating their achievements together. In addition, faculty members have also come forward to protest and in support of the protesting students, the same can however not be said about university administrations. 

Beyond the right to protest, students and other migrants relocate to countries like the US and the UK to improve their quality of life which includes their right to stand up for and against different causes that resonate with their identities as an ethnic, religious, or social community. When influential countries take a draconian position that advocates for the suppression of free speech, in addition to alienating the victims, they invalidate the individual right to democratic expression and legitimize all forms of oppression citizens and marginalized groups face in authoritarian states. 

While the intended use of the phrase at large is to advocate for the freedom of Palestinians, some perceive it as a threat to a state. By censoring pro-Palestine content, big tech platforms play a role in the erasure of digital evidence against human rights atrocities in addition to curbing free speech online. At the state and educational institutions level, the opposition to the phrase emphasizes the increased suppression of marginalized communities and their voices. To ensure equitable justice and access to information on online platforms through content regulation, it is important to not engage in disproportionate assessment of certain cases. To maintain their global status, platforms need to ensure that the criteria to flag specific content should be gauged not in line with regulations within specific countries, for instance, the US or the UK as discussed above, but per global majority countries. 

Rameen Durrani

Rameen Durrani is a student majoring in Economics & Political Science and is working as a Research & Policy Intern at Digital Rights Foundation for the summer of 2023.

Censorship of entertainment frequently occupies a fragile middle ground between artistic freedom and societal sensitivities. This dynamic is especially noticeable in Pakistan, where cultural, religious, and societal norms influence the boundaries of creative expression. In the context of Pakistani entertainment censorship, this blog explores the constant difficulty of striking the correct balance between creative freedom and societal sensitivity.

While Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, it also “allows for reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the "glory of Islam" or the "integrity, security, or defense of Pakistan" or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offense.” This provision, amongst others, creates ambiguity as to the degree of creative freedom within a country that has, for decades, been engaged in a battle of achieving modernity while also retaining its traditional values. According to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, “the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulation Authority (PEMRA) has been established under the PEMRA Ordinance 2002 to facilitate and regulate the private electronic media. It has the mandate to improve the standards of information, education and entertainment and to enlarge the choice available to the people of Pakistan, including news, current affairs, religious knowledge, art and culture as well as science and technology.^[1]”

Owing to its largely contradictory laws, the influence of religious groups and the absence of media literacy, censorship decisions in Pakistan have often stifled artistic expression and discouraged daring storytelling. In addition to frequent film censorship, platform bans have also become quite common. Movie database IMDB was blocked on the pretext of it containing a review and link to a documentary on Balochistan. In 2021, PEMRA also directed local television channels to "stop airing caress and hug scenes" in dramas, as it was receiving several complaints against such content.^[2] It is interesting to note, however, that no such complaints are addressed regarding domestic violence as well as other forms of abuse that often serve as the main theme of various TV shows.

[1] Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. (MOIB), PAKISTAN. (n.d.).www.moib.gov.pk. http://www.moib.gov.pk/Pages/178/PEMRA

[2] In Pakistan, TV channels told to stop airing “hugging scenes” in dramas. WION. https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/in-pakistan-tv-channels-told-to-stop-airing-hugging-scenes-in-dramas-423167

Saim Sadiq’s Joyland,  Pakistan’s first-ever competitive entry at the Cannes Film Festival won the Jury Prize in the ‘Un Certain Regard’ category at the festival. Joyland was also shortlisted by Pakistan’s Oscars Selection Committee as the country’s submission to the 95th Academy Awards.^[1] After bagging multiple awards on international platforms and receiving a 10-minute standing ovation at Cannes, the film was stopped from release in the very country it was representing globally. The Internet appeared to be divided after the Pakistani authorities banned Joyland on the grounds that written complaints had been received that the movie contains “highly objectionable material” that does not conform with the “social values and moral standards of our society.”^[2] The film was later permitted to release after heavy censorship in all provinces except Punjab, on the grounds that they were ‘receiving complaints’ against the content.^[3]

