When moderation becomes censorship and neutrality becomes a myth

For years, the internet has been celebrated as the world’s most democratic invention, a global civic square where every citizen can speak, organize and influence. This optimism collapsed. Today, the fight for freedom of expression is no longer about who can speak; It’s about who gets heard. And this decision is not the decision of courts or parliaments, but of special algorithms operating in the opaque chambers of global platforms.

The first truth of the digital age is clear: Freedom of expression is not the same as free access. A post may persist online but may be silently restricted, demoted, or buried. A video may not be removed but may become invisible. The real tool of power is now visibility, not censorship. Today, every citizen speaks through code to a system that constantly decides whether their words deserve oxygen.

This enormous influence rests on platforms that still claim neutrality. They are not impartial. Moderation systems once designed to combat spam now function as ideological filters. Three forces define this new landscape: moderation, manipulation, and the collapse of neutrality.

Moderation has evolved from a technical function to a political function. Platforms use reactive moderation (after complaints), proactive moderation (where AI scans each post before it appears), and algorithmic moderation (sorting, embedding, or highlighting content). A small policy change could result in the elimination of a creator’s livelihood or the disruption of a public conversation. Most users have no idea how their worldview is designed.

Manipulation is the second force and perhaps the most dangerous. Anger is profitable. Conflict maintains attention. Anger triggers commitment. The news is not a reflection of public sentiment; is a persuasion machine optimized for platform economics. Governments, political parties, and interest groups use this architecture to promote narratives, suppress criticism, or influence elections. Meanwhile, AI-personalized feeds create customized political realities for each citizen.

This leads to the third force: the death of platform neutrality. BigTech companies can no longer act as if they are merely conduits of information. They are now the most powerful editors in the world; but editors with no accountability, transparency, or public authority.

India is at the center of this global war. The Interim Rules (2021/2023) require platforms to comply with takedown orders quickly and ensure traceability of messages. The Digital Personal Data Protection Law creates a new privacy regime but grants broad exemptions to the state. Deepfakes boom, especially during elections, and India still has no specific law to combat them.

Meanwhile, courts are also becoming digital arbitrators; He hears petitions for takedowns, deactivations, and online chatter nearly every week. India’s decisions will shape global norms, especially as other democracies watch how the world’s largest digital public sphere balances rights, regulation and platform power.

Internationally, the picture is fragmented. The United States aggressively protects speech; The European Union enforces strict content moderation; China retains full state control; and India is moving towards a hybrid regulatory model. The world is no longer governed by a single norm of freedom of expression; It’s a patchwork now.

The new war for free speech is being fought not at rallies, but in suggestion engines. Democracies must confront a harsh reality: Public squares are now owned by private corporations whose incentives are commercial, not constitutional.

For democratic expression to survive meaningfully in the digital age, the world needs a new social contract; A contract built on algorithmic transparency, platform accountability, and empowered citizens. Until that happens, algorithms will decide truth and democracies will suffer the consequences.

(The author is Himanshu Shekhar, a techno-legal analyst and emerging media entrepreneur who has written extensively on digital governance and cyber policy.)

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above belong to the author and do not reflect the views of DNA)