In the history of human civilization, no medium as powerful as social media has emerged that simultaneously carries such immense potential for both benefit and harm.
It serves as a platform for knowledge, information, awareness, and the formation of public opinion; yet it is equally a breeding ground for rumors, misinformation, fraud, and character assassination. Therefore, the question of regulating harmful content is not baseless.
On the contrary, it is a real and serious responsibility of the state. The problem, however, lies elsewhere: what exactly is meant by “harmful”?
An old proverb advises against blowing away evil with a puff of air, because in doing so, one may inadvertently blow away good as well. Rabindranath Tagore similarly warned:
"If I shut the door to keep out falshehood, by what path shall truth enter?"
In other words, if all doors are closed in an attempt to block falsehood, truth may also lose its way in. The lesson embedded in both sayings is the same: reality is never simply black and white.
Good and evil, truth and falsehood, utility and misuse often coexist within the same sphere. This truth applies equally to social media.
Fake images, AI-driven scams, online harassment of women and children, identity fraud, and organized disinformation campaigns undoubtedly require action.
However, the moment the state declares that “harmful content” will be removed, a fundamental question arises: who will define what is harmful?
What one individual or group considers harmful, another may regard as a legitimate exercise of free expression. An atheist statement may seem objectionable to a believer, while a believer’s religious advocacy may appear harmful to an atheist.
To those on the political right, left-wing ideology may seem dangerous; to those on the left, right-wing thought may appear reactionary.
Those in power may view criticism as unreasonable or malicious, whereas the opposition may claim it is necessary criticism in the public interest.
Here lies the heart of the problem. If the term “harmful” is not defined clearly, narrowly, and objectively, it can become an expansive net that captures not only genuine offenders but also legitimate expression.
Another issue deserves consideration. International social media platforms already maintain their own policies. They routinely remove content related to terrorism, child abuse, fraud, incitement to violence, identity theft, and many other harmful activities.
Action is also taken based on user reports. Therefore, one may reasonably ask: where does additional state intervention become necessary, and what should be its limits?
The state certainly has a duty to protect its citizens, but the manner in which it fulfills that duty must also be democratic, transparent, and accountable. If the interpretation of terms such as “offensive,” “misleading,” or “harmful” depends solely on administrative discretion, there is a risk that laws will be applied differently depending on the individual or the circumstances.
In such cases, the law ceases to be a guarantee of security and instead becomes a source of uncertainty.
The real dangers of cyberspace must undoubtedly be addressed. However, doing so requires clear definitions, independent review mechanisms, and fair opportunities for appeal.
Otherwise, criticism may be suppressed in the name of combating rumors, dissent may be silenced in the name of preventing propaganda, and legitimate expression may be endangered in the name of removing harmful content.
Just as extracting gold from a mine requires carefully separating it from soil, stone, and other minerals, so too in the digital world efforts to eliminate harm must not destroy what is beneficial.
History teaches that while the struggle against falsehood is essential, keeping the door open for truth is equally important. It is in maintaining this delicate balance that the true wisdom of a civilized state resides.