Actions like these raise questions about the apparent hypocrisy that is embedded in entertainment censorship in Pakistan as films like The Legend of Maula Jutt that portray extreme forms of violence and brutality are conveniently passed by the Censor Board while films like Joyland that highlight important and sensitive social issues are restricted. In fact, according to an Al-Jazeera article, when an objection over graphic violence in The Legend of Maula Jutt was raised before the release of the film, the Censor Board chairperson threatened: ‘If anyone cuts anything in this film, I’ll resign.”^[1]

Similarly, in 2023, the film Javed Iqbal: The Untold Story Of A Serial Killer was banned two days before it was scheduled to be released. It was later allowed to be released under a different name and again after heavy censorship.^[1] Most recently, the film Zindagi Tamasha directed by Sarmad Khoosat faced a challenging journey due to censorship in Pakistan.^[2] Despite critical acclaim, the movie was banned by the government, leading to financial losses and limited audience reach. The ban on theatrical release denied the filmmakers the opportunity to earn revenue from box office collections, pushing them to release the film on YouTube for free. This unfortunate outcome underscores the adverse consequences of entertainment censorship in Pakistan, as it poses obstacles for filmmakers in pursuing their artistic vision.

So the question remains: who decides what is acceptable? PEMRA has been criticized for being overly sensitive to religious and cultural issues, leading to the banning or editing of content that may not be objectively offensive but merely challenges conservative norms. This approach is seen as stifling creative freedom and hindering the growth of a diverse and inclusive media landscape. Moreover, it has led to a drastic increase in self-censorship as content creators self-censor to avoid offending or hurting the sentiments of certain groups, as they fear facing public outrage or even threats. In an interview with Samaa News, Javed Iqbal’s director Abu Aleeha stated, “My cinema is not commercial. I can’t show characters singing and dancing. I try not to show abuse and nudity, but if I am making a film on Javed Iqbal, who killed 100 children, then portraying him to be someone other than what he was would be unconvincing to the audience. I have to show reality.” ^[1]

[1] “Joyland” is Pakistan’s entry for Oscars 2023. (2022, September 30). The Express Tribune. https://tribune.com.pk/story/2379352/joyland-is-pakistans-entry-for-oscars-2023

[1] Saifi, T. S. (2022, November 16). Pakistan blocks national release of “Joyland,” a story of sexual liberation. CNN.

[1] Joyland film: notices issued to Punjab govt, censor board against ban. (2022, November 30). Bol News. https://www.bolnews.com/pakistan/2022/11/joyland-film-notices-issued-to-punjab-censor-board-against-ban/

[1] Sharma, S. (2022, October 22). Pakistani film The Legend of Maula Jatt sets a new benchmark. Www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved August 7, 2023, from https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/10/22/the-return-of-maula-jatt

[1] Khan, A. (2023, March 27). Name of Pakistani film “Javed Iqbal” changed, resubmitted to censor board for approval. FactFile. https://factfile.pk/2023/03/27/name-of-pakistani-film-javed-iqbal-changed-resubmitted-to-censor-board-for-approval

[1] https://tribune.com.pk/author/328. (2023, August 3). “Zindagi Tamasha” to release on YouTube, Vimeo. The Express Tribune. https://tribune.com.pk/story/2429079/sarmad-khoosats-passion-project-zindagi-tamasha-to-release-on-youtube-vimeo

While it is true that petitions to ban certain entertainment content in Pakistan often come from the public, it is important to understand that the majority's viewpoint is not always indicative of what is best for a constitutional democratic society. The public's concerns should not be disregarded outright, but decisions regarding entertainment censorship must be made through a careful and balanced process that considers various factors, such as the right to information and freedom of expression as well as the consequences of violating them. By taking certain considerations into account, Pakistan can navigate the complexities of entertainment censorship while upholding its socio-cultural and religious values. Like many other institutions, PEMRA also suffers from politicization and a lack of independence. Therefore, the need of the hour is to establish an independent and impartial body to oversee censorship decisions that target censorship efforts towards areas of genuine concern, such as hate speech, incitement to violence, and sexual abuse, rather than imposing outright bans on content that might stifle creative expression unnecessarily. In fact, the authorities need to define these categories in a way that there is a clear distinction between content that serves an educational purpose and content that propagates harmful ideals. PEMRA's inability to differentiate between the two raises concerns about the potential hindrance to fostering informed discussions and societal awareness.

