It reads like: citizens have been protesting the government using social media, government desperate to curb dissent bans social media, dissent is now on the streets..
Or maybe it's as straightforward as the media has been reporting.
These governments that block social media or control/monitor the internet to avoid critics of government or dissent, whether that be Nepal, Tunisia, Turkey, UK, Germany, China, Egypt, US, Russia, Israel, are always shocked when there is an uprising. Unsurprisingly when a government tries to control people this closely many will see the flaws in it and make a stand and rightly so whether that be digitally or in person. It's understandable why so many tech knowledgeable dissidents create or use apps that bypass ridiculous laws.
Hard-earned freedoms are wasted on societies who don't have memories of what it took to earn them. Freedom is a ratchet: slides easily and frictionlessly one way, and offers immense resistance in the other.
It was absolutely not just social media ban, it was mostly youth protesting against the corrupt government and unfairness, social media ban was one element that was against the freedom of speech, but it was right around the time where everyone was documenting the rich politicians, their business connections and their families that have been living lavishly and just inheriting the election seats from generation to generation and spinning beurocracy to their sides.
I was there a few hours ago. It was a class struggle, but it was bound to be spun up as "kids don't get facebook and throw tantrum".
Maybe what is even worse in a way, is the state of many developed countries where all the coruption is well documented in media, everyone knows what is going on and yet it does not really move people. I guess until you are in "good enough" state you are not forced to really fight.
What's missing in this discussion is the infiltration by agitating forces trying to muddy the waters. There are the regressive forces trying to bring back the monarchy which can't be good for anyone.
I wish my government would ban those attention traps too...
Or perhaps less hyperbolicly, I wish people wouldn't use those platforms for their valuable free speech, and perhaps save their words for only the most valuable of utterances. But then they would all be here on HN. ;)
> The demonstration turned violent when some protesters entered the Parliament complex, prompting police to resort to baton charges, tear gas shells and rubber bullets to disperse the crowd, eyewitnesses said.
14 people dead from so-called "non-lethal" means. How do 14 people end up dead without the police coming with intent to do harm?
> The prime minister said the party is not against social media, “but what cannot be accepted is those doing business in Nepal, making money, and yet not complying with the law”.
I accept that there is corruption and manipulation by the government, but experience tells us also that these companies may be avoiding taxes towards zero.
I think it is a fair question: why is this allowed to stay on the front page while the deaths of people in Gaza is not? Israel just killed a bunch of journalists for organizations like the Associated Press in a double tap strike on a hospital and we're not allowed to discuss it?
Compared to nearby poor nations, Nepal is safe and its people are perceived to be welcoming. It's the only serious candidate for being a ski-nation in all of mainland Asia. If Nepal wanted, it could transform itself into a Bali style tourist destination and ascend towards being a middle economy. Unlike India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, which have to solve 1-billion-people scale problems, at 30 million, Nepal can resort to scaled down solutions.
Nepal's refusal to leverage the (few) advantages of its geography is baffling.
The internal politics are even more bizarre. As a communist-adjacent nation, it has a closed off economy with deep suspicion towards free markets. Yet, the national messaging alternates between blaming India or China for all their problems. The local populace (like every populace) eats this up. From my observations, neither nation affects Nepal's economics much. (national security is a separate conversation)
> protests reflect young people's widespread frustration with government action to tackle corruption and boost economic opportunities.
South Asia is coming off a recent protest->overthrow movement in Bangladesh. The youth protesters had similar complaints. Yet, the outcome was an even less democratic system which now owed favors to the violent parts of the society that helped complete the ouster. Similarly, Nepal has a history of political instability and violent ousters, most of which had led of very little economic change.
The youth's complaints are valid and I support their protests. However, do the protesters have an outcome in mind ? They want an improved economy. But, will they be okay with opening Nepal up to free markets ? This may mean selling resort building contracts to major western ski companies. It may mean opening unsafe sweatshops for Adidas to make shoes there. It may mean resource exploration by foreign mining companies.
I say this, because this is a South Asian disease. We want our nations to have a strong economy. But, economic liberalization can sometimes look like colonization, and this hurts the ego of proud global-south nations. We want progress, while keeping all foreign influence at bay. We want social welfare, but the nation is bankrupt. It's paradoxical. When our nations do move towards markets, it happens at gunpoint (1991) or with steep political costs (Farm Bill, GST) to the the incumbent.
Not sure what the solution is here. But, the last decade has made me suspicious towards protest movements that do not have positive policy outcomes in mind. The student's anger is valid, but impressionable students are the the time-honored vanguard used by more powerful opposition to trigger coups.
> It's the only serious candidate for being a ski-nation in all of mainland Asia
Indian Himalayas have ski resorts.
> If Nepal wanted, it could transform itself into a Bali style tourist destination and ascend towards being a middle economy.
Landlocked country with little natural resources. Who's funding this project? Watch a YouTube about the Kathmandu-Pokhara road. Infrastructure is not easy there.
> Nepal's refusal to leverage the (few) advantages of its geography is baffling.
They grow rice on hills, have a thriving mountaineering ecosystem, and build dense cities in the valleys large enough to support them. How are they not leveraging them?
