Social Media And Digital Sovereignty In South Asia

South Asia Internet Governance Initiative (SAIDGI) - 30 April 2026

VIDEO | AUDIO | RECAP EN / ES / FR | ARCHIVE | PERMALINK

Speakers: Mahee Kirindigoda (FlexSoft Technologies, Sri Lanka); Mohammad Abdul Haque Anu (Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum)

Moderator: Shredeep Rayamajhi (Learn Internet Governance, Nepal);

The session marked the launch of SAIDGI as a regional initiative focused on capacity building, policy awareness, and bridging governance gaps across South Asia. The discussion framed digital sovereignty as an urgent and evolving challenge shaped by the rise of social media, AI, and global platform dominance.

Conceptual Foundations of Digital Sovereignty

Mahee Kirindigoda grounded the discussion historically, linking modern digital sovereignty to classical notions of state sovereignty—territory, people, and power. He emphasized that:

• Digital sovereignty is the ability of a nation to control its data, infrastructure, and algorithms

• The “cloud” is not abstract but rooted in physical infrastructure controlled by specific jurisdictions

• Without control over physical infrastructure (energy, cables, servers), true digital independence is impossible

He introduced a three-layer model:

• Data sovereignty

• Infrastructure sovereignty

• Algorithmic/software sovereignty

A key argument: countries lacking control over these layers are effectively “tenants” in someone else’s digital system.

Social Media as a Competing Sovereign Power

Kirindigoda described a “tug of war” between states and social media platforms:

• Historically, values were shaped by institutions (education, law, culture)

• Today, algorithms shape beliefs and behaviors

• Platforms optimize for engagement—favoring outrage, fear, and conflict

Drawing on the concept of surveillance capitalism, he argued that:

• Users are not customers but products

• Behavioral data is extracted, predicted, and monetized

• States risk becoming “hollow,” retaining formal authority but losing influence over public consciousness

Regional Experiences and Case Studies

Sri Lanka (Kirindigoda):

• 2018 Kandy/Digana violence fueled by misinformation on Facebook

• Government lacked jurisdictional control over platforms

• Resulted in a 13-day nationwide internet shutdown

• Demonstrated direct linkage between online content and offline violence

Bangladesh (Anu):

• Social media amplifies misinformation and political instability

• External actors influence domestic discourse

• Lack of clarity on data ownership and storage raises sovereignty concerns

South Asia broadly:

• Limited regulatory frameworks

• Weak institutional capacity

• High exposure to external platform influence

Dual Nature of Social Media

Speakers emphasized both positive and negative impacts:

Positive:

• Enables civic mobilization (e.g., Sri Lanka’s Aragalaya protests)

• Amplifies marginalized voices

• Expands participation in public discourse

Negative:

• Facilitates surveillance and data exploitation

• Enables manipulation and polarization

• Exposes societies to foreign influence and cyber threats

Cybersecurity and Emerging Threats

Kirindigoda highlighted growing risks:

• Phishing, social engineering, ransomware

• State-sponsored cyber attacks

• Data breaches and leaks

• AI-driven threats such as deepfakes and disinformation

He characterized cyber conflict as “warfare without bullets,” capable of destabilizing nations without physical force.

Geopolitics and Platform Power

A recurring theme was the geopolitical dimension of digital platforms:

• Dominance of U.S.-based platforms shapes global information flows

• Algorithms may influence political outcomes and regime stability

• South Asian countries are largely rule-takers rather than rule-makers

Anu framed this as a question of power:

• Who owns systems

• Who writes rules

• Who controls data

• Who is protected versus exposed

Policy Gaps and Governance Challenges

Key structural weaknesses identified:

• Lack of localized regulation and enforcement

• Limited platform accountability

• Weak multistakeholder participation

• Insufficient research and policy capacity

Efforts such as platform registration requirements, age restrictions, and regional frameworks were noted, but described as fragmented and incomplete.