With the world moving towards creating more inclusive and accepting societies, Pakistan appears to be heading in the opposite direction, as excessive censorship decelerates social progress and points towards an unaware and ignorant society. This restriction on information access can lead to uninformed decision-making by citizens, undermining the essence of democracy. Moreover, censorship's potential for abuse of power, coupled with media self-censorship, threatens media independence, minimizing the public's ability to hold those in power accountable. Additionally, it denies citizens the right to make their own choices about the content they consume by disregarding individual autonomy. To foster a vibrant and inclusive society, it is essential for Pakistan to strike a balance between the legitimate concerns of censorship and the preservation of freedom of expression and cultural diversity. Balancing creative freedom and societal sensitivities in a fairly traditional society like Pakistan requires a thoughtful and nuanced approach. Creating a space for dialogue between artists, filmmakers, religious leaders, policymakers, and the general public can help bridge the gap between creative expression and societal sensitivities, leading to better mutual understanding.

[1] Shahid, U. (2021, November 28). An uncensored history of film censorship in Pakistan. Samaa. https://www.samaaenglish.tv/news/2464853

Author: Zainab Durrani
Program Manager

One of the latest developments shared by the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) is the new data protection service rolled out by them called ‘Ijazat Ap Ki’ (‘With Your Consent’). Though limited information is available online regarding the initiative, we have gleaned the following from various sources:

How it works: Since March 2nd 2023, as per news reports covering NADRA’s public release, all national identity-related data acquisition of citizens will be accompanied by a 6-digit code authentication process to verify their consent in all service transactions. 

It is important to note that the NADRA database encompasses the biometric data of ‘125 million unique identities’ as per its own admission, labeling it as the ‘world’s largest singular citizen database,’ holding sensitive data including biometric personal information. The accompanying onus thus falls much more heavily on the Authority to provide safe systems to curtail data breaches, especially in the absence of data protection regulations in the country.

Although the details are not available on NADRA’s website, the news coverage states that the service has been put into motion and will accompany the use of a one-time password (OTP) to collect the authorization of the individual before verification of their Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC).

This development safeguarding the rights of Pakistani citizens in digital spaces, especially through data privacy, is a positive first step and one that must be accompanied by the principles of transparency and accountability. NADRA’s previous record as a data retainer and processor is unfortunately rife with several instances of data breaches.

When we at DRF attempted to register for the service, by sending a 13-digit CNIC number to 8009, a confirmation message was received almost instantaneously stating that the phone number was indeed linked to the CNIC in question, however, no more details were provided regarding the ‘Ijazat Ap Ki’ service itself.

Since the publicly available information was limited, we shared our queries with NADRA and encouragingly, received responses. The exchange is shared verbatim for our readers:

Question: How many citizens (and what percentage of the total citizens on the database) have signed up for the ‘Ijazat Ap Ki’ service so far? What efforts are being made to ensure all citizens sign up?

Response: ‘Ijazat Ap Ki’ service is a backend dynamic service. It doesn’t require any pre-registration. Instead at the time of verification, it generates a verification pass and sends it to the citizen on his/her recently reported mobile number. At the same time this service allows citizens to pair their default number to receive verification code. So far over a million citizens have paired their number to receive the code.’

Question: What checks are in place to ensure that NADRA will be sending the OTP for every CNIC-related transaction?

