A recent article published by the digital media outlet Decode, titled “Two YouTubers Orchestrated Mob Violence in Bangladesh From Thousands of Miles Away,” detailed how two influential Bangladeshi YouTubers based abroad stoked public anger, and encouraged attacks that culminated in attempts to burn down the offices of Bangladesh’s two most respected newspapers.

While the article meticulously outlines incidents suggesting how these Youtubers influenced segments of the public to engage in mob violence, its assertion that Pinaki Bhattacharya and Elias Hossain enjoyed a “power nexus” with parts of Bangladesh’s interim government under Muhammad Yunus rests on a tenuous mix of social media activity, coincidental timing, and speculative inference rather than concrete evidence. 

More critically, the piece overlooks several key facts that substantially weaken, if not entirely negate, this claim. A closer reading reveals that the article’s own reporting repeatedly undermines the very conclusion it seeks to advance.

At the heart of the problem lies a basic conceptual error: the conflation of online influence with institutional power. Pinaki and Elias are, first and foremost, political commentators operating from abroad, whose reach comes from Youtube, Facebook, and other platforms. 

That their content resonated with sections of a politically charged public in the early days of the interim government does not automatically translate into access to, or control over, state authority. 

In moments of political rupture, many voices gain temporary traction. That is a feature of volatile transitions, not proof of a governing alliance. Decode’s failure to maintain this distinction is what allows its “power nexus” narrative to sound dramatic while remaining analytically hollow.

The article’s internal contradictions are particularly revealing. Decode itself notes that Elias Hossain has been openly and aggressively condemning Law Adviser Asif Nazrul, repeatedly vilifying him in public broadcasts. 

This is not a minor detail; it fundamentally undermines the thesis. A person who is part of a power nexus does not consistently and publicly attack a sitting adviser of the very government he is supposedly aligned with. 

Political systems do accommodate internal dissent, but what Elias has engaged in is not policy disagreement from within—it is outsider denunciation. Decode mentions this hostility almost in passing, without addressing the obvious question it raises: how does one maintain a “nexus” with a government figure while simultaneously portraying him as illegitimate or corrupt?

The article also glosses over the changing trajectory of Pinaki and Elias’s influence. In the initial months following the fall of the previous regime, their content benefited from uncertainty, public anger, and a hunger for counter-narratives. 

During that brief window, their commentary may have shaped conversations, including among people sympathetic to the interim administration. But influence is not a permanent asset; it is conditional. 

As both creators escalated toward increasingly incendiary and violent rhetoric, their credibility and reach began to erode. Decode treats their influence as linear and cumulative, when in reality it was fleeting and self-limiting. 

The more their content leaned into threats, mob logic, and absolutist language, the more it alienated not just institutions, but large segments of the public.

Perhaps the most damaging omission in Decode’s argument is the treatment of state and platform responses to Elias Hossain’s content. The article itself mentions that Faiz Ahmed Taiyeb wrote to Meta, after which Elias’s channel was shut down. 

This fact alone should have forced a re-evaluation of the “power nexus” claim. If Elias were protected by influential actors within the interim government, why would a senior government figure formally approach a global platform to take his content down? 

The removal of Elias’s channel materially dismantled his primary means of influence. That action points to institutional pushback, not patronage. Decode acknowledges this event but fails to grapple with its implications, preferring instead to preserve its predetermined narrative.

The same selective reasoning appears in the treatment of Pinaki Bhattacharya’s rhetoric. Pinaki has repeatedly labeled Press Secretary Shafiqul Alam a “Ganashatru,” or public enemy, largely because of Alam’s positive stance toward mainstream newspapers such as The Daily Star and Prothom Alo. 

This is not the language of proximity to power; it is the language of antagonism. Publicly branding Shafiqul Alam a public enemy because he defends established media institutions signals estrangement and of course anything but alignment. 

Decode presents this hostility as part of a larger choreography of influence, when it is far more plausibly evidence that the interim government and these online figures were moving in diverging directions.

Decode’s narrative becomes even more strained when set against the interim government’s actions on the ground. When mobs repeatedly gathered in front of the offices of The Daily Star and Prothom Alo, the state did not indulge them. 

Law enforcement intervened and forcibly dispersed the crowds. Officials publicly stated that attacks on journalists and media houses would not be tolerated. These are not the actions of a government beholden to, or quietly guided by, Youtube personalities who were actively demonising those same outlets. 

They are the actions of a government attempting—however imperfectly—to reassert order and signal red lines in a fragile political environment.

What ultimately weakens this particular claim of the Decode piece is not its concern about mob violence or irresponsible speech—those are legitimate issues—but its insistence on fitting complex realities into a simplistic framework of covert power-sharing. 

By ignoring context and treating temporary online resonance as evidence of structural influence, the article ends up overstating its case. It mistakes noise for authority and proximity for control.

In a transitional moment as unstable as Bangladesh’s recent past, many actors shout, provoke, and posture. Some briefly shape narratives; fewer shape policy. 

Pinaki Bhattacharya and Elias Hossain may have been loud, and at times consequential in the digital arena, but the available evidence—including that cited by Decode itself—points to a rapid rise followed by institutional rejection instead of a power nexus.

—

Harun Ur Rashid is a writer and analyst