On September 4, 2025, the Government of Nepal decided to block social media platforms that have not been registered in Nepal. The decision has created a wave of divided opinions - some people argue that this is the right move to ensure accountability from social media platforms, while many civil society organizations, digital rights advocates, and concerned citizens have condemned it as a regressive step against digital freedom.
From my standpoint, while regulation is necessary, blocking platforms undermines the very freedoms we are trying to protect.
Registration is necessary - but blocking is not the answer
To put it straight: the debate is not about whether social media platforms should be registered in Nepal or not. They should be. These platforms are global companies making significant profits, also via operating in Nepal. Like any other company working here, they must comply with Nepali regulations, ensure transparency, and clearly state how and why they are collecting and using the data of Nepali citizens. That expectation is fair and necessary.
However, blocking access to unregistered platforms is not the right way forward. Social media has evolved into more than just entertainment or casual networking - it has become a central place for people to express themselves, connect with communities, access information, promote businesses, and even mobilize for social causes. For many, these platforms are now tied to their daily lives, their livelihoods, and their freedom of expression.
Cutting off access does not solve the underlying problem; it only punishes ordinary users.
The role of social media platforms
It is also true that social media platforms have a responsibility. If the Government of Nepal has been repeatedly asking them to register and they have not complied, these companies should at least provide a formal response or clarification. Ignoring regulatory requests only deepens mistrust and leaves citizens caught in the middle of a standoff between government and corporations.
Why blocking is a problem
Blocking social media platforms creates several issues:
Restriction of freedom of expression: Social media has become one of the most accessible means of voicing opinions, especially for young people, marginalized groups, and most people. Blocking platforms limits these freedoms.
Impact on small businesses and creators: Many Nepali entrepreneurs, artists, and small businesses rely on social media for promotion and sales. Blocking platforms threatens their livelihoods.
Disruption of information access: Social media is also a primary source of news and information. Shutting platforms risks creating an information vacuum, where misinformation and rumors can spread even faster.
Loss of connection for families: The Public relies on messaging apps and social media to stay in touch with family members living abroad or in distant parts of Nepal. Blocking these platforms directly affects family communication and emotional well-being.
Negative signal to the global community: Such a move portrays Nepal as hostile to digital rights and freedom, which can harm its reputation internationally.
It is true that the Government of Nepal has the authority to regulate companies operating within its borders. Demanding registration is within its rights, and restricting services for non-compliance is legally possible. But the way this authority is exercised matters. Choosing to block entire platforms is a policy decision - one that is not the most effective or rights-respecting. Smarter alternatives that protect both regulation and citizens’ freedoms are required to be considered.
What should have been considered
Instead of blocking access, the government could have taken more constructive steps:
Dialogue and Negotiation: Establish structured discussions with platform representatives, civil society, and experts to find workable solutions for registration and compliance.
Transparency in Process: Clearly communicate to the public what the requirements are, why they matter, and how citizens’ rights will be safeguarded.
Rights-Based Approach: Ensure that any regulation respects the constitutional right to freedom of expression and aligns with international human rights commitments.
Conclusion
Yes, platforms should register and comply. But blocking them for non-compliance is a disproportionate punishment that hurts ordinary Nepalis more than the companies.
Platforms must be accountable and transparent, but accountability cannot come at the cost of citizens’ digital freedoms. Blocking platforms is a blunt and regressive tool - it restricts expression, impacts livelihoods, and risks isolating Nepali citizens in the digital age.
A Question of democratic values: At its heart, this debate is not just about regulation, it is about the kind of digital future Nepal envisions. Are we moving forward on our constitutionally recognized democratic path, where freedom of expression and access to information are respected? Or slipping into a more control-oriented and regressive approach? Blocking platforms may seem like a quick solution, but it risks eroding the very democratic principles Nepali people have worked hard to build.
As a country, Nepal needs smarter, more balanced solutions - ones that demand responsibility from tech companies while also protecting the rights of the people who use them every day.
