Together with other activists from around the world, Nighat Dad wants to establish a “Global Majority House” in Brussels to make underepesented voices heard in EU tech regulation. Global Majority is a collective term for people of African, Asian, Indigenous, Latin American or mixed backgrounds, who make up about 85 percent of the world’s population. According to the Oxford Dictionary, it includes all people who do not consider themselves or are not considered to be white.
We spoke to Nighat Dad about the Global Majority House, drawbacks of internet regulation and the sometimes narrow views of the European Union. Nighat is a lawyer and activist from Pakistan. With her non-governmental organization, the Digital Rights Foundation, she fights against gender-based discrimination and for a better internet for everyone. She is a member of the Oversight Board of Meta, an external body that decides on disputes regarding the company’s moderation policy. In 2015, Nighat Dad was named a “Next Generation Leader” by Time Magazine.
Censorship under the guise of internet regulation
netzpolitik.org: Before we speak about the Global Majority House, could you to tell us a bit about your work with the Digital Rights Foundation?
Nighat Dad: We are a digital rights organization and have been working on online harassment targeting women and other gender minorities for nearly 15 years. For example, we launched a helpline to support individuals facing online abuse. Over the past few years, our work has expanded beyond Pakistan. We are now engaging across South Asia and globally, participating in international policy discussions around technology, platforms, and human rights. This shift has evolved organically, leading us to adopt a broader approach to addressing online harms.
netzpolitik.org: How did your focus shift?
Nighat Dad: We’ve seen governments in our region introduce regulations under the guise of addressing online harms such as disinformation, terrorism, and cybercrime. But when we looked more closely, it became clear that these laws were often being used to suppress dissent and curtail free expression online. This realization pushed us to monitor two things: first, how platforms are addressing online harms globally – especially since many of them are run from and by people outside our context; and second, to critically examine the regulations our governments are putting in place, including the often opaque collaborations between governments and platforms that the public rarely hears about.
Platforms need to adapt their policies to different contexts
netzpolitik.org: Working on these issues, I guess you almost have to automatically take a global view?
Nighat Dad: Sometimes these powerful actors listened to us, and sometimes they didn’t. At the same time, we observed who was being heard on these issues globally like the EU. You see, we’re in a region where so-called democracies or semi-democracies are increasingly turning into autocratic regimes. And it makes you wonder: what role can we play here? So, you start looking towards regions that still uphold democratic values for hope, and also to bring back learnings that can be adapted to our context. To explore how we can influence the broader digital ecosystem, particularly around platform accountability and holding governments to account.
netzpolitik.org: Democratic platform regulation is happening on a very thin line between the need to address harms on one side and the danger of autocratic coercion and over-blocking on the other. How do we find the right balance?
Nighat Dad: I’ve long believed that governments and states should hold private actors accountable, and I still hold that view, because they are the only ones with the power to do so. But at the same time, we have to ask: who is watching the watchers? States themselves must also be held accountable, and I believe achieving that balance requires the involvement of diverse actors. As civil society organizations, academics, and activists, I see our role as being that balancing force. We’ve reached a point where regulation is inevitable – people around the world are exhausted by the unchecked power of platforms. But it’s crucial that these regulations are good ones. That’s where I often find myself at odds with folks coming from the EU or other parts of the world with stronger rule of law.
netzpolitik.org: How so?
Nighat Dad: People who come from regions where human rights are respected and where governments can be held accountable often have a different perspective on regulation than we do. Regulations may work in those jurisdictions, but in ours, governments use the same language to silence dissent. I believe the right balance lies in respecting jurisdictions and contextual realities. Platforms cannot apply a one-size-fits-all approach to free speech and online harm.
Additionally, the argument that platforms are based in the U.S. and therefore follow policies rooted in the First Amendment is increasingly difficult to justify. We’ve witnessed how social media can amplify harmful narratives, and how ownership and policy decisions can be shaped by personal or political interests. If a platform wants to be truly global, it must reflect a broader set of values and legal traditions – not just those of one country. Otherwise, it risks being seen as serving only a limited audience rather than the diverse global communities it claims to represent.
The EU has too little awareness of the Brussels effect
netzpolitik.org: Let’s take closer look at your plans for the Global Majority House. At first glance, one might say that Pakistan is far away from Europe. How does EU regulation like the Digital Services Act affect people in Global Majority countries?
