In the age of social media, attempts to suppress a voice often do more to amplify it than silence it. This is precisely what happened when The Express Tribune removed Zorain Nizamani’s provocative column, “It Is Over.”
The article, which candidly critiqued generational divides, political narratives, and institutional orthodoxies, was reportedly pulled without a clear explanation. Yet instead of fading into obscurity, the removal ignited a wildfire of online attention. Within hours, screenshots circulated on Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn, and discussions surged across forums and WhatsApp groups.
This is not a coincidence. Psychological studies of media suppression show that removing content often triggers a “Streisand effect”, where the very act of censorship sparks curiosity, outrage, and debate. People naturally want to see what someone tried to hide. In Nizamani’s case, his voice reached exponentially more readers than it would have if it had remained quietly published on the Tribune’s website.
The incident also highlights a generational reality: today’s Gen Z and Millennials are attuned to media authenticity and transparency. Attempts to limit discourse are met with skepticism, and content that challenges conventional narratives is shared eagerly. Ironically, the attempt to minimize controversy made Nizamani’s critique more visible, more discussed, and more influential.
Journalists and media organizations should take note. In a connected world, the suppression of ideas can no longer guarantee control over narratives. Instead of quietly removing a contentious column, engagement, discussion, and editorial transparency often produce more credibility — and far less viral backlash.
Zorain Nizamani’s article is now more than a column; it is a case study in modern media dynamics. Attempts to silence it have only underscored the power of ideas in the digital age. The lesson is clear: in the battle between censorship and virality, virality almost always wins.
