The government's policy and intention to close social media
Many of our ruling parties feel that they came to power forever
Why did the government initially consider the option of banning while regulating? This must be reviewed within the ruling coalition, the Congress-UML. Social media companies should also take the initiative to protect the personal rights of ordinary users while addressing the interests of Nepal.
The government's decision to register social media, or else regulate or close it, has basically taken two legal bases. One, the Directive 2080 on Regulating the Use of Social Media. Two, the latest order of the Supreme Court.
The Ministry of Communications and Information Technology has already directed the Telecommunication Authority to close 26 social media networks, including Facebook, X, and Instagram, based on these two legal bases.
Internet service providers will probably implement the authority's letter by tomorrow, Friday evening. After that, most of the social media networks that are running like parts of our own bodies will no longer be active. Only a few networks, including Viber and TikTok, will be options.
While Minister for Communications and Information Technology Prithvi Subba Gurung, who is also the Deputy General Secretary of UML, was giving the directive, his own party MP and former Minister for Communications Gokul Baskota was heard to sarcastically say, ‘The government has started preparing to make North Korea.’
Communists often like to exaggerate. We do not think that the country will become North Korea if the above-mentioned networks are shut down. This is the interesting and strange aspect of Nepal’s politics, that rivals form the government together. And then an opposition is born from within the party.
If we analyze former Minister Baskota’s comments outside the power struggle within UML, there is certainly a fear that civil liberties will be compromised under the pretext of binding networks within the legal system.
A common question that can be raised about network operators, including Facebook, is that they do not have to register and be regulated according to the laws prevailing there in various other countries, let alone register in Nepal, let alone even give a proper answer? Isn't it necessary for multinational companies that operate smoothly in Nepal to be registered in accordance with the rules? Or do these companies consider themselves above the country itself?
Many in power, including him, are not happy that social media users who once praised Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli day and night are now being criticized.
Companies such as Meta should enter into effective dialogue to be included in Nepal's legal system and registered. They should also take the initiative to protect the personal rights of ordinary users by addressing Nepal's concerns.
This is necessary because the style of network operators who deprive themselves of financial benefits by deriving income from the content of Nepali network users and even content creators is not logical. Since such social media platforms are not tied to the formal tax system, money is being smuggled through illegal channels. They should consider this aspect themselves.
But when considering these aspects, our question is not only aimed at network operators. The government of our country, which is faced with the responsibility of implementing the Directive 2080 on the systematic use of social media and the latest mandate of the Supreme Court, is not the only one. The more important responsibility is to protect and implement the nation's constitution, which must fully respect the freedom and privacy of citizens. And even the interpretations of the court cannot deviate from the original spirit of the constitution.
If we listen to the views of Communications Minister Prithvi Subba Gurung, he seems to be as tolerant of the different opinions of citizens as he seems to be towards Meta and other network operators. Otherwise, instead of repeatedly issuing information, he would have adopted digital diplomacy through another effective channel by now.
Let us remember that many in power, including him, do not like the fact that social media users who once praised Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli day and night are now criticizing him.
Many of our rulers feel that they have come to power forever. The momentary lust for power makes them addicted to the level of blindness. What needs to be kept in mind is that at the moment, the Maoist Center is in opposition and is opposing the government's move. Whereas earlier, when the government took a similar step to ban TikTok, Pushpa Kamal Dahal was the Prime Minister, and Rekha Sharma was the Minister of Communications.
Be it the press or social media - the voice of the citizen is dominant there. The mobile phones in the pockets are each person's mouthpiece. Not everyone's voice reaches the media. Some entrepreneurs here need Facebook, Twitter (X) not only to run the media, but also to promote the activities of the Prime Minister himself.
We press workers edit the content, and then publish it. On social media, sometimes it reaches a level of indiscriminateness. Some of the fake ID holders do not only express themselves freely, they also do character assassination. Even though organizations such as Meta have created community guidelines, it is not uncommon to worry about where the flood of unedited content will lead society. That concern is not only of the state, but also of the citizens.
But the content should be moderated within 24 hours of the letter being sent to the police showing this. Why promote the authoritarian trend of "take it or leave it"? Why make the government unnaturally stronger than the citizens by showing Meta or another company? What bravery is there in silencing the voices of the citizens who elect the government!
There is no reason for social media platforms to be forced to meet certain standards of the state. Their method of taking everything they can from the state and giving nothing to the state is not right.
Gurung's speech and behavior in the process of regulating social media, starting from the Media Council Bill, advocates for freedom of expression directed by the government. What Prime Minister Oli himself should consider is that the question here is not only about Meta and other big technology companies, but about those common people, some of whom cannot read or write.
They have not been able to connect with the government's goal of declaring a fully literate nation. They connect with their children and grandchildren abroad through video calls just by seeing pictures on Facebook or WhatsApp. They run small retail businesses.
We do not have our own social media. There are internationally established platforms, which are run by common people. Some of the government's mechanisms, their emails, etc. are connected. Why did the government initially consider the option of banning them while regulating? This must be reviewed within the ruling coalition, the Congress-UML.
There is no reason for social media platforms to be forced to meet certain standards set by the state. Their method of taking everything they can from the state and giving nothing to the state is not right. It is the government's responsibility to bring them into dialogue through technology diplomacy and regulate those who do not. This responsibility cannot be fulfilled by simply posting information on the wall. There are many technology enthusiasts in this country. It is better to ask elected representatives among them to communicate with the relevant companies!
