The watchdog said its analysis of nearly eight million Facebook comments directed at 100 members of Congress found a significant rise in threatening and abusive content during the six months following Meta’s policy changes compared with the previous six-month period.

According to the report, violent threats against lawmakers from both major political parties, including explicit calls for murder, increased fourfold after the moderation rollback. Harassment more than doubled, while racist and gender-based abuse also rose substantially.

The CCDH said the increase extended beyond lawmakers, with comments advocating violence against President Donald Trump also rising after the changes. The organization argued that reduced enforcement of platform rules against threats, hate speech and harassment contributed to a more hostile online environment.

“When platforms stop enforcing their own rules against threats, hate, and harassment, they become complicit in normalizing intimidation and harassment of elected officials,” CCDH Chief Executive Imran Ahmed said in a statement accompanying the report.

Meta disputed suggestions that harmful content had increased on its platforms. A company spokesperson said Meta regularly publishes transparency reports tracking policy violations and maintained that the prevalence of hateful conduct did not rise during 2025.

The company said it had not received the CCDH report before publication and therefore could not specifically address its findings.

The debate comes amid broader concerns about the safety of public officials in the United States. Lawmakers, election officials and other public figures have reported increasing levels of threats and intimidation in recent years, prompting renewed scrutiny of online platforms and their role in moderating harmful content.

Republican Senator John Curtis of Utah described the findings as troubling, particularly against a backdrop of recent politically motivated violence. He said reductions in oversight of violent, hateful and harassing content could contribute to an increase in such behavior online.

Meta’s moderation changes followed a broader shift in policy that included ending partnerships with independent fact-checkers in the United States in January 2025 and adopting a Community Notes system that relies on users to add context to disputed claims. The approach mirrors a model popularized by Elon Musk’s social media platform X.

The policy adjustments were viewed by critics as part of a wider effort to address longstanding complaints from conservative groups that fact-checking systems restricted free expression and disproportionately affected right-leaning viewpoints.

Meta also eased some restrictions governing discussions related to gender and sexual identity, drawing criticism from advocacy organizations that warned the changes could increase exposure to harmful and discriminatory content.

The CCDH report is likely to intensify debate over the balance between free expression and platform safety as policymakers, technology companies and civil society groups continue to grapple with the impact of online speech on democratic institutions and public officials.

A judge in Islamabad sentenced 22-year-old Umar Hayat to death and imposed a fine of $7,200 after convicting him of fatally shooting the 17-year-old influencer at her home in the Pakistani capital, according to court proceedings witnessed by reporters.

Investigators said Hayat killed Yousaf in June 2025 after she repeatedly rejected his advances. Surveillance footage presented during the investigation showed the accused fleeing the scene carrying the victim’s mobile phone, while Yousaf’s mother and aunt were identified as eyewitnesses to the shooting.

Speaking outside the courtroom, Yousaf’s father said the ruling delivered a broader message against gender-based violence.

“This verdict is a lesson for anyone who commits such acts,” he told journalists alongside the victim’s mother.
Hayat initially confessed to the killing during the investigation before later retracting his statement.

Under Pakistan’s legal framework, the conviction and sentence remain subject to appeal in higher courts.
Yousaf had amassed millions of followers across social media platforms, particularly on TikTok, where she shared videos related to fashion, skincare and lifestyle content. She also discussed personal relationships and social pressures, subjects that remain sensitive in Pakistan’s conservative society.

Her killing triggered widespread public outrage and renewed scrutiny of online harassment and victim blaming targeting women in the country. Social media reactions following her death included both condolences and hostile comments accusing the teenager of provoking the violence against her.

Women’s rights groups organized demonstrations in Islamabad after the killing, demanding stronger protections for women and accountability for gender-based crimes.

The case drew comparisons to several high-profile killings of women in Pakistan linked to rejected romantic advances or disputes over social behavior. In 2016, social media personality Qandeel Baloch was murdered by her brother in a so-called honor killing that shocked the country.

