Vague and Oppressive Laws Governments merge aspirations for technological growth with mechanisms of state control, creating a flexible legal framework that can be shaped to serve political interests. This dynamic is reflected in the institutions responsible for drafting and enforcing regulations, which are often led by authoritarian figures whose priorities lean more toward political agendas than toward equitable digital governance. As a result, a wave of legislation has emerged, marked by inconsistencies, abstract rhetoric, and remnants of colonial legal frameworks. Key terms like “national security” and “public interest” are frequently left undefined, allowing regulatory bodies, typically composed of government-appointed officials, to interpret these concepts as they see fit. This broad discretionary power enables the selective enforcement of laws, which reinforces state control while undermining efforts to create a balanced and just digital environment. While justifications have traditionally centered around national security concerns, governments are increasingly invoking human rights issues—such as protecting women and children from online harm, combating hate speech, and addressing disinformation—as pretexts for expanding surveillance and restricting digital freedoms. Although these concerns are legitimate, their instrumentalization allows for vague, overreaching regulations that disproportionately target political dissidents, journalists, and CSOs. Consequently, such laws serve as a tool of state control rather than protection. 21