By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On Thursday, the K.P. Sharma Oli government banned 26 social media platforms, including Facebook, X, Instagram, and YouTube, due to their failure to register in Nepal by the imposed deadline. The Ministry of Communications and Information Technology instructed the Nepal Telecommunication Authority to make the unregistered sites inactive after repeated requests and a final seven-day ultimatum. Critics, such as the Center for Media Research, condemn the ban as detrimental to Nepal’s democratic image, arguing that the government’s stringent oversight conditions likely deterred platform registration. This action follows a Supreme Court ruling mandating platform registration, with the government facing prior criticism for attempts to control online activity and previous bans on platforms like TikTok.
Read the original article here
Nepal bans Facebook, X, YouTube, 23 other social media platforms, and the initial reaction is, well, complicated. The official reason given by the government is to combat online hate speech, the spread of misinformation, fake accounts, and cybercrimes. Sounds good, right? Who’s against curbing those things? But when you dig a little deeper, the picture gets a bit muddier.
It’s worth noting that the Supreme Court has given these platforms seven days to register with the government. TikTok seems to have played ball, but giants like Meta (Facebook and Instagram) and Google (YouTube, Gmail, etc.) have declined, despite repeated requests. This refusal to register is a key point, and it’s important to ask why. Is it about tax revenue, as the government implies, or is it about control?
The implications of this ban are far-reaching. Many Nepalese rely on these platforms to communicate with family members who have gone abroad for work, a consequence of the nation’s economic realities. Imagine being separated from your loved ones and then having your primary means of contact cut off. For many, this is not just about entertainment; it’s about staying connected with their families. Also, platforms like YouTube provide educational content, including resources like Khan Academy. The ban could hinder access to crucial information for students and anyone seeking to improve their lives.
The potential for authoritarianism is a recurring theme. There are concerns about free speech and the government’s increasing control over information. There’s already been a case of a person being jailed for criticizing the Prime Minister. When TikTok was previously banned, some people were arrested for using VPNs to circumvent the ban. Many observers are concerned that the government is using the guise of “social harmony” to suppress dissent and control the narrative.
Of course, some see a silver lining. Social media platforms are not without their problems. They can be breeding grounds for negativity, misinformation, and echo chambers. There’s a widespread sense that these platforms can be harmful to mental health and society as a whole. Some even suggest that we might look back on social media the same way we look at cigarettes now.
The irony isn’t lost on anyone. The very people discussing this ban are often doing so on social media platforms. There’s a level of hypocrisy in celebrating a ban while still participating in the ecosystem. Perhaps there’s a longing for a less-connected world, a desire to “touch grass” as some put it. Maybe this is a case of the public wanting a world with fewer of the negative aspects of social media.
So, what’s the real intention behind Nepal’s move? Is it about control, censorship, or something else? It’s tough to say for sure. The situation is complex and nuanced, a combination of a desire to protect people and a grab for power. The fact that major tech companies like Meta and Google have resisted registration adds another layer of complexity. Are they standing up for freedom, or are they worried about ceding control?
Whether or not Nepal’s government is authoritarian remains a topic of debate. While the government claims the move is meant to protect its citizens and promote social harmony, others suggest these justifications are hiding a more insidious motive. Perhaps the government is taking advantage of the existing negative perceptions of social media.
The story doesn’t have a clear resolution. It’s a situation where the desire to improve society bumps up against the risk of government overreach. It raises crucial questions about free speech, the role of social media, and the delicate balance between security and liberty.