SOCIAL media platforms, meant for democratic dialogue, are exploited to spread false narratives and manipulate public perception.
A case in point is the 2024 UK riots, where false claims about a stabbing incident led to violence and attacks on mosques and migrants. Authorities treated those spreading false narratives as contributors to public disorder, not journalists exercising free speech.
Pakistan faces a similar challenge, with a network of social media accounts and YouTubers spreading false allegations and inciting violence. The line between free speech and criminal incitement is legal, not ideological. When crossed, states must respond to maintain law and order. Recently awarded sentences to a few foreign-based absconders for spreading fake news to incite violence show how digital platforms are being misused.
The case of YouTuber and former military officer Adil Raja illustrates how digital platforms are leveraged for perpetuating political chaos and financial gains. In October 2025, the London High Court ruled that he had falsely accused a retired Pakistani officer of corruption and criminal misconduct, ordering him to pay substantial damages and legal costs. The court determined that Raja’s claims were defamatory and intended to incite mutiny within Pakistan’s defence forces. This ruling underscored a critical point: free speech protections do not extend to knowingly false accusations presented as fact.
The role of YouTube within this ecosystem is particularly significant. Unlike traditional media, the monetization model of this platform rewards sensationalism, emotional outrage and rapid content production rather than verification. The lack of effective regulatory oversight allows content creators to profit directly from disinformation, transforming political instability into a revenue stream. Fake news, exaggerated claims and conspiracy-driven narratives generate views, donations and advertising income, creating strong financial incentives to perpetuate chaos. In this environment, political activism merges with digital entrepreneurship and accountability becomes a threat not only to ideology but to income.
The case of Mirza Shahzad Akbar further clarifies why such matters do not fall in the category of victimization. Mr. Akbar has never been a journalist; rather, at present, he is a principal accused and an absconder in one of the largest corruption investigations involving the Al-Qadir Trust. As head of the Assets Recovery Unit, he played a central role in decisions which allegedly resulted in the misappropriation of state funds. Amid prolonged absence from the court hearings, he was legally declared a proclaimed offender as well as pursued through formal extradition requests.
YouTube’s monetization model rewards sensationalism and emotional outrage, allowing creators to profit from disinformation. Recent sentences to a few more absconder former anchor persons merit weighing on the scales of disinformation. They played a central role in spreading chaos against the state. Linkage of such absconders with a few foreign-based platforms is obvious, which supplement disinformation campaigns with publication of targeted, unauthentic content.
It is within this broader context that allegations published by outlets such as Drop Site News must be critically assessed, especially when presented without evidence. The global challenge is confronting weaponized disinformation while preserving free speech. States responding to maintain order are not suppressing democracy; they are upholding the law.
—The writer is a contributing columnist, based in Islamabad.