Response: ‘Data privacy and consent management is a fairly new idea in Pakistan therefore it needs to be rolled out gradually for its acceptance and minimize resistance. Therefore, it is planned to be rolled out in phases. The first phase was rolled out earlier this year and over 250 entities were moved to ‘Ijazat Ap Ki’ service. We receive feedback and adjust the service so that the verifying agencies are involved and made part of the system. After gradual rollout, eventually the plan is to ensure that every CNIC related transaction has the consent of the citizen. It may be a verification code, biometric verification or any other means that the organization may find appropriate in coming times.’

Question: What efforts, if any, are in place to ensure transparency in this process? Has NADRA considered instituting a live counter or roster hosted on the NADRA’s website, which can boost confidence in the Authority’s claim to added privacy protection?

Response: ‘As mentioned above, it is a gradual process. First challenge is to get the [sic] acceptance and introduce the consent management regime. As the whole system is automated and there are strict control measures and audit trails available to trace back any irregularity. NADRA takes data misuse [as] a very serious crime and take[s] strict action against the offenders.’

Question: Which transactions will be covered under this service, financial, retail, e-commerce?

Response: ‘Consent management is a universal phenomenon and all CNIC related transactions will be covered. Its rollout is gradual but eventually the whole industry will adopt this regime.’

While the answers provided by NADRA, helped clarify some of the broader details of  the service, left a few of our concerns unaddressed. We believe it would be prudent that NADRA lays out a step-by-step guide to clarify the registration process, to increase accessibility. NADRA shared a video they developed with us that accomplishes just that; sharing this video widely through social media and TV channels would help bolster registration. The link to NADRA’s video on ‘Ijazat Ap Ki’ service is available here. 

We are also concerned by the lack of specificity around the ‘strict control measures and audit trails’ and whether these audits will be available to the public. Additionally, more information on which entities have been moved to the ‘Ijazat Ap Ki’ service roster and generally applying a more forthcoming approach would be a welcome step in progressing towards a nation more in line with open governance principles. 

Another move that could bolster confidence in the Authority’s progress with regards to a citizen-centric vision would be the development of SOPs or perhaps a policy that quantifies and operationalises the ‘consent management regime’ that NADRA referred to in their responses. 

We would like to reiterate the need for a data protection instrument to oversee the regulation of data subject privacy is greater now than ever. Such a law would also be beneficial in institutionalizing changes that require public and private data processors, such as NADRA and the telecom and ISP sector to implement coherent privacy policies across the board. An overhaul of the existing perspective and strategy is required for Pakistan to keep up with the pace at which its citizens are adapting to digital lives.

Regardless, as a digital rights organization, we appreciate the commendable move to institute safeguards to further protect the vulnerable data of citizens and will continue to monitor the developments under this new service and the overall state of privacy in the country. 

https://www.geo.tv/latest/473813-nadra-rolls-out-pakistans-first-data-protection-service

https://www.nadra.gov.pk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Corporate-Brochure-11.4.16.pdf

https://www.dawn.com/news/1660199

Faizan Ul Haq is currently a Senior at LUMS majoring in History. His interests include tech, philosophy, and social justice

A non-exhaustive database of mobile phone applications developed by the Pakistani government has been compiled by Faizan and can be accessed here.

It has been widely noted that Pakistan’s potential for IT development has grown vastly in the last decade or so. According to the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority’s Annual Report for 2019-2020, in the period from 2016 to 2020, Mobile phone data usage in Pakistan has increased from 614 petabytes to 4,498 – an increase of over 700% in just half a decade. In the same time period, the distribution of broadband services has doubled. While numerous reasons can be speculated for leading this change (from the availability of cheaper smartphones from Chinese providers like Q-Mobile and Huawei, to the increasing importance of IT in business development, and the proliferation of mobile internet), it is obvious either way that the digital world in Pakistan now presents a new avenue that can be harnessed for better governance and delivering services.

It makes sense, then, that in late 2019, Prime Minister Imran Khan inaugurated the “Digital Pakistan” initiative. In its policy objectives, what stands out is the emphasis towards using digital applications (henceforth referred to as apps) for “e-governance” and in “key socio-economic sectors”. While there have been a few apps released previously to help with the aforementioned, the current government is seems intent on maximizing this newfound potential.

