Social media has become an important means of sharing ideas, information and expression in today's digital age. However, due to its misuse, misinformation, hate speech and cybercrime, the debate over its regulation has intensified in various countries.

A social wave has been created after the registration of the 'Bill to regulate the operation, use and regulation of social networks' in the National Assembly. The government is protesting that it is showing signs of imposing a policy of control under the pretext of organizing social networks. On the other hand, the government argues that organizing social media will promote social harmony, cultural tolerance and good governance. There is also a debate about the need for a legal system to regulate the operation and use of social networks in a dignified, safe and orderly manner.

In Nepal, there is a tendency to talk about regulation when in power, but to use social media a lot when in opposition. It is a double standard to try to control social media, which has been an effective means of criticizing the government in the past, after coming to power. In particular, the government's attempts to curtail freedom of expression under the guise of jargon like 'cyber security' and 'social harmony' is a matter of grave concern. That is why the suspicion that some of the provisions of the bill proposed by the government of Nepal may curtail civil liberties is certainly increasing. Social media regulation is necessary, but arbitrary interference by the state in its name is a violation of civil rights. Countries such as India, China, and Russia have adopted a policy of banning, selecting or controlling content on social networks under various pretexts. This has led to widespread criticism that it has limited freedom of expression.

A democratic country like Nepal should learn from such examples and adopt a policy to ensure free speech. However, it is not advisable to leave this area completely untouched. Proper regulation is necessary to prevent misinformation, cyber crime, hate content and misleading propaganda. Such regulation should be in favor of a free press, investigative journalism and civil rights. Under the guise of regulation, criticism of the ruling party should not be allowed to reach the level of legislation. It would be more appropriate for an independent body or a multilateral structure to create a social media policy rather than controlling it with the sole authority of the government. It helps to strike a balance between government, civil society, technical experts, media and other stakeholders.

In a democratic country like Nepal, there is a need for responsible and transparent regulation to prevent abuse while promoting its positive aspects rather than banning social networks. If the government moves in the direction of infringing on civil liberties in the name of regulation, it can in turn lead to resentment, mistrust and rebellion. If we want to build a self-reliant and democratic society, the main priority now is to move towards regulation of social media in such a way as to keep critical consciousness alive rather than control by accepting healthy criticism. Instead of dividing the society by opposing or supporting, if the concerned parties including the government move forward to find a meeting point of agreement, the long-term solution to the current problem will be found.

– Techendra Adhikari , Biratnagar