KATHMANDU: On September 4, 2025, the Government of Nepal imposed a ban on 26 major social media platforms citing failure to comply with mandatory registration with the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology.

The ban follows a Supreme Court directive requiring all platforms to register to ensure legal accountability, content moderation, and protection against cybercrime, hate speech, and misinformation.

The decision has sparked debate over freedom of expression, IT sector disruption, technical enforcement challenges, and global media scrutiny.

This explainer will provide a comprehensive and fact-based overview of Nepal’s 2025 social media ban, covering the government’s rationale, technical enforcement challenges, impacts on the IT sector and digital economy, local and international reactions, implications for freedom of expression, and the broader socio-economic and legal consequences for citizens, businesses, and startups.

Which social media platforms are affected by the ban?

Nepal’s government has directed internet service providers to block access to 26 unregistered social media platforms, including major global names like Facebook, X, YouTube, and Instagram.

Only TikTok, Viber, Nimbuzz, WeTalk, and PopoLive, along with platforms undergoing registration like Telegram and Global Diary, remain functional.

The Ministry emphasized that repeated requests to register were ignored, leaving no choice but to enforce the ban. This move affects both personal communication and professional activities in Nepal, including online business, digital marketing, education, health campaigns, and emergency alerts, highlighting the central role of these platforms in daily life.

Why did the government impose the ban?

The ban is a direct response to the Supreme Court’s order that all social media platforms operating in Nepal must register locally to ensure accountability.

Registration ensures platforms have local representatives for content moderation, complaint handling, and compliance with Nepali law. Authorities argued that unregistered platforms risk spreading hate speech, misinformation, and cybercrime, and may operate without oversight.

Repeated government letters, diplomatic engagement, and registration reminders to major companies like Meta, Alphabet, and LinkedIn were ignored.

Consequently, the government applied restrictions to enforce the law, signaling that compliance with Nepali legal frameworks is mandatory for platforms serving Nepali users.

 What is the social media registration process in Nepal?

Platforms must submit online applications for registration, appoint a local contact person for grievances, and assign a responsible officer for self-regulation.

The Social Media Platform Regulation mandates these steps to ensure legal accountability and content moderation.

Registration allows platforms to continue operating while providing Nepali authorities with mechanisms to address complaints and regulate harmful content.

Companies like TikTok, Viber, and PopoLive completed registration, while Meta, Alphabet, X, Reddit, and LinkedIn failed to comply by the September 3 deadline.

Platforms that remain unregistered face closure, while registration ensures operational continuity and integration into Nepal’s digital governance system.

How have major social media companies responded?

Major platforms such as Meta, Alphabet, X, YouTube, Reddit, and LinkedIn have largely ignored Nepal’s registration requests. Despite repeated government letters, warnings, and meetings, these companies have not appointed local representatives or followed local legal requirements.

The Ministry of Communications emphasized that repeated non-compliance forced the government to enforce restrictions. By contrast, TikTok, Viber, Nimbuzz, and PopoLive registered and appointed complaint officers.

The lack of response from global tech giants demonstrates both the challenges of local enforcement and the diplomatic sensitivity involved in aligning international platforms with Nepalese regulations while balancing free expression and accountability.

Will the ban fully block unregistered platforms?

Technically, ISPs have been instructed to block the unregistered platforms. However, full enforcement is gradual, as seen during the previous TikTok ban, which took nearly a month to be effective.

Users can bypass restrictions using VPNs, which has historically increased international bandwidth usage and limited the ban’s impact.

Local caching servers previously helped manage bandwidth, but VPN traffic bypasses these, creating additional costs for ISPs. Although the ban reduces direct access, it cannot entirely prevent platform use.

Users often migrate to alternate platforms, which demonstrates the limitations of technical enforcement in the digital age.

How did TikTok’s earlier restriction illustrate enforcement challenges?

During the previous TikTok restriction, blocking the platform took nearly a month, as large ISPs could comply faster than smaller operators.

While local bandwidth usage decreased temporarily, VPN traffic surged, consuming international bandwidth. TikTok previously used local cache servers to reduce traffic costs, but the ban diverted data internationally, increasing costs for ISPs.

This experience indicates that sudden bans on major platforms disrupt traffic management and are only partially effective.

Users can circumvent restrictions, and alternative platforms often absorb migrated audiences, creating ongoing challenges for regulators enforcing nationwide digital controls.

How does the ban affect Nepal’s IT ecosystem?

The ban negatively impacts digital innovation, entrepreneurship, and the IT sector. Platforms like Hamro Patro, widely used by Nepalis and NRNs, face operational risks.

Social media drives content creation, digital marketing, e-commerce, and community engagement, providing income opportunities for thousands of young entrepreneurs earning in dollars.

Startups and SMEs rely on these platforms for promotion, sales, and customer engagement. Abrupt restrictions reduce investor confidence, disrupt operations, and may encourage brain drain as skilled professionals seek opportunities abroad.

The move undermines Nepal’s “Digital Nepal” vision and the IT decade agenda, contradicting government goals for digital prosperity.

How are economic activities impacted?

Thousands of young Nepalis earn in dollars through platforms like Instagram and YouTube. Abrupt bans threaten their livelihoods.

