Cutting the Cord as Catalyst
When Nepal’s government banned 26 social media platforms on September 4, 2025, officials believed they were solving a problem. Instead, they ignited a firestorm that would claim several lives, topple a prime minister, and demonstrate once again why digital censorship has become democracy’s most volatile policy mistake. Now analysing the current situation, it could be said that Nepal’s tragedy joins a growing global pattern where government attempts to control online discourse inevitably backfire, transforming manageable digital criticism into deadly street confrontations.
On account of the primary reason behind this unrest, just as the restrictions took effect, an online movement called “nepo kid” was gaining explosive momentum across Nepalese social media. This was happening in the context where young activists were sharing images of politicians’ children displaying lavish lifestyles, using hashtags and viral posts to expose the stark disconnect between Nepal’s struggling economy and its political elite’s wealth. Consequently, the government’s technical justification for the ban couldn’t mask its obvious intent of silencing embarrassing criticism that was resonating powerfully with Nepal’s youth.
From Lifeline to Landmine
It is important to acknowledge that for Nepal’s people, social media platforms weren’t luxury entertainment. They were essential infrastructure for family, economy, and democracy because approximately 7.5% of Nepal’s population living abroad as migrant workers, platforms like WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger served as vital communication channels connecting families separated by thousands of miles. On top of that, these weren’t casual connections since remittances from overseas workers represent a major source of Nepal’s national income, often coordinated through social media channels.
Another factor worth considering beyond economics is that social media has become the primary space for Nepal’s young people (who constitute 20.8% of the population in the 16-25 age group) to engage politically, especially in a country where traditional media often fails to hold power accountable. In this context, platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook provided unprecedented opportunities for citizens to document corruption, share information, and organize collective action.
Global Conflict Pattern
When it comes to analysing Nepal’s deadly confrontation, it is visible that it followed a similar script written in blood across multiple continents. For instance, when Myanmar’s military blocked Facebook in February 2021, protests escalated rather than subsided, ultimately leading to over 2,000 deaths and ongoing civil war. Similarly, Iran’s internet restrictions during the 2022 Mahsa Amini protests intensified rather than contained demonstrations, with authorities ultimately forced to partially restore access.
Interestingly, even in more established democracies, social media restrictions have proven counterproductive. For example, Turkey’s attempts to throttle internet access during the 2013 Gezi Park protests drove more people to physical demonstrations when they couldn’t communicate digitally. Not only this, but what is more perplexing is that India leads the world in implementing internet shutdowns, with 84 shutdowns recorded in 2024 alone. It goes without saying that the country has consistently used digital restrictions during various protest movements like the Farmer protest, Manipur violence and in the Kashmir region, which has experienced more than a hundred shutdowns during periods of unrest, often lasting weeks.
Additionally, Russia’s comprehensive social media bans following its Ukraine invasion have coincided with increased rather than decreased anti-war activism, forcing over 14,906 arrests in just the first month.
As a result, this consistent pattern reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how digital and physical resistance interact. Research has found that rather than providing governments with control, internet restrictions often serve as accelerants, transforming online dissent into street-level confrontation. When citizens can’t voice grievances digitally, they take to the streets. When families can’t communicate virtually, they gather physically to seek information. When economic activities are disrupted by digital restrictions, material hardships create additional reasons for protest. Lastly, Nepal’s security forces’ use of live ammunition against protesters demanding restored connectivity demonstrates how quickly these confrontations can escalate, and the very tools governments believe will prevent unrest often guarantee the worst.
Breaking the Cycle with Smart Technology Policies
When it comes to breaking the cycle, the solution requires governments to fundamentally rethink their relationship with digital platforms. The policy makers across the globe have to realise that instead of viewing social media as threats to be controlled, successful models can treat them as a democratic infrastructure requiring careful governance rather than blunt censorship. For example, Taiwan’s participatory democracy framework offers perhaps the most promising alternative in this regard.
Under former Digital Minister Audrey Tang, Taiwan developed vTaiwan, a platform enabling thousands of citizens to collaborate on policy solutions through machine learning-facilitated deliberation. It is worth noting that, rather than restricting criticism, the system channels it into constructive policy development. Its success can be acknowledged with the fact that over 30 contentious issues, ranging from financial technology regulation to ride-sharing rules, have been resolved through this process, transforming potential conflicts into collaborative solutions.
Similarly, Estonia demonstrates how transparency can replace censorship as the foundation of digital governance in the modern world. Only by requiring government openness rather than citizen silence, Estonia maintains the world’s highest internet freedom ranking while effectively managing digital challenges. These types of models assist in creating frameworks where citizens can trace who accesses their data, creating accountability without restricting access.
Another example worth mentioning is Germany’s Network Enforcement Act, which shows how targeted regulation can address genuine harms without broad censorship by focusing specifically on content violating existing criminal law, rather than vague “misinformation” categories and requiring graduated response times for different violation types. With the help of this act, Germany has avoided both under-regulation and over-censorship on social media and the internet.
Taking all these models into consideration, it is visible that these models share common principles such as transparency over secrecy, participation over exclusion, and precision over breadth. Ultimately, they recognise that democratic societies solve speech problems with better speech and stronger institutions, and not with less speech and more control over information mediums.
Rebooting Governance with Digital Democracy
It is unfortunate to see that Nepal’s government ultimately reversed its social media ban within days, but not before demonstrating the catastrophic costs of digital authoritarianism. The then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s resignation amid the crisis sends a clear message that “in the digital age, governments that restrict online freedoms risk their own survival.”
Overall, this pattern is becoming the new normal in democratic societies as citizens increasingly view digital rights as fundamental rather than privileges, making restrictions particularly explosive politically. As far as taking the case of Gen Z, politicians around the world have to realise that young people, especially who constitute growing portions of electorates worldwide, treat social media access as essential infrastructure rather than optional services.
Understanding the nuances behind social media and the internet, forward-thinking governments are already adapting, and countries investing in participatory digital platforms, transparency requirements, and collaborative fact-checking are building more resilient democratic institutions with the help of these technologies. On the other hand, those clinging to censorship-first approaches are creating the conditions for their own political destruction.
To sum up, Nepal’s tragedy offers a stark choice for governments worldwide: embrace digital democracy’s messy vitality or face its explosive consequences. The lives lost in Kathmandu’s streets stand as a monument to the costs of choosing control over connection, censorship over collaboration. Last but not the least, in the digital age, governments that restrict their citizens’ voices risk losing their own. Therefore, the lesson is quite clear here: “digital freedom and democratic stability are not competing values; they are inseparable necessities.”
The article is co-written by Sagar Vishnoi, Sudhanshu Kumar, and Dr. Monojit Das.
Sagar Vishnoi is the Co-founder and Director of Future Shift Labs.
Sudhanshu Kumar is a Subject Matter Expert on AI, CyberWarfare and CyberSecurity at the Centre for Joint Warfare Studies, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.
Dr. Monojit Das is an independent researcher on cyber governance.
