Nepal has suddenly reopened access to major social networks after a blanket ban on them sparked youth-led protests that turned violent. The government’s about-face followed days of tumult, with local news reports tracking at least 19 deaths and more than 100 injuries in protests that have erupted when the police confronted crowds demanding the return of online platforms.
A block and a reverse of fortune
The easing came on the heels of a nationwide prohibition that had disconnected 26 of them, including Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and X. Officials had initially imposed the restrictions after most companies had not complied with a new order to register as platforms based overseas, with a local point of contact, within a week of being notified.
Information and communications minister Prithvi Subba Gurung told reporters the directive was scrapped as public outrage grew. The ban had been billed as a compliance push, but it swiftly devolved into a political crisis when students and other professionals, many wearing school uniforms, organized offline after their online environments vanished.
Of course, a few services did stay online throughout. TikTok and Viber, the communications app owned by Rakuten, were among the platforms spared after regulators said they had previously signed up and named local liaisons, a signal that the policy was intended to pressure formal presence rather than permanently muzzle platforms.
Youth-led revolt, and the toll rises
The streets were soon packed with people as networks disappeared. Protesters framed the blackout move as an assault on expression and economic life, citing the role social apps play in education, small business promotion and civic organizing. Protests ballooned across several cities, and in several places, clashes with the security forces grew violent.
Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli said that violent outbreaks “were infiltrated” by groups hoping to capitalize on the unrest and that the government was not against the demands of a new generation. Rights monitors and journalists, however, said blanket service blocks do more to inflame tensions by cutting off channels of trusted information, documentation and de-escalation.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called on the authorities to ensure freedom of expression and assembly. Amnesty International joined that call, cautioning that blanket platform bans are seldom compatible with international standards of necessity and proportionality. Network watchdogs have demonstrated again and again how such interruptions force people to more dangerous channels and misinformation-heavy platforms.
What the government is asking from platforms
Kathmandu’s position is that global platforms must be accessible legally from Nepal. The registration-and-liaison model is an echo of laws in other places: India demands that IT Rules mandate a local grievance officer; Indonesia says digital companies must register as Electronic System Operators; and Nigeria ended a months-long suspension of Twitter only after officials secured assurances on local compliance.
Hard deadlines and service-wide blocks are counter-productive in practice. Firms typically require more time to work through incorporation tax and legal liability structures. A phased-in compliance deadline with specific technical standards, and clear takedown procedures optimally produces more results than trying to command an early leap from the public that can cause revolt and economic disruption.
Nepal’s regulators can still solicit local contacts, but now in less flammable circumstances. There should be an industry-wide joint working group — with published minutes and rationales for decisions — that could help earn back trust and specify what rules govern content moderation, law enforcement requests and emergency disclosures.
Rights risks and the pending social media bill
The backlash also resulted in renewed scrutiny of a draft social media law that would carry prison terms and fines for content viewed as contrary to “national sovereignty or interest.” A global group for journalists, the International Federation of Journalists, has cautioned that the bill may have a cooling effect on reporting and on digital expression by resting on vague standards that are set up for abuse.
International standards, as articulated by UN experts and by organizations such as Article 19, make clear that restrictions must be strictly targeted and evidence-based. Both broad platform bans and ambiguous speech offenses might also pose to sweep up satire, criticism, and the sort of legitimate activism that falls short of renaming truly illegal material. The challenge for Nepal is to create rules that will prevent harm without stifling dissent or independent media.
There is just as much need for accountability around the response to the protests. Independent scrutiny of use of force, protection for those working in medical and journalistic jobs, and redress for victims would demonstrate that public safety and civil liberties are not rival ends.
What to watch next
Key signs in the weeks ahead: whether platforms move swiftly to appoint local representatives; whether the government comes up with a clear, phased compliance roadmap; and whether the social media bill is amended to clarify definitions, introduce judicial oversight and provide transparent appeal mechanisms.
For a young, mobile-first population, the episode is a sobering reminder that digital policy is social policy. Whether in the public square or the online one, locking it down has heavy human and economic costs. With the ban lifted, Nepal has a rare opportunity to swap confrontation for consultation and to construct a regulatory model that safeguards both safety and speech.
