BORDERLINE CONTENT AND PLATFORMISED SPEECH GOVERNANCE: MAPPING TIKTOK’S MODERATION CONTROVERSIES IN SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST ASIA

Abstract

Content moderation comes with trade-offs and moral dilemmas, particularly for transnational platforms governing borderline content where the boundaries of acceptability are subject to debate. While extensive research has explored the legality and legitimacy of $2 in democratic contexts, few address the complexities of less-than-democratic developing nations. Through socio-legal analysis and controversy mapping of TikTok’s localised moderation in South and Southeast Asia, the study examines how major actors negotiate the shifting boundaries of online speech. The analysis reveals that neither the platform nor regional states effectively govern borderline content. Primarily, TikTok localises its moderation based on pragmatic necessity rather than moral obligations, intentionally sidestepping contentious political controversies. Governments demonstrate strong will to control online discourse, leveraging legal uncertainty to advance political interests. Local content governance thus always relies on vague rationales around securitisation and morality. The contradictory goals of (de)politicising borderline moderation seemingly counterbalance each other, yet in practice lead to an accountability vacuum without legitimate interests. Given the lack of normative common ground, the study highlights the significance of procedural justice and civic participation to mitigate rhetoric that rationalises imposition of speech norms hinging on imbalanced political power.