Regulate, Don’t Ban: Nepal Needs Responsible Digital Governance

One year after the Gen Z movement, Nepal once again faces the same question that helped create the conditions for political upheaval: how should social media platforms be brought within the country’s legal framework?

The answer should now be clearer. The state cannot leave the digital sphere entirely unregulated, but neither can it shut down citizens’ main channels of communication and expression through a single administrative decision.

The previous government required social media companies to register under Nepali rules. Seeking legal accountability from global platforms was not, in itself, unreasonable. The problem was the method. When companies failed to comply within the deadline, Facebook, YouTube, X, Telegram and other platforms were blocked.

That decision affected millions of citizens at once, including businesses, students, journalists, advertisers, entrepreneurs and ordinary users. Instead of resolving a regulatory problem, the shutdown intensified public frustration at a time when dissatisfaction over corruption, political privilege and poor governance was already growing.

The current government should learn from that experience.

The communications minister has acknowledged that shutting down social media was the wrong approach and has indicated that a new legal framework should be developed through consultation. That is a welcome change in direction. But it must move beyond statements and become a coherent policy.

Global technology companies operating in Nepal cannot remain above Nepali law. Companies that earn advertising revenue from the Nepali market, collect user data, distribute news and influence public debate should be accountable to Nepal’s legal system, tax rules, privacy standards and citizens’ rights.

Registration or local representation may be part of that framework, but regulation must not become a convenient instrument for political control.

Giving a ministry or administrative authority vague powers to block platforms, remove content or silence criticism would simply replace one problem with another. Any restriction on content, accounts or access must rest on clear law, transparent procedures, independent review and the right to appeal.

The second challenge is disorder within the digital sphere itself.

Freedom of expression does not mean freedom to threaten, harass, deliberately defame or strip others of their dignity. Targeted abuse, incitement to violence, serious threats and coordinated harassment require legal remedies.

At the same time, criticism of government, political disagreement, satire and harsh public debate must not be criminalized merely because those in power find them uncomfortable.

The purpose of law is precisely to distinguish between these categories.

Nepal therefore does not need a law designed simply to “control social media.” It needs a modern digital rights and responsibilities framework.

Such a framework should clearly answer at least four questions: what legal responsibilities social media companies carry in Nepal; how user privacy and personal data will be protected; how complaints about unlawful content will be investigated and resolved; and how state intervention will remain subject to transparency, due process and judicial oversight.

Most importantly, this framework should not be drafted behind closed doors.

Media organizations, technology experts, civil society, lawyers, digital businesses, young people, ordinary users and the platforms themselves should all be part of a broad consultation process. The government should not arrive with a predetermined conclusion and treat consultation as a formality.

One of the central lessons of the Gen Z movement is that a digitally connected generation cannot be governed simply through orders and prohibitions.

Young people receive information online, organize online, challenge institutions online and hold leaders accountable online. Digital governance must therefore be built on trust, legitimacy and responsibility rather than fear and control.

Nepal should not allow social media companies to operate outside the law. But it should equally never repeat the mistake of pushing citizens into a digital blackout in the name of regulation.

A year ago, the question was whether unregistered platforms should be banned.

The question now must be more mature: how can Nepal ensure responsibility while protecting freedom?

The answer is not prohibition.

It is clear law, transparent procedures, judicial safeguards and responsible digital governance.