Tensions between governments and social media platforms are on the rise around the world. States are pushing for regulation to combat disinformation, curb hate speech, safeguard national security, protect minors and assert sovereignty over digital space. Tech companies, however, long accustomed to operating globally with minimal state oversight, are often reluctant to comply with country-specific rules.
Increasingly, governments are requiring local registration or licensing as a condition to operate.
While some platforms accept these demands, many resist, particularly in smaller and less influential countries that lack the leverage to enforce compliance. Nepal offers a telling example of this ongoing battle. Over the past few years, the government has attempted to regulate major platforms, though critics fear such moves could also restrict freedom of speech and expression.
On Sept 28, the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology issued a seven-day deadline for all social media companies—domestic and international—to register locally or face progressive deactivation. While platforms like Viber, TikTok, Global View, We Talk and Nimbuzz have complied, most major players like X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, LinkedIn, Reddit, Snapchat and WeChat continue to operate without registration. Telegram, under pressure, has begun the process.
The requirement is not just about paperwork. Registered platforms must designate a local point of contact, a grievance officer and a compliance officer, effectively obliging them to establish a physical presence in Nepal. The policy reflects growing public concern over disinformation, hate speech and illegal content that many believe threaten social harmony.
However, enforcement of this policy is challenging. With millions of Nepalis relying on these platforms for communication, business and entertainment, abrupt bans could spark public outrage. The 2023 TikTok ban, lifted only after months of negotiation, demonstrated both the limits of state power and the possibilities of enforcement. TikTok’s eventual re-registration showed that, with sufficient pressure, even global giants can be brought to the table if they see enough value in the local market.
Nepal is not alone in this regulatory push. In 2024, Malaysia introduced licensing requirements for platforms with over eight million users. While some platforms complied, others like Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, and Google’s YouTube, are still negotiating. The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) is often held up as a global benchmark. It rebalances the responsibilities between users, platforms and public authorities, and the protection of fundamental rights. Nepal could draw lessons from the DSA, particularly in ensuring that regulations are not solely punitive, but also protective of democratic values.
Another growing area of concern worldwide is the protection of minors. In 2025, Australia became the first country to impose a mandatory minimum age of 16 for most social media platforms through its Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill. Non-compliance to this legislation carries heavy fines. Nepal, which is seeing increasing reports of online harms affecting children, should consider similar protective legislation.
One of the thorniest issues in social media governance is content moderation. Although tech companies have deployed large moderation teams and AI-driven tools, governments see these efforts as inadequate, especially when it comes to locally sensitive content or criticism of state policies. But beneath this lies a deeper tension: while governments claim to be fighting disinformation, they may also use regulation to suppress dissent and limit freedom of expression. In countries such as Turkey, Pakistan, India and Indonesia, social media rules have often been doubled as tools of political censorship. The same risk exists in Nepal too. Regulation is necessary, but it must not be weaponized to silence critics or undermine the press. A strong legal framework should guarantee that posts from independent or mainstream media are protected, and that takedown requests are transparent and subject to oversight. In the neighboring countries, the Indian government has taken a slew of measures in order to regulate social media platforms.
Another pressing issue is privacy. Social media companies collect vast amounts of personal data, raising concerns about misuse, surveillance and inadequate safeguards for users. Addressing these challenges requires more than registration requirements alone. As Nepal finalizes its Social Media Bill, it should adopt a multi-stakeholder governance model, bringing together not only government agencies, but also platforms, civil society, journalists, academia and international partners.
Open dialogue with major platforms can help align expectations, clarify provisions and ensure mutual accountability. Beyond that, sector-specific laws, robust data protection frameworks and digital literacy campaigns are essential. Regional cooperation, particularly among global south countries facing similar challenges, could amplify Nepal’s voice and build a stronger front for fair regulation.
So far, Nepal’s approach has leaned too heavily on government control. For regulation to be effective and democratic, the country must shift from a control mindset to a governance mindset—one that balances accountability with protection of rights. The relationship between states and social media companies is at a critical juncture. For Nepal, this is an opportunity to craft a regulatory framework that tackles online harms without undermining digital freedoms. A thoughtful, inclusive and globally informed approach could allow Nepal to emerge as a leader in social media governance rather than just another regulatory battleground.
Ultimately, the challenge lies in striking a balance between free speech, content moderation and privacy. Constant dialogue between the government and platforms is essential, given that tech companies operate globally but also be held accountable locally. Another hurdle is the aggressive lobbying that media platforms extensively engage in against regulatory efforts—a trend already visible in Nepal.
Stronger rules inevitably affect the business interests of social media companies, and resistance is fierce. Global experience shows that states face significant pushback whenever they attempt to rein in tech giants. Nepal must navigate this pushback carefully, ensuring its regulatory ambitions protect citizens without stifling democratic values. In conclusion, regulation of social media is still an evolving concept in many countries and there is no one-size-fits-all model; the only way is to closely follow the steps taken by other countries, and learn from each other. Nepal should also closely follow the attempts being made for global governance.
