LETTER | First of all, I'd like to applaud Malaysiakini for a job well done with its in-depth reporting on the coordinated inauthentic behaviour (CIB) allegedly linked to a network of pro-government Facebook accounts.

The fact that the portal’s own Facebook and KiniTV pages were briefly suspended soon after the exposé is a testament to the power of the fourth estate.

Meta, which owns Facebook, said it had found no evidence of CIB tied to the prime minister’s Facebook page. The government, too, denied having any hand in the suspensions.

But the episode still raises a larger question about the kind of leverage governments now hold over social media platforms and how easily legitimate journalism can be disrupted in the process.

This incident comes at a time when the government is tightening control over social media companies through licensing requirements. Under new regulations, platforms with large user bases in Malaysia must register or risk being barred from operating altogether.

For example, under the Online Safety Act 2025 (Act 866), the MCMC can enforce a suite of regulations, guidelines, and codes - many of which can be introduced without public consultation, raising important questions around transparency and stakeholder engagement.

These laws and regulations give authorities immense influence over how platforms operate within the country.

From ‘engagement’ to influencing editorial decisions

In recent months, the government has summoned TikTok’s top management over slow action on fake news and cooperation with investigations, and called in Meta over content removals linked to Palestinian issues.

These episodes show how quickly “engagement” with platforms can slide into influence over editorial decisions.

The danger is that when platforms are made answerable to governments, the line between regulation and control becomes blurred. A licensing regime can easily turn into a pressure tool.

Once platforms know their ability to operate depends on staying in the regulator’s good books, they may choose to err on the side of caution by removing or limiting content that could be seen as politically sensitive.

In effect, the government would not even need to issue a direct order. The fear of non-compliance alone would be enough to achieve the same outcome.

It is worth remembering that Malaysiakini’s investigation relied entirely on publicly available data. If even that level of transparency and diligence can trigger a suspension, what message does that send to the rest of the media ecosystem?

Accountability in the digital era cannot work if independent voices are punished for doing their job.

Credibility of Meta, govt undermined

Perhaps we'd never know for sure if Meta bent over backwards to appease the government or if there were some "instructions" from the latter.

But the timing of the suspensions, albeit temporarily and the denial by Meta on the existence of CIB despite Malaysiakini's data proving otherwise, have undermined the credibility of the social media company and the Madani administration.

Today, the suspensions may involve only accounts of an established online portal, and that too, temporarily. Who is to say that social media's "censorship" will not slide into more subtle, yet pervasive, control of what Malaysians can see, share, or question online?

Once social media platforms start operating under the shadow of government oversight, it becomes harder to draw the line between accountability and control.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.