SMEs, startups, and digital businesses rely on social media for marketing, sales, and customer service. Closure interrupts these revenue streams and hinders growth.

Advertisements, digital campaigns, and online customer engagement are affected. Reduced business activity can lead to unemployment, economic instability, and decreased foreign and domestic investment.

IT sector disruption due to the ban could have long-term consequences for Nepal’s emerging digital economy and its global competitiveness.

What are the broader impacts on freedom of speech?

The ban restricts access to platforms central to public discourse, journalism, activism, and business. Blanket closures without stakeholder consultation undermine lawful expression and civic participation.

Critics argue that unilateral enforcement demonstrates authoritarian tendencies, curtailing freedom of expression, citizen rights, and democratic engagement.

Platforms like Facebook and Instagram serve as hubs for public debate, information dissemination, and minority voices.

By restricting access, the government limits citizens’ ability to exercise their rights, share opinions, and access information, raising concerns over digital censorship and overreach.

How did international media respond?

International outlets presented mixed perspectives. Reuters and The Straits Times highlighted regulatory goals, such as curbing hate speech and cybercrime.

Al Jazeera noted non-compliance as a reason for the ban. The Hindu criticized the move as suppressing dissent, while NDTV and Indian Express emphasized the legal compliance aspect and its impact on freedom of expression.

PBS highlighted controversy over civil liberties, and Anadolu Agency emphasized Supreme Court directives and local accountability.

Overall, international media framed the ban as both a legal enforcement and a politically sensitive issue affecting digital freedom.

How did MPs, FNJ, local journalists and stakeholders react?

Members of Parliament and media coalitions, including Digital Freedom Coalition, expressed serious concern.

Arbitrary enforcement threatens transparency, citizen rights, and digital economy sustainability. Parliamentary figures suggested dialogue and diplomatic engagement rather than threats, emphasizing long-term solutions.

The Federation of Nepali Journalists (FNJ), along with 22 other civil society organizations advocating for freedom of expression and the right to information, has strongly opposed the government’s decision to block social media platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, over non-registration.

In a statement released on Thursday, FNJ—the umbrella organization representing Nepali journalists—said the government’s action threatens press freedom and infringes upon citizens’ right to access information.

Stakeholders warned that sudden closures risk digital freedom, citizen participation, and business continuity.

How does the ban challenge technical enforcement?

Complete enforcement is difficult. Past experience with TikTok shows ISPs, especially smaller operators, struggle to block platforms quickly. VPN use bypasses restrictions, increasing international bandwidth consumption.

While local bandwidth usage may drop temporarily, bypass traffic often returns to previous levels. Users migrate to alternative platforms, diluting enforcement efforts.

Technical challenges, including server management, bandwidth costs, and cross-platform migration, illustrate that the ban may not fully achieve its objectives, despite being legally mandated.

Which platforms remain operational or partially exempt?

TikTok, Viber, Nimbuzz, WeTalk, and PopoLive operate legally after completing registration. Telegram and Global Diary are temporarily functional as registration processes proceed.

Compliance allows platforms to continue operating while adhering to legal and regulatory obligations, including appointing local complaint officers and moderating content.

Unregistered global platforms like Facebook, X, and YouTube face ongoing closure until they comply.

This partial exemption reflects a phased approach to regulation and encourages compliance without immediately disrupting digital communication and business entirely.

How does the ban affect Nepal’s digital economy?

Social media closures disrupt online marketing, e-commerce, and content creation. Thousands of entrepreneurs and SMEs depend on these platforms for income, customer engagement, and business growth.

Abrupt restrictions threaten revenue streams, job security, and investor confidence. Digital marketing, online sales, and content monetization are impacted.

The ban jeopardizes innovation, slows digital transformation, and risks long-term economic setbacks.

Compliance with legal frameworks is necessary, but sudden enforcement without consultation endangers the livelihoods of digitally dependent businesses and individuals across Nepal.

How does the ban reflect authoritarian tendencies and risks to civil liberties?

Nepal’s government imposed the ban unilaterally, ignoring stakeholder consultation, transparency, and dialogue.

Threats to block platforms without phased engagement, oversight, or collaboration demonstrate an authoritarian approach.

Blanket restrictions limit access to vital communication, business, and civic platforms. Critics argue the policy overreaches into civil liberties, suppresses free expression, restricts democratic participation, and risks widespread censorship.

The measure, though framed as legal enforcement, raises serious concerns over Nepal’s commitment to digital rights, freedom of speech, and balanced governance in the digital era.

Are government and people still using social media despite the ban?
Yes. Even after the ban, social media continues to be widely used in Nepal, demonstrating both public adaptability and regulatory irony.

The Prime Minister’s Secretariat, for example, shared his address at the inaugural session of his party’s second statute convention in Godavari via Facebook and WhatsApp groups, showing that official communication still relies on blocked platforms.

National media outlets, including Nepal News, picked up and circulated these videos, alongside other mainstream sources, indicating that the government ban has not fully curtailed content dissemination.

Meanwhile, citizens are increasingly using VPNs, alternative DNS servers (Google Public DNS, Cisco OpenDNS, Cloudflare DNS, Quad9), and other tools to bypass restrictions, though many remain uncertain about legal consequences.

This scenario highlights both enforcement challenges and the continued centrality of social media for everyday communication, news, and business activities.