> As a communist-adjacent nation, it has a closed off economy with deep suspicion towards free markets.
The county to their south went this way after the Raj, for what I believe are fair reasons. I can see how that influenced Nepal's hesitancy to open up more to international brands.
> Yet, the national messaging alternates between blaming India or China for all their problems.
They aren't wrong! India had "interstate entry taxes" up until 2017 - taxes that cargo had to pay in each state on the way to the ports. It wasn't even the just the national governments making life harder to Nepali, it was individual states!
> However, do the protesters have an outcome in mind
Their anger is justification enough. It's tough for college graduates in the region to find a career that matches their education level.
> But, will they be okay with opening Nepal up to free markets?
Nepal isn't as closed to free markets as you keep insinuating. There are malls with Asian brands where people can go shop. Not having as many American brands makes sense given the logistics problems. There are western restaurants. There are western hotel brands. There are Indian hotel brands.
> This may mean selling resort building contracts to major western ski companies.
Taj, Oberoi, Leela (Indian resort brands) could probably build a wonderful one. And they haven't, I presume they have the numbers demonstrating this doesn't work economically.
> It may mean opening unsafe sweatshops for Adidas to make shoes there.
There's no world where that makes sense economically. See my note about India previous state tariffs/state taxes. Just presume there's all sorts of hidden middlemen between KTM and ports.
> It may mean resource exploration by foreign mining companies.
China would be there already if it was viable (read more about the few roads north to China)
> with steep political costs (Farm Bill, GST) to the the incumbent.
Your wording makes me think you are Indian. If I'm correct, The best thing you can do is encourage more Indians to go enjoy what Nepal has to offer now, so they can afford to invest in some of the improvements you propose :)
To the Western-minded or the Third World-elite the exploitation of the Global South is just the trivial past, tut-tut, nevermind those centuries—what is happening now, and only domestically and narrowly “corruption” (of course prominently featured on this submission) is what matters.
Even in the case when the exploitation never ended.
Every major global news outlet is portraying Nepal’s protest as being against a “social media ban.” That is misleading. Even most large local media houses are pushing the same narrative—which is not surprising, since many of them serve as PRs agents for political parties.
A bit about Nepal—the government here is run by a bunch of old farts. They are deeply corrupt and will do anything, legal or not, to protect their positions and continue embezzling the national budget. They lack accountability because they know they can/and have gotten away with anything. Example of a recent one [1]. Their children live lavishly, flexing their designer bags and watches, while the commoners struggle working tough jobs overseas just to survive.
They know that by controlling social media—as they already did with TikTok—they can censor any news about their corruption (which is a norm here) easily and keep the people in dark and in their favor. Now, they want Meta and Google to comply with their agenda and with the election coming, they need this bad!
This protest was never about a “social media ban.” It was against years and years of corruption, embezzlement and censorship. It was supposed to be peaceful. But politics here is a dirty game, and these veterans are seasoned pros. They hired goons to infiltrate the peaceful crowds, cause chaos and damage public property—a very old tactic here. That is how the demonstration spiraled out of control.
If you want to hear the voices of real people, look at r/Nepal and r/NepalSocial on Reddit.
And ask yourself—do you really think people are ready to risk their lives just for social media?
The count is 19. And it's mostly students, few of who were still in their school uniform. Many head injuries, and death by bullets on the head. This is the darkest day in Nepal!
Edit: And the protest was against corrupt politicians, not social media ban.
The count's gone up. I didn't go to the protest but the friends that went say they're probably under-counting considering how many shots were fired right in front of them.
In the meantime, Russia erected a copy of the great Chinese firewall with DPI and everything - blocking YouTube, foreign news, most voice chat apps, most vpn traffic, and even actively dropping ssh connections when too much bidirectional sustained traffic is being detected.
38 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 80.7 ms ] threadIt reads like: citizens have been protesting the government using social media, government desperate to curb dissent bans social media, dissent is now on the streets..
Or maybe it's as straightforward as the media has been reporting.
This is all so disheartening.
I was there a few hours ago. It was a class struggle, but it was bound to be spun up as "kids don't get facebook and throw tantrum".
No kings.
14 people dead from so-called "non-lethal" means. How do 14 people end up dead without the police coming with intent to do harm?
I accept that there is corruption and manipulation by the government, but experience tells us also that these companies may be avoiding taxes towards zero.
Quite ironic to choose this day to start trying to make an entire nation digitally illiterate.
(reposting as a top level comment, thanks to original poster)
Compared to nearby poor nations, Nepal is safe and its people are perceived to be welcoming. It's the only serious candidate for being a ski-nation in all of mainland Asia. If Nepal wanted, it could transform itself into a Bali style tourist destination and ascend towards being a middle economy. Unlike India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, which have to solve 1-billion-people scale problems, at 30 million, Nepal can resort to scaled down solutions.
Nepal's refusal to leverage the (few) advantages of its geography is baffling.
