Internet Freedom in Bangladesh: A Fundamental Test of Governance and Justice

The internet has become one of the most important public spaces of the 21st century. For millions of Bangladeshis, it is no longer merely a means of communication or entertainment.

People use it to learn, work, conduct business, access government services, follow the news, express opinions and participate in public life.

Internet freedom has therefore become inseparable from freedom of expression, access to information, accountability and justice.

Yet Bangladesh’s record on internet freedom remains deeply concerning. Freedom House’s Freedom on the Net 2025 assessment gives Bangladesh a score of 45 out of 100, placing it in the category of “Partly Free”.

Although this represents an improvement from 40 in the previous assessment, the country remains far from a genuinely free digital environment.

The score reflects continuing problems with access, content restrictions and violations of users’ rights.

These figures matter because internet freedom is not simply a technological issue. It is fundamentally an issue of governance.

When authorities restrict access to information, limit online expression or shut down communications during political crises, citizens’ ability to understand events, communicate with one another and hold those in power accountable is directly affected.

The scale of the issue is enormous. DataReportal estimated that Bangladesh had 77.7 million internet users in January 2025, representing an internet penetration rate of 44.5 percent.

At the same time, around 96.9 million people remained offline, while approximately 60 million social media user identities were recorded.

As smartphones become more affordable, mobile networks expand and digital services become more deeply embedded in everyday life, the consequences of internet restrictions will become even greater.

The most powerful illustration came during the political upheaval of 2024. As student protests intensified, Bangladesh experienced one of the most significant internet shutdowns in its recent history.

Internet Society Pulse recorded a nationwide shutdown beginning on July 18, 2024, lasting approximately five days and 12 hours before connectivity began to return on July 23.

Its NetLoss estimate put the economic cost at more than US$21.9 million, with losses potentially exceeding US$3.5 million for every additional day of disruption.

Mobile internet was again shut down for approximately 24 hours from August 4 to August 5 as the political situation deteriorated.

Major social media and communication platforms were also blocked or disrupted, including Facebook Messenger, Instagram, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, X and YouTube.

These incidents demonstrate why internet shutdowns should never be treated as an ordinary administrative measure.

When communications disappear during a political crisis, journalists struggle to report events, families can lose contact, businesses cannot operate normally and citizens lose the ability to verify information.

An information vacuum can also create fertile ground for rumours, misinformation and fear.

The extraordinary rise in VPN demand during the 2024 shutdown demonstrated how strongly citizens sought alternative means of accessing information.

Internet Society Pulse reported that VPN demand in Bangladesh surged by 5,016 percent during the shutdown.

The lesson is clear: restricting access does not necessarily stop people from seeking information.

Instead, it can deepen public distrust in institutions and encourage citizens to turn to less reliable sources.

Internet freedom is also directly connected with press freedom. Modern journalism depends heavily on digital communication.

Reporters use social media to monitor events, communicate with sources, verify information and reach audiences.

Investigative journalism increasingly relies on digital documents, databases and online sources.

Restricting these tools inevitably weakens journalism and public accountability.

Bangladesh’s cyber legislation has added another layer to the debate. The Digital Security Act 2018 and its successor, the Cyber Security Act 2023, faced criticism from human rights and press freedom organisations.

Amnesty International argued that the Cyber Security Act retained problematic features of the earlier legislation and contained provisions that could threaten freedom of expression, privacy and liberty.

Bangladesh certainly needs effective laws to combat genuine cybercrime, including hacking, identity theft, financial fraud, online exploitation and cyberattacks. But cybersecurity and freedom of expression are not contradictory objectives.

The essential challenge is to distinguish legitimate security measures from attempts to suppress dissent.

Justice must therefore remain at the heart of internet governance. Restrictions on online content or access should have a clear legal basis and satisfy the principles of necessity and proportionality.

Citizens should have the right to challenge restrictions before an independent judiciary.

Government agencies should not possess unlimited authority to block websites, intercept communications or access personal information without effective oversight.

Internet shutdowns require particularly strong safeguards. A government should not be able to disconnect an entire population simply because online communication might facilitate political mobilisation.

If an extraordinary restriction is ever genuinely necessary to address an immediate and serious threat to public safety, it should be lawful, narrowly targeted, time-limited and subject to judicial and parliamentary scrutiny.

Every shutdown should be accompanied by a transparent explanation: who authorised it, under which law, why it was considered necessary and when connectivity will be restored.

Independent institutions should subsequently review whether the decision was justified.

Privacy protection is equally important. Digital freedom has little meaning if citizens believe their private communications may be subject to unlawful surveillance.

State surveillance should have a clear legal basis, independent authorisation and effective safeguards against abuse.

Internet service providers and technology companies should also maintain strong privacy protections and transparency.

Digital literacy must form another pillar of the solution. Citizens need the ability to identify fabricated information, verify sources and protect their personal data.

Schools, universities, media organisations and civil society should invest more in digital and media literacy so that greater internet freedom is accompanied by greater responsibility.

The economic argument is equally compelling. Bangladesh’s growing digital economy includes freelancers, software developers, online entrepreneurs, e-commerce businesses, digital content creators and remote workers.

They all depend on reliable connectivity. Major shutdowns therefore damage not only immediate economic activity but also confidence in Bangladesh as a digital business environment.

Bangladesh now needs a fundamental shift from a control-oriented approach to a rights-based approach to internet governance.

Cyber laws should focus on genuine criminal conduct rather than legitimate expression.

Vague speech offences should be removed or precisely defined, while regulatory institutions should operate independently and transparently.

Ultimately, Bangladesh’s internet freedom ranking should not be treated merely as another international scorecard. It is a warning about the quality of governance and democracy.

A country cannot claim meaningful digital transformation while citizens fear expressing themselves online.

It cannot build a successful digital economy while connectivity can be interrupted during political crises.

And it cannot guarantee justice when access to information can be restricted precisely when citizens need it most.

Bangladesh has made enormous progress in connecting people to the digital world.

The next challenge is to ensure that those connections remain free, secure and meaningful.

The real measure of internet freedom is not simply how many people can go online. It is whether citizens can speak without fear, access information without obstruction, communicate without unlawful surveillance and seek justice when their digital rights are violated.

That is not a privilege. It is a fundamental requirement of accountable governance, democratic participation and justice in modern Bangladesh.

(The writer is the Editor and CEO of News Network.)