On September 4, 2025, Nepal’s digital landscape changed in a flash. The government, led by Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli, ordered a sweeping ban on 26 major social media platforms—including Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube—after the companies failed to comply with new registration requirements. The move, which officials say is rooted in the country’s Supreme Court order and their own regulatory directives, has ignited a fierce debate over free speech, economic impact, and the future of online life in Nepal.
The Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, in a public notice, declared that it had directed the Nepal Telecommunication Authority to deactivate all non-registered social media sites until they agreed to register with the government. This came after a seven-day deadline, issued on August 28, expired without any of the major platforms responding. According to The Kathmandu Post, the government had been warning these companies since November 2023, issuing five public notices and sending direct communications to the likes of Meta (Facebook’s parent company) and others. The final ultimatum—register or face a ban—passed without compliance, triggering the shutdown.
So, what’s behind this dramatic move? Officials point to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, which mandated that all online and social media platforms operating in Nepal—whether domestic or foreign—must register with the authorities. The government’s Social Media Directives 2080, which laid out the registration process, gave platforms just one week to comply. Minister for Information and Communication Prithvi Subba Gurung explained that repeated reminders and extensions had been ignored, leaving the government no choice but to act. "Meta and others ignored even repeated reminders and extensions," he said, according to The Kathmandu Post.
But the story doesn’t end with legal requirements. Critics, including free speech advocates and digital rights experts, argue that the government’s true motives are more complicated. They claim the registration conditions—designed to give authorities stringent oversight and control—are simply too intrusive for global companies to accept. The result? The platforms stayed away, and the government pulled the plug.
Ujjwal Acharya, director of the Center for Media Research, minced no words in his criticism. “The government has taken the decision without evaluating how this will impact common citizens,” Acharya told The Hindu. “This decision is going to harm Nepal’s democratic reputation for a long time and will create a lasting negative perception globally.” He went further, saying, “Social media today is not just a space to express political or social opinions; very few people use it only for that. For the vast majority, it’s a vital part of daily life and business—an easy, affordable, and effective communication tool. The ban is simply wrong.”
For many Nepalis, the ban is more than a political statement—it’s an immediate disruption to daily life and livelihoods. Facebook, for instance, had only recently rolled out a monetisation programme in Nepal, allowing local creators to earn money through reels, posts, and videos. Now, that revenue stream has vanished overnight, affecting digital income for thousands and sending ripples through the wider economy. As The Kathmandu Post points out, creators who depended on these platforms for their income are suddenly left in the lurch, and businesses that relied on social media for outreach and marketing face new hurdles.
The ban’s economic consequences could be even broader. Past experience offers a cautionary tale: when the previous government banned TikTok in November 2023, local telecom provider Ncell reportedly lost nearly Rs 600 million in monthly revenues. That ban was lifted in August 2024 after TikTok agreed to register, but the damage to the digital economy lingered. Now, with a far wider ban in place, similar losses seem all but certain. There’s also the risk that users will turn to VPNs and OpenDNS to access blocked sites, increasing international bandwidth costs and cutting into the revenues of local internet providers.
Which platforms are still accessible in Nepal? As of the ban, only a handful of apps—TikTok, Viber, Witk, Nimbuzz, and Popo Live—remain operational, having already registered with the authorities. Telegram and Global Diary are under review. But the list of restricted platforms reads like a who’s who of the digital age: Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, X, LinkedIn, Reddit, Threads, YouTube, Snapchat, Pinterest, Signal, Clubhouse, and Rumble are all facing restrictions. There’s still some confusion about whether WhatsApp and Gmail fall under the ban, as officials continue to debate their status as social media platforms.
The government’s actions have drawn a sharp response from the public. Social media users, anticipating the blackout, posted what they called their “last messages,” lamenting the loss of a vital communication channel. Many have described the ban as injudicious and unwise, arguing that it undermines Nepal’s democratic image and stifles freedom of expression. According to The Hindu, critics see the move as less about protecting the public and more about silencing dissenting voices—especially given the Oli government’s recent track record of trying to regulate and control online spaces.
This isn’t Nepal’s first foray into social media bans. The November 2023 TikTok ban, imposed by the previous Pushpa Kamal Dahal government, was met with widespread criticism and only reversed after TikTok agreed to the government’s terms. Since taking power 14 months ago, the Oli government has faced similar backlash for its perceived attempts to reign in online criticism. Earlier this year, a proposed law to regulate social media drew fierce opposition from civil society groups and digital rights advocates, who warned that the government was seeking to control virtually all online activity under the guise of regulation.
This time, the stakes are even higher. Unlike earlier requests—issued only by the Ministry—this registration directive came straight from a Cabinet decision, giving it extra political weight. Yet, as the dust settles, many are left wondering whether the government has underestimated the social and economic fallout. As Ujjwal Acharya cautioned, the decision may have lasting consequences for Nepal’s reputation and its citizens’ ability to participate in the global digital economy.
What happens next? If history is any guide, users will find ways around the ban, and rights groups will raise their voices in protest. The government, for its part, insists that regulation is necessary to protect the public and uphold the law. But with the world watching and the country’s digital future on the line, the outcome remains uncertain. For now, one thing is clear: Nepal’s bold move has set off a national—and international—conversation about the balance between regulation, economic opportunity, and freedom of expression in the digital age.