Digital Literacy as the Core Solution

A central consensus emerged around literacy:

Kirindigoda emphasized repeatedly that:

• “Number one, two, and three solution is literacy”

This includes:

• Understanding platform mechanics

• Recognizing manipulation and misinformation

• Developing critical thinking skills

Rayamajhi reinforced that without widespread literacy:

• Policy processes remain dominated by a small elite

• Multistakeholderism becomes ineffective

Balancing Rights, Responsibility, and Regulation

Speakers stressed the need to carefully balance competing priorities in the governance of social media and digital spaces:

• Freedom of expression must be protected, but within legal boundaries

• Governments should not overreach or suppress legitimate speech

• Platforms must be accountable without becoming instruments of state control

Rayamajhi emphasized that the line between lawful expression and harmful content is context-specific and cannot be universally standardized. In South Asia’s diverse linguistic and cultural environments, enforcement requires nuance and local understanding.

At the same time, he argued that global platforms have benefited enormously from South Asian users and therefore carry responsibility toward these societies, particularly in areas like data protection and content moderation.

Data Governance and Localization Challenges

The discussion addressed growing concerns around data ownership and jurisdiction:

• Users often unknowingly consent to extensive data extraction through platform terms

• Data is stored outside national jurisdictions, limiting legal recourse

• Recovering compromised accounts or addressing abuse can take months due to cross-border dependencies

Examples highlighted the difficulty of enforcing accountability when platforms lack local presence. Proposed responses included:

• Requiring platforms to register locally under national laws

• Encouraging data localization policies

• Strengthening government capacity to engage with global tech companies

However, speakers acknowledged that full localization or building domestic alternatives—such as China’s model—remains financially and technically challenging for least developed countries.

Accountability of Global Platforms

A key audience question focused on how South Asian governments can hold platforms accountable without restricting speech.

Kirindigoda pointed to practical but limited approaches:

• Establishing local representation of platforms

• Creating regional alliances to engage companies collectively

• Implementing age restrictions and content safeguards

• Leveraging regional forums such as APrIGF

He noted that current efforts remain fragmented and insufficient, underscoring the need for stronger, coordinated regional influence.

Role of Civil Society and Multistakeholder Engagement

Rayamajhi emphasized that governance cannot be left to governments or corporations alone:

• Civil society must move beyond passive participation

• Communities need to actively shape policy discussions

• Youth engagement is critical for future governance frameworks

He stressed that South Asia must develop its own voice in global Internet governance rather than relying on external actors.

Closing Reflections

Mohammad Abdul Haque Anu summarized a balanced vision of digital sovereignty:

• It should protect citizens from both corporate exploitation and state overreach

• It must ensure accountability without undermining democratic freedoms

• It should defend national interests while respecting human rights

He concluded that South Asia does not need isolation or “digital walls,” but rather:

• Digital self-respect

• Strong public institutions

• Democratic safeguards

• Inclusive governance frameworks

The session closed with a call for continued regional collaboration through SAIDGI, emphasizing literacy, participation, and sustained dialogue as the foundation for shaping South Asia’s digital future.

RESOURCES

• FlexSoft Technologies — Mahee Kirindigoda’s company (Kandy, Sri Lanka), discussed throughout the panel

• Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum (BIGF) — Mohammad Abdul Haque Anu serves as founding Secretary General

• Learn Internet Governance — Shreedeep Rayamajhi’s #Internet4all capacity-building initiative in Nepal

• Pohle & Thiel (2020), “Digital sovereignty” — the three-layer framework (data, infrastructure, software/algorithmic) Mahee cited

• Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism — referenced twice as the framework for understanding social media’s behavioural-prediction economy

• Hattotuwa, “Digital Blooms: Social Media and Violence in Sri Lanka” (2018) — Sanjana Hattotuwa’s policy brief documenting how online disinformation drove the Digana riots

• Internet Society on the March 2018 Sri Lanka shutdown — context for the Kandy/Digana case Mahee referenced (the “Colombo Communique”)

• Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) — the regional umbrella organisation Mahee positioned SAIDGI alongside

• UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) — Mahee called for it to become “a permanent empowered body” with real authority over platforms

• EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) — Shreedeep credited GDPR’s third-party data clauses with seeding South Asian Privacy Acts