Social Media Bill: Accountability vs. Free Speech

A new bill introduced in Nepal's Federal Parliament aims to regulate social media platforms and users, sparking intense debate among lawmakers, digital rights activists, and the general public. The Social Media Regulation Bill, tabled in the National Assembly, proposes stringent measures to curb misinformation, regulate platform operations, and enforce digital accountability. However, concerns over potential threats to freedom of expression and excessive governmental control have raised critical questions about its implications.

The bill mandates that all social media platforms operating in Nepal must obtain a government-issued license within three months of its passage. Platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), WhatsApp, YouTube, and LinkedIn will be required to comply. Failure to do so will result in penalties ranging from NRs 2.5 million to NRs 10 million and a potential ban on operations within Nepal. For individual users, the bill outlines severe punishments for offenses such as creating fake accounts, spreading misinformation, cyberbullying, hacking, phishing, deepfake content creation, and sextortion, with penalties ranging from heavy fines to multiple years of imprisonment. Furthermore, public officials found violating the law will receive a 50% increase in penalties, while crimes involving minors will lead to additional prison sentences.

Arbitrary censorship

Nepal’s digital landscape has indeed been plagued by misinformation, cybercrime, and online abuse, making a legal framework necessary for accountability. The rise of deep fakes, online scams, and social media-driven conflicts has created an urgent need for clear regulations. Ensuring that social media companies take responsibility by verifying user identities and establishing rapid-response mechanisms for complaint resolution is a step in the right direction. Moreover, requiring platforms to store and provide user data for legal investigations will strengthen law enforcement’s ability to tackle digital crimes effectively.

However, while the intent of regulation is justified, the execution raises significant concerns. The bill grants the government the power to order content removal without requiring court oversight. This level of unchecked authority could be misused, leading to arbitrary censorship of dissenting voices, investigative journalism, and politically inconvenient discourse. The ability to ban a platform simply for failing to meet licensing conditions could discourage global tech companies from operating in Nepal, limiting access to vital digital resources. Smaller startups and independent content creators would also struggle under such strict conditions.

Vague language

Another issue is the vague language used in defining offenses. Terms like “misleading information” or “national interest” remain highly subjective, leaving them open to government interpretation. Criminalizing such behaviors instead of relying on platform-based moderation raises the risk of constraining free expression. Additionally, requiring platforms to store and provide user data without clearly outlining data privacy measures could lead to misuse and surveillance concerns. There is little reassurance that such regulations won’t be weaponized to target political dissidents or activists under the guise of national security.

The bill also makes it mandatory for foreign social media companies to set up local offices or appoint official representatives in Nepal. This requirement, while aimed at ensuring accountability, may create barriers for international platforms that might find compliance burdensome. As seen in other countries, overly restrictive policies have led to major platforms limiting their services, depriving citizens of diverse digital engagement opportunities. If Nepal follows this path, it risks isolating itself from the global digital economy.

Globally, different countries have tackled social media regulations with varying approaches. India’s IT Rules (2021) mandate content removal but require judicial oversight, while the EU’s Digital Services Act (2022) enforces moderation but with strong user privacy protections. Meanwhile, China’s heavy-handed censorship policies serve as a cautionary tale of how overregulation can lead to extreme suppression of online freedom. Nepal must ensure that its bill does not follow the latter’s trajectory. Instead of stifling innovation and free expression, it should focus on striking a balance between security and digital rights.

The implications for content creators and social media users are profound. Under this bill, individuals who unknowingly share misleading information could face severe legal consequences. The distinction between intentional disinformation and accidental misinformation is not well defined, which could lead to legal repercussions for ordinary users. Furthermore, the bill allows authorities to monitor and track users extensively, raising concerns about mass surveillance and the potential chilling effect on online speech.

Approach to fake accounts

While the bill introduces strict penalties for cybercrimes such as phishing, hacking, and sextortion, it does not provide robust mechanisms for user education or digital literacy. Preventive measures should be emphasized alongside punitive actions. Instead of solely focusing on legal crackdowns, Nepal’s government should invest in digital awareness programs, educating users about responsible social media usage, recognizing misinformation, and securing their online presence.
One of the most controversial aspects of the bill is its approach to fake accounts. While cracking down on fake IDs is important to curb online abuse, enforcing real-name policies could backfire. Many users, especially activists, whistleblowers, and marginalized groups, rely on anonymity for safety. The absence of safeguards to protect these vulnerable users could deter individuals from engaging in online discussions about sensitive topics.

The requirement for content removal upon government request also raises ethical concerns. In democratic societies, freedom of speech is protected through judicial processes, ensuring that content takedown requests undergo legal scrutiny. This bill lacks such oversight, allowing authorities to unilaterally decide what qualifies as objectionable content. The absence of an independent review mechanism could lead to disproportionate enforcement, where criticisms against the government are swiftly removed under the pretext of national security.

The economic consequences of this bill could be far-reaching. If major social media platforms decide to exit Nepal due to restrictive compliance requirements, businesses that rely on digital marketing and e-commerce would suffer. The digital economy, which has been growing steadily in Nepal, could face setbacks, limiting opportunities for young entrepreneurs and professionals who depend on online platforms for income.

Digital authoritarianism

As this bill moves through Parliament, lawmakers must refine its provisions to ensure judicial oversight on content removal, clarify ambiguous terms, and implement strong data privacy safeguards. While addressing online abuse is crucial, broad legal frameworks should not suppress critical discourse or impose excessive restrictions on social media platforms. With digital rights becoming an increasingly important issue, public discourse on this bill will likely shape Nepal’s digital landscape for years to come. The challenge lies in finding the right balance—protecting users from harm while upholding the fundamental right to online expression.

If passed in its current form, this bill could set a dangerous precedent, giving the government excessive control over the digital space. While the need for accountability and regulation is valid, such policies must be carefully crafted to avoid unintended consequences. If Nepal truly wishes to foster a safe, free, and responsible digital environment, it must ensure that regulation does not become a tool for silencing voices but rather a means of promoting transparency and security. The coming weeks will determine whether Nepal takes a progressive step toward responsible digital governance or a regressive slide into digital authoritarianism.

(Aishwarya Koirala is a third-year Bachelor’s student at St. Xavier’s College, Maitighar, Kathmandu, majoring in English Literature and Psychology, with Journalism as her elective subject.)