The governance of online speech is increasingly a battleground shaped by competing social expectations. This study investigates TikTok’s content moderation in Indonesia and Pakistan, two countries with vast market potential and delicate social and moral stances. Through document analysis and in-depth interviews with government officials, industry representatives, and civil society experts, it examines how stakeholders navigate normative and pragmatic considerations in global speech governance. The findings first highlight distinct regulatory approaches: Indonesia’s collaborative yet paternalistic model preferring fines over bans. It emphasizes administrative compliance through jurisdictional control over platform rules. In contrast, Pakistan’s defensive stance prioritizes infrastructure-level monitoring and restrictions, often resorting to platform bans to enforce control over moral and religious content. Unlike its Silicon Valley counterparts, TikTok demonstrates strategic compliance, deliberately sidestepping controversy by delegating sensitive decisions to state authorities and avoiding political roles. While normative consensus on appropriate content remains elusive, civil society organizations mediate crucial accountability relationships through strategic activism, coalition-building, and international networks. The study discusses the tensions and cost-benefit appraisals of each actor group, identifies essential principles for legitimate speech governance, and examines challenges in translating these principles into actionable frameworks.

中文翻译：

---

平衡之举：在全球语音治理中传达合法性

在线言论的治理越来越成为由相互竞争的社会期望塑造的战场。本研究调查了印度尼西亚和巴基斯坦 TikTok 的内容审核情况，这两个国家具有巨大的市场潜力和微妙的社会和道德立场。通过文件分析和对政府官员、行业代表和民间社会专家的深入访谈，它研究了利益相关者如何在全球语音治理中驾驭规范和务实的考虑。调查结果首先强调了不同的监管方法：印度尼西亚的合作但家长式模式更喜欢罚款而不是禁令。它强调通过对平台规则的管辖权控制来实现行政合规性。相比之下，巴基斯坦的防御立场优先考虑基础设施层面的监控和限制，经常诉诸平台禁令来加强对道德和宗教内容的控制。与硅谷同行不同，TikTok 展示了战略合规性，通过将敏感决定委托给国家当局并避免政治角色来故意回避争议。虽然关于适当内容的规范性共识仍然难以捉摸，但公民社会组织通过战略行动主义、联盟建设和国际网络来调解关键的问责关系。该研究讨论了每个行为者群体的紧张局势和成本效益评估，确定了合法言论治理的基本原则，并研究了将这些原则转化为可作框架的挑战。