Over a 100 different apps (as of the summer 2021) have been released on the Google Playstore for Android phones and the Apple store for iOS device by both the government, at the provincial, federal and, at times, the district level. Primarily developed by different provincial IT boards, they cover a wide range of functions including education, the regulation of pre-existing government bodies, agriculture, and online ticketing and booking. Some apps are meant only for citizens of a particular locale (such as the City Islamabad app), while others are targeted to people of a specific profession (the Lahore and Sindh High Court apps are targeted towards the legal community). A few apps have also been released to help deal with health and safety emergencies, such as the Baytee app meant to increase women’s safety and a number of apps aimed at helping track and register COVID cases in Pakistan.

However, just publishing apps does not immediately mean that those apps have helped fix the underlying issues, or that they have been effective in their stated objectives. Quite a few of these apps have dubious efficacy, and some appear to not work at all. There are a few clear trends as to which apps have worked and which have not.

A number of apps profess a wide range of features. The “City Islamabad” app promises a lot. With the goal of “bridge(ing) the gap between citizens and government” by removing the need to go to government offices to access public services and departments, the app is supposed to provide quick access to numerous forms and payment services that would otherwise would have only been available therein. In practice, the Playstore review page is full of complaints that not all of the forms actually work. People have pointed out that tokens generated aren’t always registered by relevant financial departments. Certain forms load indefinitely – either they have not been programmed in properly, or the forms just are not available on the app. At the same time though, certain key features of the app still work and function effectively. The part of the app that provides information on Islamabad’s major landmarks and public facilities loads instantly and provides accurate information, while a portion of the userbase reports successful payment of tax related tokens and response upon submitting complaints. It appears that while a wide number of features have been programmed in, not all of them are perfectly useable.

A similar issue exists with what is arguably the government’s flagship application, the Pakistan Citizen Portal. Most of the reviews posted in September and August 2021 are entirely negative and allude largely to the same issue: a large number of the complaints registered on the app do not actually appear to lead to anything concrete and are instead marked “resolved” without any appropriate action being taken. While this is likely not representative of all users who have used the app, it does imply a degree of miscoordination between the app’s complaint registration mechanism and the departments that are meant to cater to it. If it’s true that complaints being marked as resolved does not actually mean any action has been taken, the widely quoted  statistics on the application’s website need to be taken with a grain of salt, it’s unlikely that each of the 3.1 million . It also speaks to the limitations inherent in e-governance and service delivery through apps – the issues that are already present in government bodies are likely to be reproduced through the functioning of the app. For example, if government bodies continue to treat cases of harassment lightly because of misogynistic attitudes, then the solution lies in a structural reform of said government bodies instead of opening more digital portals to file complaints through.

On the contrary, apps that are targeted towards a specific group of people appear to have had more success. There are two broad types of apps like this: some that have been created solely for the use of people in certain government departments, and others for everyone who works in a particular profession. Apps in the former category include the “Price Magistrate” app – a complaint management app meant specifically for district magistrates. This app has seen less use compared to other apps on this list, and its review section is full of users confused at the lack of a registration option. Of the few reviews that do appear to be from its intended user base, it seems that the app functions well.

An app’s functionality however is not just defined by how well certain features work. Overtime, as more bugs are reported, new devices are released and as operating systems go through several iterations, the publisher needs to provide constant support through updates to ensure their functionality. This is especially important in Pakistan, where Android users are likely to be using a very diverse set of devices given the numerous smartphone companies that exist. Additionally, smartphones in different price ranges have specific limitations – differences in screen resolution, RAM, processing power, and networking features mean that developers need to ensure that their apps can work despite these limitations. If this diversity isn’t catered for, sections of the Pakistani population that can only afford cheap smartphones with weaker specifications are likely to be left out. This means that the demographic which is least likely to be digitally literate will now also face bugs and compatibility issues that make it harder for them to use these applications. Updates are also important to address any security issues on the app, most application updates are issued to fix security bugs that are discovered later on and unanticipated backdoors.