In 2021, Noor Mukadam was killed by her Pakistani-American boyfriend after rejecting his marriage proposal, a case that also led to a death sentence.
Rights organizations and Pakistan’s Human Rights Commission have repeatedly warned that violence against women remains pervasive, with many cases linked to patriarchal attitudes, social stigma and weak enforcement of protections for women.

TikTok has grown rapidly in Pakistan in recent years, offering younger users particularly women access to audiences and income opportunities in a country where female participation in the formal workforce remains low.

In a report titled “Building up Imaginary Enemies,” Amnesty said Indonesian authorities, including elements of the military, had amplified false narratives portraying journalists, academics, protesters and human rights activists as “foreign agents” working against national interests.

The rights group said the tactic had become more pronounced during the 18 months since Prabowo assumed office, describing online disinformation as a systematic tool used to suppress dissent and narrow public debate.One of the cases highlighted in the report involved Indonesian activist Andrie Yunus, who suffered severe injuries in an acid attack in March that left him blind in one eye.

Amnesty said Yunus, 27, had been outspoken against what critics describe as the military’s growing role in civilian governance and was attacked shortly after recording a podcast discussing the issue.

According to Amnesty, online abuse and accusations labeling critics as agents of foreign influence frequently preceded physical intimidation and violence.The organization also criticized major technology platforms, including about meta, tiktok, x and youtube , alleging they failed to adequately remove harmful disinformation targeting activists and government opponents.

AFP reported that requests for comment were sent to Indonesian authorities and the technology companies named in the report.

Responses were not immediately available.In statements included in Amnesty’s report, TikTok said it continued working with global safety partners to strengthen content moderation systems, while Meta said it regularly updated its human rights reporting and platform oversight measures.

Amnesty regional researcher Chanatip Tatiyakaroonwong said the investigation identified state-linked actors involved in amplifying false accusations, including members of Prabowo’s Gerindra Party and at least one presidential staff member.

“Under international human rights law, the government has an obligation to refrain from spreading disinformation,” Chanatip told AFP, adding that authorities also had a responsibility to prevent and address coordinated campaigns targeting critics.

Prabowo, a former military general, has faced scrutiny from rights groups for alleged past abuses linked to Indonesia’s authoritarian era, allegations he has repeatedly denied.

The rapid expansion of digital media and emerging technologies is contributing to what analysts describe as a widening “information crisis,” marked by declining trust, rising misinformation, and increasing social fragmentation.

Observers note that these developments are not occurring in isolation but are interacting with broader societal trends, including political polarisation and a growing sense of disconnection among individuals.One of the defining features of the current environment is the weakening of shared social frameworks that once anchored public discourse.

Loneliness, increasingly understood by researchers as a structural rather than purely personal issue, is shaping how individuals engage with information and politics. Experts argue that socially disconnected individuals are more likely to seek community in online spaces, where simplified narratives and emotionally charged messaging often dominate.

These online ecosystems frequently provide direct, personalised communication that attributes blame for individual or societal grievances to identifiable groups. Such narratives, which may target elites or minority communities, can gain traction in environments where users are seeking clarity and belonging.

At the same time, influencers operating within digital platforms have built large audiences by promoting highly individualised worldviews, including forms of aspirational capitalism or identity-based messaging that critics say offer limited substantive engagement.

The cumulative effect is an information landscape that many users find difficult to navigate. Rapid technological change, combined with the perceived inadequacy of institutional responses, has contributed to a sense that traditional political and social mechanisms are struggling to address contemporary challenges.

Analysts suggest that this disconnect can lead individuals to question not only specific claims but the broader reliability of information itself.

Attempts to improve the quality of online discourse have had mixed results. Earlier initiatives by media organisations to moderate comment sections and encourage more constructive engagement demonstrated that platform design can influence behaviour.

Adjustments such as limiting the number of discussion threads and reframing participation guidelines were associated with improvements in tone and substance within controlled environments. However, these efforts have not been replicated consistently across the wider internet, where scale and commercial incentives complicate moderation.In recent years, the tone of online interaction has become increasingly hostile, particularly for public figures and members of marginalised groups.

