Dr. Fizza Batool is an Assistant Professor at SZABIST University, Karachi, with expertise in South Asian Studies and Comparative Democratization. Connect with her on LinkedIn or read her works on ResearchGate
In late April 2025, a terrorist attack in Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir led to escalating tensions between India and Pakistan. After four days of intense conflict, a ceasefire was agreed on May 10, 2025, following US diplomatic intervention. This conflict wasn’t just fought on diplomatic and strategic fronts—it was fiercely contested in the digital space, where the battle continues even after military tensions have cooled.
The crisis revealed a profound shift in the information hierarchy, with YouTube channels and TikTok accounts often generating more engagement than official government statements or traditional news broadcasts. Piers Morgan’s viral debate featuring social media influencers alongside traditional experts perfectly captures this new reality— individuals who once would have been mere spectators now sit on equal footing with government representatives and veteran journalists in shaping public understanding of international conflicts.
Behind this digital conflict lies a troubling economic reality: content creators on both sides of the border have transformed geopolitical tensions into a profitable business model. While their strategies differ dramatically as per the socio-political context in each country—Pakistani creators predominantly use humor and satire, while Indian counterparts amplify nationalist narratives—both narratives operate within the same attention economy that rewards emotional engagement over factual accuracy.
As platforms and content creators profit from conflict-driven engagement, serious questions emerge about algorithmic ethics during international crises and the responsibility of technology companies that transform regional instability into shareholder value. U.S. policymakers must confront this reality, as their oversight of Silicon Valley platforms gives them unique leverage to address digital conflict escalation between nuclear-armed neighbors.
Divergent Digital Narratives with Same Economic Objectives
The digital landscapes of India and Pakistan during the post-Pahalgam crisis reveal distinct cultural approaches to conflict representation. Content creators on both sides have monetized geopolitical tensions, but through markedly different strategies reflective of their sociopolitical environments.
Pakistani digital content displays a tendency toward self-referential humor that transforms domestic vulnerabilities into satirical content. This approach serves multiple functions: psychological protection, social cohesion, and strategic communication. The casual dismissal of war threats through humor represents not naivety but a deliberate coping mechanism in a society accustomed to various crises. Paradoxically, while this satire often critiqued internal governance, it simultaneously bolstered national unity during the conflict, with Pakistanis celebrating their pro-peace stance against Indian war mongering. Content creators leverage this inclination to use wit against war to generate shareable content that attracts cross-border engagement.
Indian social media creators, in contrast, cultivated content centered on nationalist sentiments. YouTube channels, X handles, and Instagram accounts became amplifiers for outrage and misinformation. Misleading videos, photoshopped images, and hashtags advocating war flooded timelines, many originating from suspicious accounts, suggesting coordinated disinformation campaigns. In this environment, individuals advocating for peace faced significant backlash. For example, actress Dia Mirza’s call for peace amidst escalating tensions was met with severe criticism, with detractors accusing her of undermining national security.
To understand this difference, one must look closer at the civil-military equation in both countries. In India, the military action appeared to have strong civilian leadership approval and media endorsement, creating alignment between government policy and public narratives. In Pakistan, citizens’ responses navigated a more complex relationship with their government and military, where jokes contained a critique of both Indians and the failures of their own governance. While the conflict has gradually transformed the military’s image among citizens from a controversial political actor into a respected defensive shield against external threats, the meme culture continues to counter Indian nationalist content.
For instance, when Indian media falsely claimed that Karachi port had been destroyed and Indian social media accounts celebrated this fictional victory, Pakistanis in Karachi responded not with indignant denial but with sardonic humor. Residents shared images of potholed streets with captions suggesting India cannot destroy a city already destroyed by misgovernance, while others warned Indian forces that the attacking ship could lose “sideview mirror and audio unit” and “Indians should not bring their phones while attacking,” referring to Karachi’s street crime. This response demonstrates how Pakistani content creators transform actual lived experience into narrative countermeasures that simultaneously acknowledge domestic failures while undermining enemy propaganda. In contrast, the Indian celebration of a non-existent military success reveals how nationalistic content ecosystems can create closed information environments where emotional satisfaction supersedes factual verification, a pattern that generates high engagement metrics but potentially undermines strategic decision-making and public trust in the long term.
