Ever since the government of Nepal announced to shut down social media, a heated debate has started across the country. When taking the decision to close global platforms like Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube and X, the government has adopted a strategy of pressure rather than communication.

Today, social networks are not only platforms for debate on political and social issues, but also a means of personal and social communication. The first thing that the government must understand and does not understand is that social media is not only a basic platform for social debate, it has become the lifestyle of citizens.

where a person can tell the world that he cooked when he wanted to cook, was hungry when he didn't get food, walked when he wanted to walk, shouted when he wanted to protest, kept quiet when he wanted to be silent. All these are the voices of citizens of their own style, time and nature. No excuse to shut them down can be acceptable. 

Today, social media is not only a means of entertainment, but it is also a way for parents in the village to communicate with their children abroad on a daily basis. Parents living in villages rely on these platforms to communicate audio-visually every day with their children who have gone abroad for study or employment.

Similarly, social networks are being used more and more to express their views on government decisions, public concerns, groups or personal issues. This is a digital environment. Many have run their small-big businesses from this. Many have identified.

Nowadays, social media platforms have become powerful means of business promotion. Such platforms are intuitive, user-friendly and modern. This is also the market where everything from 'mother's pickle' to 'mango sapling' is sold. This is also the hot market where artists promote their creations, students express their opinions and small entrepreneurs grow their businesses. With the closure of these platforms, the lifestyle of millions of people is sure to be disrupted.

In this way, social media, where people can responsibly oppose the government, cannot be stopped. Likewise, the government does not have the right to narrow the field given by technology to citizens who are looking for entrepreneurship and employment opportunities. 

Second, many social media platforms are not listed in Nepal. Because of this, those users are financially cheated and socially humiliated every day. The responsibility of protecting their personality is also the responsibility of the state. Whenever the victim becomes a victim, he only expresses his screams, runs to the police and courts and gets tired and other citizens remain silent. Since there is no representative or point of contact for the

platform, no one from the company has been held accountable. Therefore, the initiative of the government to list those platforms in Nepal is natural. 

The government has issued notices five times since then asking the platforms to be listed on 15th December 2080. But even after the repeated warnings of the government, the companies were not interested in registering in Nepal. There are two reasons for this, either they have not seen their market in Nepal or they have not accepted the Government of Nepal as a reliable institution. Whatever the reason may be, the government of Nepal does not have the facility to ignore the organization that is recognized around the world.  There is another

issue, even though the Ministry of Communications has asked for registration, the companies that have not come are connected to Nepal's tax system and they are also paying taxes to the Nepalese government. Why are companies linked to taxation not linked to content regulation? It is also necessary for the government of Nepal to pay attention to their informal response that the dialogue and internal preparations for this were convoluted, unreasonable, threatening, extremely harsh, and in a way that undermined the universal recognition of freedom of expression. The laws that social media companies are trying to keep distance from are - 'Guidelines for regulating the use of social networks, 2080' and 'Bill for regulating the operation, use and regulation of social networks, 2081'.

Both these laws express the strict intent of the government. The essence of the guidelines and the bill is to curtail the freedom of expression guaranteed by the constitution, curb the flow of ideas and give severe punishment if it is violated. For example, in the bill, it is said that false or misleading information should not be disseminated to the detriment of the national interest, and if it is done, it is said that it will be punished with imprisonment up to five years or a fine of up to 1.5 million rupees or both. Here, national interest is an abstract subject and there are no boundaries to define it.

In the same directory, some content is prohibited in publishing and broadcasting. It is said that if the social media platform receives a complaint about the publication or transmission of such content, it will be identified and removed within 24 hours. It has been said that an 'algorithm' should be developed on social media to prevent the publication or transmission of information, advertisements and content that is against the prevailing laws.

Such provisions may restrict the use and practice of those platforms globally. Supporting the government's control-oriented desire may call into question the global standards and credibility of those platforms. Therefore, when the government calls for listing, it seems as if it is calling for the approval of control-oriented thinking. That is the problem.

Social media platforms used threatening language rather than encouraging and mediating language for listing. Which exposes our view of global companies, which is not positive. By shutting down the most vital means of freedom of expression, a negative message can be sent to the Nepalese government globally. Indicators that measure civil liberties may be pushed back.