Reports indicate that harassment, including threats of violence, has become a routine aspect of online visibility. The emergence of new technologies has further intensified these concerns. Tools capable of generating synthetic images and other manipulated content have expanded the range and scale of potential abuse, raising questions about regulation and accountability.

At the same time, the prioritisation of user engagement by technology platforms has altered the incentives governing information distribution. Content that captures attention regardless of accuracy tends to be amplified, while verification processes struggle to keep pace. The proliferation of low-quality, automatically generated material, often referred to as “AI slop,” alongside increasingly convincing deepfakes, has complicated users’ ability to distinguish between authentic and fabricated content.

This shift is contributing to what some commentators describe as “epistemic uncertainty,” in which individuals lose confidence in their ability to evaluate truth claims. The phenomenon is reinforced when real-world events themselves appear unusual or contradictory, further blurring the line between credible information and misinformation.

In such an environment, even accurate reporting can be met with scepticism.Public figures and policymakers have also become part of this dynamic. Statements or positions that challenge established scientific or factual consensus can gain visibility in fragmented media ecosystems, amplifying confusion. Analysts note that the presence of such viewpoints in positions of authority may further erode trust in institutions, particularly when combined with broader patterns of misinformation.

Despite these challenges, there is evidence that audiences continue to value credible, human-centred journalism. Media organisations that maintain direct relationships with their readershipthrough transparency, accountability, and engagement—have reported continued trust and participation from their audiences.

These interactions often extend beyond passive consumption, with readers contributing insights, feedback, and information that support investigative reporting.The role of community in this context remains central. As traditional forms of social connection evolve, the demand for reliable information sources that also provide a sense of belonging is increasing. Analysts suggest that rebuilding trust in information systems will require not only technological solutions but also renewed emphasis on social cohesion and institutional credibility.

The ongoing transformation of the information environment highlights the complexity of balancing openness, innovation, and accountability. As digital platforms continue to shape how information is produced and consumed, the implications for public discourse, governance, and social stability are likely to remain a central area of concern.

In the video which received 1M views, Almenhali said Emiratis, including himself, had recently been targeted by online attacks that framed nationality as an insult. He rejected the characterization of the exchanges as rivalry or banter, describing them instead as racist behavior that relied on reducing an entire nationality and culture to a derogatory label.

“This is not rivalry, this is racist,” Almenhali said in the recording. He added that using nationality as an insult amounted to discrimination regardless of intent, and said such language reflected prejudice rather than legitimate criticism.

The video, shared on his X account, was presented as a direct response to what he described as repeated online comments. Almenhali did not address governments or public institutions, focusing instead on individual online behavior.

Framing of India and historical references

Almenhali’s remarks included references to India’s historical role in global civilization. In the video, he cited contributions he attributed to India in areas such as mathematics, medicine, astronomy, trade and philosophy, and argued that these achievements undermined any attempt to use “Indian” as a pejorative term.

He also linked those historical references to the modern global economy, saying contemporary technologies and systems relied on foundations developed over centuries. His comments framed the use of nationality as an insult as historically inaccurate, according to his remarks.

UAE and expatriate partnership

Almenhali also addressed the role of Indian expatriates in the UAE, saying the country had built partnerships with skilled professionals rather than merely accommodating them. In the video, he referred to engineers, doctors, entrepreneurs and builders from India as contributors to national development, describing this approach as a deliberate policy choice.

“The UAE didn’t tolerate Indians, it partnered with them,” he said, characterising that relationship as one based on mutual benefit and capability rather than weakness. He added that attempts to demean people through racial language failed to account for this dynamic.

His remarks positioned multicultural cooperation as integral to the UAE’s development model and rejected narratives that portray diversity as a liability.

Online discourse and wider implications

Almenhali’s video circulated widely online, drawing responses from users across the region. The comments were confined to social media and did not prompt any official statements from authorities. No government response had been issued by the UAE or elsewhere at the time of publication.

Almenhali ended the video by urging viewers to recognize the difference between criticism and racism, and said that the use of racial slurs reflected on those employing them rather than on their intended targets.