The most prolific publisher of Government apps thus far has been the Punjab IT Board (compared to the other regional boards and other publishers, who barely have half as many apps as the Punjab board between them). On their Android publisher page alone, they have over 70 apps published. Yet, their support for these apps has been sporadic. More than half of these have not been updated even once in 2021. While at best, this might lead to most of these apps functioning albeit with bugs, quite a few of them have been rendered completely unusable as a result. A large number of users report that quite a few of these apps no longer have a working system for logging in users owing to an issue in generating and processing an OTP key. Other apps have been rendered completely unusable – the Agri-Smart app has been rendered completely unusable for certain Android users since their devices’ IMEI codes cannot be accessed. These issues have remained unaddressed for months on end.

It is unclear what the status of these apps is – if such glaring issues exist, has support for them been dropped completely? This seems to be the case, because other apps have had the publisher release frequent updates and engage with reviews that have pointed out issues. The fact that these apps remain available for download despite issues with their usability and a lack of developer support is troubling and speaks to a pattern where apps are launched without the necessary infrastructure to conduct follow-ups. This has caused a fair amount of confusion on app stores, as people continue to download said apps and leave negative reviews because of the clear lack of functionality.

If this is demonstrative of a communication gap between app developers and the intended user base, it is not the end of it. Certain apps certainly seem like they are designed to be used by a large user base, but evidently have not been used as such. The Click ECP app meant to facilitate voters during each election cycle and the Covid-19 Tracker app for Lahore both remain with only over a 1000+ downloads on the Playstore, when it is intuitive that their usage numbers should be far in the thousands. The “Equal Access App” meant to help disabled individuals also remains unused as its user base still is unengaged. At best, this is likely to result in certain apps being unused by their target demographic. At worst though, this can open the door to privacy violations.

Upon first use, a lot of apps require permission to access certain information and features of a phone. While this can vary from app to app, the general rule of thumb is that apps tend to only ask for those permissions that are core to an app’s functionality. Instagram, for example, will only ask for permission to use your camera when you open the in-app camera for the first time. However, even this can run awry – the Facebook app has long been under suspicion for secretly recording conversations for advertisement purposes. A number of apps supported by the Pakistan government, however, ask for a lot of permissions right at first launch. The Pehchaan app (currently unavailable on the Playstore as of September 2021) immediately requests permission to access a user’s location on launch. The “Forest Management Information System” (FMIS) app requests not only access to location services, but also to use the phone’s camera, to “modify and delete contents” of media files saved on device or USB storage, and of Wi-Fi connections. Why the app requires any of this is puzzling, especially since there is no use for any of these features immediately after an app has been launched. This runs afoul of the Principle of Data Minimization – the idea that data collectors should only request and use data that is needed for a specific purpose. Ideally, that purpose should be communicated clearly and a privacy policy should be attached in any scenario where private data is needed. Given that there is little communication from the developers of why these permissions are needed in the first place, it’s extremely troubling that many people in Pakistan could agree to these permissions just to launch an app without realizing the extent to which their privacy is invaded. While Google Play store does include a requirement that each app have a privacy policy attached, the Punjab IT Board’s Privacy Policy seems inadequate. The fact that it’s a generic policy means that it does not cater to the way each individual app may request, use, and store user data. By contrast, the City Islamabad App’s privacy policy and the Pakistan Citizens Portal’s privacy policy at least both specify the kind of data that may be collected. The Punjab IT Board’s privacy policy might already be violated by the FMIS collecting the “the minimum amount of information” required by the app. It is clear that the Punjab IT Board’s privacy policy – under which most of the apps released so far fall under – can be comprehensive and applied more rigorously.

Ultimately, the legitimacy of the Digital Pakistan initiative is worth questioning. Despite the massive growth in Pakistan’s access to these digital technologies and the potential therein, the system put in place to actualize it deserves further scrutiny. The reception of apps published by the government needs to move beyond a tokenistic celebration of each app’s release, to an evaluation of their actual benefit and long-term functioning.