Sad to see anti free speech sentiments all over the world. It was constrained to only some areas but now it’s normalized even in places like the UK. I guess with all that’s happening, Nepal doesn’t surprise me.
These platforms themselves don't support free speech. On top of that everything is now heavily algorithmically driven. Everyone is pushed to consume the same type of content while thinking they have free will in their choice not realising they are being subtly manipulated right below their ability to recognise it.
At this point, YouTube probably has a better idea what you will consume next than you yourself do.
It's pretty strange how the floodgates opened in 2025 and seemingly every government decided to try this to some extent in unison. I wonder what their real reason is for this and how much governments discussed this together.
People in the west are so used to freedom of speech and so focused on problems with social media. They miss the fact, that many authoritarian governments in Asia see freedom of speech in social media as a threat. They are not banning Facebook to improve quality of life, they want to limit freedom of speech.
> The government now requires platforms to register for a license and to appoint a representative who can address grievances. “We requested them to enlist with us five times. What to do when they don’t listen to us?” said Gajendra Kumar Thakur, a spokesman for the ministry.
I wonder what were the platforms expecting, ignoring local government.
You have to play by the rules society agrees on. Or do the companies think they are too big for consequence?
So after sacking the wildly (and deservingly) popular Chairman of the National Electricity Authority, after allowing ministers to set arbitrary and uncapped salaries for themselves and their workers, after obstructing and undermining the wildly (and deservingly) popular mayor of the Capital, and after doing like 15 of these really major, objectively anti-nation things, and getting called out for it in Social Media by the commoners, the 73 year old Prime Minister (in many ways a Trump-like figure; immune to shame or criticism) moves to ban social media in the country. Obviously a bad thing.
At the same time, a 2 year old law that still hasn't convinced the companies with valuations higher than my countries GDP to throw like $10k to set up an office here and maintain it with less than $5k a month to keep their services running. It doesn't feel right to fight to keep them around either.
PS: The previous paragraphs might have portrayed the current government in a (deservingly) negative light. I wonder if I'll have to start browsing hackernews with a VPN in the future.
When something like this happen the companies affected should terminate the accounts of all government officials under the guise "if the population can't use our site, neither can you who work in the government"
Weren’t only the platforms that failed to register with the government banned? As I understand it, if they comply with the new regulations, they should be unblocked.
Other than the obvious discussions around free speech(very valid points), do we have any real studies on the actual effects of social media? What if social media platforms didn't exist. Would the world have been a better place?
I don't know the answer, but atleast from my observations it feels as if almost every country in the world has moved to the right but by bit. We have moved away from globalization and are into protectionism. Is social media to be blamed for this? I think it has certainly played it's part for sure.
One advantage of social media I see is that it has allowed people to create D2C businesses.
Social media platforms are no more closed circles. They are platforms for advertisers and "click fishers". And people engage with content which revolt them.
As a consequence social platforms, and low quality newspapers, have converged to show the bad news from all over the world. There is no shortage of them. This affects people's morale, confidence. Have you noticed how people you talk to can be very concerned about seemingly minor events that occurred on the other side of the world, to which they cannot change anything, and which should not change anything in their life?
Turns out today I have cut access to Youtube, Google Play to my 12 years old daughter. Internet is limited to a whitelist of sites, with only Wikipedia for now. She had turned phone addict in an unmanageable way. Blame Youtube and Tiktok. Unfortunately she needs a smartphone for school, she would otherwise have a dumb phone.
Of course there is wonderful content on Youtube. But the "shorts" is a literal trap for kids. As for the adults (well, me) it is just painful to see the list of trending videos, such that I seldom go and never stay. This is a stinky place. Ask the dictator in me and I would say blocking Youtube makes more good than bad.
In the specific context of Nepal, because it is clearly the next step in consolidation of power and move to authoritarianism.
The government is corrupt and has taken a lot of incredibly unpopular and objectively anti-people moves in the last 2-3 years. Taming social media would allow them to do more of that with less of the backlash.
It is clear they aren't even remotely concerned about the actual bad effects of social media. They didn't ban TikTok, of all things.
Social media algorithms are tuned to maximize engagements and this is easily done by keeping the user happy. This creates echo chambers and ends up polarizing users. Not everyone gets polarized but a vast majority of users become victims of confirmation bias, which leads to an increasingly fragmented and divisive society. Am I wrong?
24 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 52.1 ms ] threadAt this point, YouTube probably has a better idea what you will consume next than you yourself do.
> The government now requires platforms to register for a license and to appoint a representative who can address grievances. “We requested them to enlist with us five times. What to do when they don’t listen to us?” said Gajendra Kumar Thakur, a spokesman for the ministry.
I wonder what were the platforms expecting, ignoring local government.
You have to play by the rules society agrees on. Or do the companies think they are too big for consequence?
So after sacking the wildly (and deservingly) popular Chairman of the National Electricity Authority, after allowing ministers to set arbitrary and uncapped salaries for themselves and their workers, after obstructing and undermining the wildly (and deservingly) popular mayor of the Capital, and after doing like 15 of these really major, objectively anti-nation things, and getting called out for it in Social Media by the commoners, the 73 year old Prime Minister (in many ways a Trump-like figure; immune to shame or criticism) moves to ban social media in the country. Obviously a bad thing.
At the same time, a 2 year old law that still hasn't convinced the companies with valuations higher than my countries GDP to throw like $10k to set up an office here and maintain it with less than $5k a month to keep their services running. It doesn't feel right to fight to keep them around either.
PS: The previous paragraphs might have portrayed the current government in a (deservingly) negative light. I wonder if I'll have to start browsing hackernews with a VPN in the future.
One advantage of social media I see is that it has allowed people to create D2C businesses.
The world would probably be a very different place today if instead hope and joy were the bread and butter of Twitter, Reddit, etc.
As a consequence social platforms, and low quality newspapers, have converged to show the bad news from all over the world. There is no shortage of them. This affects people's morale, confidence. Have you noticed how people you talk to can be very concerned about seemingly minor events that occurred on the other side of the world, to which they cannot change anything, and which should not change anything in their life?
Turns out today I have cut access to Youtube, Google Play to my 12 years old daughter. Internet is limited to a whitelist of sites, with only Wikipedia for now. She had turned phone addict in an unmanageable way. Blame Youtube and Tiktok. Unfortunately she needs a smartphone for school, she would otherwise have a dumb phone.
Of course there is wonderful content on Youtube. But the "shorts" is a literal trap for kids. As for the adults (well, me) it is just painful to see the list of trending videos, such that I seldom go and never stay. This is a stinky place. Ask the dictator in me and I would say blocking Youtube makes more good than bad.
The government is corrupt and has taken a lot of incredibly unpopular and objectively anti-people moves in the last 2-3 years. Taming social media would allow them to do more of that with less of the backlash.
It is clear they aren't even remotely concerned about the actual bad effects of social media. They didn't ban TikTok, of all things.