Nepal Bans 26 Social Media Platforms, Including Facebook and YouTube

Free Speech vs. Harmful Platforms

• Many see the ban as part of a global drift toward censorship and “anti–free speech” norms, lumping Nepal with other governments tightening online control.
• Others argue social networks are “cancerous” sources of misinformation, privacy invasion, and manipulation, so their absence could be a net benefit – but they worry the motives are authoritarian, not protective.
• Several note free speech predates social media; banning platforms doesn’t literally abolish speech, but at current scale social media functions as the de facto public square, so blocking it is effectively silencing large-scale discourse.

Nepal-Specific Dynamics

• Commenters highlight a recent law requiring social platforms to register, obtain a license, and appoint a local representative; companies allegedly ignored repeated requests.
• Some frame the ban as predictable enforcement of sovereign regulation: “play by local rules or leave.”
• Others, citing recent unpopular and “anti-people” actions by Nepal’s government and subsequent criticism on social media, see the ban as part of a broader consolidation of power and suppression of dissent, not a neutral regulatory move.

Platforms, Moderation, and Hypocrisy

• Debate over whether platforms that heavily moderate or algorithmically filter content truly support free speech; some say bans and flagging systems reflect “hivemind” suppression of unpopular views.
• Others defend moderation as necessary to remove spam, flamebait, and low-effort content, distinguishing it from state censorship.

Anonymity, Surveillance, and Authoritarianism

• Large subthread on anonymity: one side argues anonymity isn’t required for free speech and enables trolling and online abuse; another insists it is crucial for protecting dissenters from oppressive states.
• Western governments are criticized for increasing surveillance, ID requirements, and speech-related prosecutions, blurring the line between “democracies” and authoritarian regimes.

Social Media’s Social and Psychological Effects

• Commenters link social media and rightward political shifts via outrage- and fear-based virality, echo chambers, and polarization.
• Personal anecdotes describe addiction (especially among children), mental health harm, and low-quality, rage-bait content, contrasted with genuine benefits like education, YouTube’s “world video library,” and D2C business opportunities.

Geopolitics and Foreign Influence

• Some support bans as defense against US/Chinese “surveillance capitalism” and foreign propaganda, arguing no country should let foreign platforms dominate domestic communication.
• Others warn that the same tools used to fight foreign influence are easily repurposed for domestic repression.