The Balancing Acts: Communicating Legitimacy in Global Speech Governance

Abstract

The governance of online speech is increasingly a battleground shaped by competing social expectations. This study investigates TikTok’s content moderation in Indonesia and Pakistan, two countries with vast market potential and delicate social and moral stances. Through document analysis and in-depth interviews with government officials, industry representatives, and civil society experts, it examines how stakeholders navigate normative and pragmatic considerations in global speech governance. The findings first highlight distinct regulatory approaches: Indonesia’s collaborative yet paternalistic model preferring fines over bans. It emphasizes administrative compliance through jurisdictional control over platform rules. In contrast, Pakistan’s defensive stance prioritizes infrastructure-level monitoring and restrictions, often resorting to platform bans to enforce control over moral and religious content. Unlike its Silicon Valley counterparts, TikTok demonstrates strategic compliance, deliberately sidestepping controversy by delegating sensitive decisions to state authorities and avoiding political roles. While normative consensus on appropriate content remains elusive, civil society organizations mediate crucial accountability relationships through strategic activism, coalition-building, and international networks. The study discusses the tensions and cost-benefit appraisals of each actor group, identifies essential principles for legitimate speech governance, and examines challenges in translating these principles into actionable frameworks.