Nighat Dad: The EU needs to recognise that its regulations have global ripple effects. Take the GDPR, for instance. It has become the global gold standard for data protection and has significantly influenced data protection frameworks in our region. Similarly, with the Digital Services Act (DSA), we may see platforms implementing certain requirements globally, simply because they are obliged to do so in the EU. That’s something we would actually welcome – particularly when it comes to transparency. We also hope to build solidarity and coalitions that can help us push for these standards with powerful actors around the world.
netzpolitik.org: Some call this the “Brussels effect”. Do you have the feeling that EU policymakers are aware of the responsibility that comes with the power to set global standards?
Nighat Dad: I don’t think that they are. And I say that in all politeness …
netzpolitik.org: … there is no need for that …
Nighat Dad: But I do mean it. I deeply respect what the EU is doing. But there is sometimes an implicit assumption that the EU leads on technical regulation and that the rest of the world should simply adopt its standards. Many of us have grown up with European values in our regions and continue to be influenced by them, so the EU carries a responsibility to consider the broader global impact of its actions. It’s important to recognise that EU standards, while strong, are not perfect. There is always room for growth and learning from others. For instance, many of us involved in setting up the Global Majority House bring extensive knowledge around systemic risk assessments and crisis protocols. I truly believe the Global Majority House represents a valuable opportunity for us – and also for the EU – to engage in meaningful exchange and collaboration.
“An opportunity to hear directly from us rather than through third parties“
netzpolitik.org: Tell us a bit about the other organisations behind the initiative.
Nighat Dad: We have 7amleh, the Arab Center for Social Media Advancement, advocating for the digital rights of Palestinian and Arab civil society. There’s the Myanmar Internet Project, a collective of researchers, practitioners, and advocates. What to Fix is a non-profit promoting internet integrity. The London Story Foundation is a civil society organization of Indian diaspora members advocating for justice, peace, and collective action against human rights violations. And we have the Citizens’ Association „Zašto ne (Why Not)“, which works to create a safe and healthy society in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the broader Balkans region.
So, we have a diverse range of organizations behind this project. The whole purpose of establishing the Global Majority House is to unpack regulations and policies from our own perspectives, and to identify where we can push for a more inclusive, Global Majority lens. At the same time, it’s an opportunity for policymakers to hear directly from us rather than through third parties who speak on our behalf.
Europe needs to step up for global digital rights now
netzpolitik.org: Is the house going be a physical space, like an actual house?
Nighat Dad: That’s the idea. Many of us from the Global Majority are tired of constantly sharing our perspectives in various spaces, only to feel like guests: heard, but not truly included. In the end, we often give our input and then have to step aside, unsure of how it will be received or acted upon. The idea behind the Global Majority House is to reclaim space where we already are, not necessarily all of us at once, but collectively and meaningfully. With more Global Majority organizations and individuals coming to Brussels, this space will offer a sense of belonging and support, a place where they know they are not just welcome, but that it is their space too.
netzpolitik.org: You mentioned partnerships and solidarity. Are you also in touch with other digital civil society organizations from Europe, like EDRi or Access Now?
Nighat Dad: Absolutely. We invited many of them to a roundtable we organized in December and had a really meaningful conversation. I want to be very clear: we are not coming to Brussels to duplicate the work of existing civil society groups in Europe working on the DSA or any other regulation, for that matter. It’s not just about the DSA. As the Global Majority House, we’re trying to find our place within the broader regulatory ecosystem in Europe, and we’ll engage where we see our perspectives and contributions as relevant. We believe we can complement the work of existing organisations by bringing in lived experiences, regional expertise, and a Global Majority lens that adds depth and nuance to the conversations already taking place.
netzpolitik.org: What are the next steps for the Global Majority House, and how can Europeans support your cause?
Nighat Dad: As the Global Majority House, we are closely watching developments around the enforcement of the Digital Services Act, shifting geopolitical dynamics, and the evolving responses of platforms. These are critical moments that demand collective action. Our next steps include deepening engagement with policymakers, strengthening cross-regional collaborations, and continuing to centre the lived experiences and expertise of our communities in global digital governance discussions.
For our European allies, this is a pivotal time. The battle for rights-respecting, inclusive regulation is becoming more complex and more urgent. Amidst increasing aid cuts, we believe Europeans must step forward with courage and conviction to champion digital rights work – especially by supporting Global Majority groups. This work is not just important for our regions. It is essential for everyone’s collective success.
We truly believe that meaningful progress can only happen if we work together, drawing on each other’s strengths and grounded experiences, particularly those shaped by direct engagement with communities on the frontlines. European civil society, policymakers, and institutions can support us by creating inclusive spaces for co-creation, listening directly to our voices, and recognising that no single actor holds all the answers. We can only succeed if we move beyond working in silos and build solidarity rooted in mutual respect, shared learning, and genuine collaboration.
0 Ergänzungen