Nepal has abruptly restored access to major social networks after a sweeping blackout ignited youth-led demonstrations that turned violent. The government’s U-turn came after days of turmoil, with local reports citing at least 19 fatalities and more than 100 injuries as police clashed with crowds demanding the return of online platforms.
A sudden reversal after a sweeping block
The rollback followed a nationwide ban that had cut off 26 services, including Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and X. Authorities originally enforced the restrictions when most companies failed to meet a new directive requiring foreign platforms to register in Nepal and appoint a local point of contact within a week of notice.
Communications and Information Technology Minister Prithvi Subba Gurung told reporters the order was withdrawn as public anger escalated. The ban had been pitched as a compliance push, but it quickly morphed into a political crisis as students and young professionals, many in school uniforms, organized offline when their digital spaces disappeared.
Notably, some services remained online throughout. TikTok and Rakuten’s Viber were spared after authorities said they had already registered and named local liaisons, underscoring that the policy was aimed at compelling formal presence rather than permanently silencing platforms.
Youth-led unrest and a mounting toll
The streets filled quickly as connectivity vanished. Protesters framed the blackout as an attack on expression and economic life, pointing to the role social apps play in education, small business promotion, and civic organizing. Demonstrations swelled in multiple cities, and in several locations, confrontations with security forces turned deadly.
Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli said violent episodes were “infiltrated” by elements seeking to exploit unrest while insisting the government was not opposed to the demands of a new generation. Rights monitors and journalists countered that blanket service blocks tend to inflame tensions by severing trusted channels of information, documentation, and de-escalation.
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights urged authorities to safeguard freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. Amnesty International echoed those calls, warning that wholesale platform bans rarely meet the international tests of necessity and proportionality. Network watchdogs have repeatedly shown that such disruptions push people toward riskier tools and misinformation-filled channels.
What the government wants from platforms
Kathmandu’s position is that global platforms must be legally reachable within Nepal. The registration-and-liaison model mirrors policies elsewhere: India’s IT Rules require local grievance officers; Indonesia compels digital firms to register as Electronic System Operators; and Nigeria lifted its lengthy Twitter suspension only after receiving assurances on local compliance.
In practice, hard deadlines and service-wide blocks can be counterproductive. Companies often need more time to navigate incorporation, tax, and legal liability frameworks. A staggered compliance timeline with clear technical standards, and transparent takedown procedures, tends to yield better results than abrupt bans that invite public backlash and economic disruption.
Nepal’s regulator can still secure local contacts, but now under less combustible conditions. A joint working group with industry—publishing minutes and decision rationales—would help restore trust and clarify which rules govern content moderation, law enforcement requests, and emergency disclosures.
Rights risks and the pending social media bill
The backlash also revived scrutiny of a draft social media law that proposes prison terms and fines for content deemed against “national sovereignty or interest.” The International Federation of Journalists has warned that the bill, as written, could chill reporting and digital expression by leaning on vague standards ripe for overreach.
International norms—articulated by UN experts and groups like Article 19—stress that restrictions must be tightly targeted and evidence-based. Broad platform bans and ambiguous speech offenses risk sweeping up satire, criticism, and legitimate activism alongside genuinely unlawful material. Nepal’s challenge is to craft rules that curb harm without stifling dissent or independent media.
Accountability around the protest response is just as important. Independent investigations into use of force, protection for medical workers and journalists, and remedies for victims would signal that public safety and civil liberties are not competing goals.
What to watch next
Key indicators in the weeks ahead: whether platforms rapidly appoint local representatives; whether the government publishes a clear, phased compliance roadmap; and whether the social media bill is revised to tighten definitions, add judicial oversight, and include transparent appeal mechanisms.
For a young, mobile-first population, the episode is a reminder that digital policy is social policy. Locking down the public square—online or offline—carries heavy human and economic costs. With the ban lifted, Nepal has a narrow window to replace confrontation with consultation and build a regulatory model that protects both safety and speech.