The internal politics are even more bizarre. As a communist-adjacent nation, it has a closed off economy with deep suspicion towards free markets. Yet, the national messaging alternates between blaming India or China for all their problems. The local populace (like every populace) eats this up. From my observations, neither nation affects Nepal's economics much. (national security is a separate conversation)
> protests reflect young people's widespread frustration with government action to tackle corruption and boost economic opportunities.
South Asia is coming off a recent protest->overthrow movement in Bangladesh. The youth protesters had similar complaints. Yet, the outcome was an even less democratic system which now owed favors to the violent parts of the society that helped complete the ouster. Similarly, Nepal has a history of political instability and violent ousters, most of which had led of very little economic change.
The youth's complaints are valid and I support their protests. However, do the protesters have an outcome in mind ? They want an improved economy. But, will they be okay with opening Nepal up to free markets ? This may mean selling resort building contracts to major western ski companies. It may mean opening unsafe sweatshops for Adidas to make shoes there. It may mean resource exploration by foreign mining companies.
I say this, because this is a South Asian disease. We want our nations to have a strong economy. But, economic liberalization can sometimes look like colonization, and this hurts the ego of proud global-south nations. We want progress, while keeping all foreign influence at bay. We want social welfare, but the nation is bankrupt. It's paradoxical. When our nations do move towards markets, it happens at gunpoint (1991) or with steep political costs (Farm Bill, GST) to the the incumbent.
Not sure what the solution is here. But, the last decade has made me suspicious towards protest movements that do not have positive policy outcomes in mind. The student's anger is valid, but impressionable students are the the time-honored vanguard used by more powerful opposition to trigger coups.
Indian Himalayas have ski resorts.
> If Nepal wanted, it could transform itself into a Bali style tourist destination and ascend towards being a middle economy.
Landlocked country with little natural resources. Who's funding this project? Watch a YouTube about the Kathmandu-Pokhara road. Infrastructure is not easy there.
> Nepal's refusal to leverage the (few) advantages of its geography is baffling.
They grow rice on hills, have a thriving mountaineering ecosystem, and build dense cities in the valleys large enough to support them. How are they not leveraging them?
> As a communist-adjacent nation, it has a closed off economy with deep suspicion towards free markets.
The county to their south went this way after the Raj, for what I believe are fair reasons. I can see how that influenced Nepal's hesitancy to open up more to international brands.
> Yet, the national messaging alternates between blaming India or China for all their problems.
They aren't wrong! India had "interstate entry taxes" up until 2017 - taxes that cargo had to pay in each state on the way to the ports. It wasn't even the just the national governments making life harder to Nepali, it was individual states!
> However, do the protesters have an outcome in mind
Their anger is justification enough. It's tough for college graduates in the region to find a career that matches their education level.
> But, will they be okay with opening Nepal up to free markets?
Nepal isn't as closed to free markets as you keep insinuating. There are malls with Asian brands where people can go shop. Not having as many American brands makes sense given the logistics problems. There are western restaurants. There are western hotel brands. There are Indian hotel brands.
> This may mean selling resort building contracts to major western ski companies.
Taj, Oberoi, Leela (Indian resort brands) could probably build a wonderful one. And they haven't, I presume they have the numbers demonstrating this doesn't work economically.
> It may mean opening unsafe sweatshops for Adidas to make shoes there.
There's no world where that makes sense economically. See my note about India previous state tariffs/state taxes. Just presume there's all sorts of hidden middlemen between KTM and ports.
> It may mean resource exploration by foreign mining companies.
China would be there already if it was viable (read more about the few roads north to China)
> with steep political costs (Farm Bill, GST) to the the incumbent.
Your wording makes me think you are Indian. If I'm correct, The best thing you can do is encourage more Indians to go enjoy what Nepal has to offer now, so they can afford to invest in some of the improvements you propose :)
Even in the case when the exploitation never ended.
As with pouring water, the world keeps spinning, and the strife goes on.
Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism Hardcover
https://www.amazon.com/Careless-People-Cautionary-Power-Idea...
A bit about Nepal—the government here is run by a bunch of old farts. They are deeply corrupt and will do anything, legal or not, to protect their positions and continue embezzling the national budget. They lack accountability because they know they can/and have gotten away with anything. Example of a recent one [1]. Their children live lavishly, flexing their designer bags and watches, while the commoners struggle working tough jobs overseas just to survive.
They know that by controlling social media—as they already did with TikTok—they can censor any news about their corruption (which is a norm here) easily and keep the people in dark and in their favor. Now, they want Meta and Google to comply with their agenda and with the election coming, they need this bad!
This protest was never about a “social media ban.” It was against years and years of corruption, embezzlement and censorship. It was supposed to be peaceful. But politics here is a dirty game, and these veterans are seasoned pros. They hired goons to infiltrate the peaceful crowds, cause chaos and damage public property—a very old tactic here. That is how the demonstration spiraled out of control.
If you want to hear the voices of real people, look at r/Nepal and r/NepalSocial on Reddit.
And ask yourself—do you really think people are ready to risk their lives just for social media?
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/NepalSocial/comments/1n9ra2q/hit_an...
Edit: And the protest was against corrupt politicians, not social media ban.
PS fancy seeing you here!