Despite their different stylistic approaches, content creators on both sides operate within identical economic structures. Platform algorithms reward emotional intensity and engagement regardless of the emotional valence. Pakistani humor and Indian nationalism both trigger high engagement rates, extended viewing sessions, and active comment sections—all metrics that directly influence creator compensation and visibility.
The Profit Machine Behind Conflict Content
The economic infrastructure of digital content creation has fundamentally altered how conflicts are presented to the public. Traditional media outlets covering international conflicts operated within established journalistic frameworks—editorial oversight, fact-checking processes, and institutional reputations that required maintenance through adherence to reporting standards. These organizations typically employed correspondents with subject matter expertise and followed publication cycles that allowed time for verification and context-building.
Digital content creation has democratized conflict reporting in ways that offer certain advantages. Independent voices can now document events from perspectives previously excluded from mainstream narratives. The immediacy of digital platforms enables real-time updates during rapidly evolving situations, and diverse viewpoints can emerge without passing through traditional media gatekeepers. This has created space for counter-narratives that challenge official accounts from both Indian and Pakistani authorities.
However, this democratization has introduced problematic economic incentives that prioritize engagement over accuracy. Digital content creators monetize crises through multiple revenue channels: advertising impressions, channel memberships, donations during live streams discussing military developments, and merchandise featuring nationalistic messaging. Unlike salaried journalists, these creators’ incomes directly correlate with metrics like views, watch time, and interaction rates—all of which increase with emotionally provocative content.
This profit-driven model creates what media analysts term an “engagement trap”—a situation where financial incentives reward emotional intensity rather than factual integrity. Platform algorithms systematically favor videos generating strong responses, longer viewing sessions, and higher comment rates—metrics that conflict-driven content reliably produces. Consequently, creators face economic pressure to develop increasingly dramatic narratives that may amplify tensions rather than promote nuanced understanding or peaceful resolution.
Empirical studies acknowledge that algorithm-driven recommendations systematically favor emotionally provocative content over factual reporting. While content promoting sadness and anger dominates, there is ample evidence that humorous content, particularly sarcasm, can also generate higher digital engagement. It has been reported that users who express negative emotions are consistently fed increasingly aligned content. This reinforcement intensifies over time and persists across different contexts, indicating the algorithm’s role in creating emotional filter bubbles.
The economic structure creates a troubling reality: platforms financially benefit from regional instability. Shareholder value increases with engagement metrics, creating corporate incentives misaligned with conflict resolution or accurate information dissemination. This dangerous alignment between profit motives and conflict amplification demands urgent intervention through regulatory frameworks, platform accountability measures, and digital literacy initiatives that can disrupt the economics of division before the next crisis erupts.
America’s Digital Diplomacy
The United States played a crucial role in defusing military tensions between India and Pakistan, and it now has both the leverage and responsibility to address the digital conflict that persists. As the headquarters of many major technology platforms are in the United States, it occupies a unique position to influence how these companies handle crisis-related content. American jurisdiction over Silicon Valley giants provides powerful regulatory tools and, therefore, American policymakers have a responsibility to develop guidelines on crisis content monetization that recognize platform design choices have real geopolitical consequences.
The U.S. government should also fund partnerships with trusted civil society actors in South Asia. These independent media watchdogs and digital rights organizations can identify emerging digital threats and promote conflict-sensitive reporting standards without compromising press freedoms. By supporting local expertise, American policy can help prevent digital escalation between nuclear powers, particularly in a crisis.
Meanwhile, digital platforms must also act more responsibly and update their own policies to reflect the role social media too often plays in conflict and human rights abuses. They could implement “cooling periods” during verified international crises. These temporary algorithm modifications would reduce engagement-based amplification of inflammatory content while maintaining information access. Rather than censoring speech, these measures would simply pause the algorithmic rewards fueling digital conflict, giving diplomacy room to function.
Platforms should also provide transparency through special reports during and after international conflicts. These disclosures would detail how crisis-related content is monetized and promoted, creating accountability for companies that profit from regional instability. The public deserves to know when platform economics align against peaceful resolution.
By addressing the profit incentives behind digital conflict narratives, U.S. policy can help create an information ecosystem that serves stability rather than shareholders. The real battle isn’t between the people of India and Pakistan—it’s between an economic model that rewards division and our collective interest in accurate information during crises.
