On September 8th, 2025, the Nepali government abruptly blocked access to 26 social media platforms. This included WhatsApp, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, and X. It was a result of the government’s attempt to force platforms into local registration and tighter state control, officially framed as a measure against “misinformation” and “fake accounts,” but widely seen as a move to silence dissent (1,2).

The public response was explosive; thousands of young Nepalis took to the streets. The ban was described as an attack on their right to speak, organize, and exist online. It brought longstanding frustrations about corruption and inequality to the surface. According to a 28-year-old who attended the protest: “While the trigger for the protest was the recent social media ban, the long history of corruption and bad governance is the main reason that thousands of people have come out on the streets to protest,” (16). In the weeks before, a campaign on TikTok and Reddit had gone viral, exposing the luxury lifestyles of politicians’ children. Their photos of trips and expensive cars hit a nerve with young Nepalis struggling with corruption and lack of opportunity (15).

At least 72 people were killed in the protests, and at least 2000 injured. Within 24 hours, the ban was revoked. The case of Nepal shows how fragile digital access is under political pressure – and it is far from unique.

A global rise in shutdowns

Nepal is not an exception, but rather part of a large trend. Internet and social media shutdowns are on the rise worldwide. In 2024 alone, there were 296 documented disruptions of social media in 54 countries, the highest number ever recorded. This is an intense increase, compared to 2020, where 93 shutdowns in 21 countries were recorded (14).

Several factors explain the growth of this trend. Authoritarian regimes increasingly use shutdowns to suppress opposition and maintain control during protests, elections, or periods of civil unrest; for example, Myanmar’s military imposed dozens of shutdowns to isolate the population during nationwide protests (19). Conflict and security concerns also drive shutdowns, as seen in Russia, where restrictions on digital communication were used to limit dissent following domestic and cross-border security events (20). In Pakistan, access to X was blocked for more than a year, spanning national elections (3). In India, Ethiopia, and Mauritania, rolling blackouts have become a normalized instrument of governance (5,6,7,8,9). Governments usually frame these measures in terms of “national security,” “stability,” or “fighting disinformation.” However, in practice shutdowns silence dissent, obstruct independent journalism, and fracture public trust.

While more common in authoritarian regimes, similar measures are emerging in democratic countries. In Senegal, for example, mobile internet and TikTok were repeatedly cut during opposition protests (4). And in the United States, authorities considered restricting or banning TikTok over data privacy and national security concerns (21).

Consequences of bans

The consequences of bans are not only digital. On a societal level, shutdowns directly restrict fundamental rights: freedom of expression, assembly, and access to information. Communities are cut off from crucial communication channels, and blackouts often fuel misinformation and rumor-driven panic. Social connectivity suffers as families, friends, and civic networks lose the platforms that help them stay in contact.

The impact on the economy is also significant. Businesses increasingly rely on digital platforms for marketing, customer engagement, and operations. Interruptions to services like WhatsApp, Instagram, or X can freeze sales, and cost companies substantial revenue. Especially for small and informal businesses, which often depend entirely on social media for visibility and transactions.

As of September 20, 2025, the aftermath of the protests in Nepal has led to substantial political and social changes in Nepal. The violent protests have led to the resignation of Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli. An interim government, led by former Chief Justice Sushila Karki, has been established to oversee the country until elections are held in March 2026. A panel has been formed to investigate the events, including the actions of both protesters and authorities. In response to the crackdown, many protesters have deleted their social media accounts or gone silent online to overcome investigation, showing growing concerns over digital surveillance and possible consequences for those suspected of initiating the unrest (17,18). While the social media ban was only the trigger of the protests, the events in Nepal illustrate how digital shutdowns can exacerbate longstanding political and social tensions, with far-reaching consequences for people, governance, and the economy.

Asking the right question

The power of digital platforms is not new. For more than a decade, Big Tech companies have determined how information circulates, how beauty standards are defined, and how political debates take shape. From the Arab Spring to the storming of the U.S. Capitol, platforms such as Facebook and X have been portrayed both as instruments of liberation and as agents of disruption (10,11).

Considerations of social media regulation frequently rest on two underlying assumptions. The first is that technologies are neutral. Founders like Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey promoted their platforms as mere “tools,” passively reflecting user behavior. But technology is never neutral. Every algorithm, every like button, every moderation policy encodes a choice, a value, a worldview. It is also often assumed that the harms and benefits of social media can be neatly separated. Yet the same viral mechanisms that spread conspiracy theories have also enabled movements like #MeToo and climate strikes. Focusing only on the harms overlooks the structural mechanisms that produce both positive and negative effects (12).

Much of the discussion around regulation gets stuck in loops: What rules should be made? Who should enforce them? How do we limit the damage without damaging free speech? But maybe a more fundamental question needs to be asked: What problem are these platforms meant to solve?

X’s mission statement is “To give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers.” Facebook’s is “To give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.” (12,13)

But what do they mean in practice? And whose values, interests, and goals are embedded in these missions? Until those questions are answered, every rule or ban will not be more than a patch on a deeper structural issue: the unaccountable power of Big Tech in shaping not just our digital lives, but our political and social realities. First, we need to start rethinking the purpose of the platforms. If we have this clear, the rules can follow easily from that. Shall we?

This article is part of The Outside World, ftrprf’s very own research center.

For organizations, it’s pivotal to thoroughly understand what is happening in society. We help companies generate comprehensive insights into societal change and its potential effects on their strategy and operations, both negative and positive. With actionable societal insights, courageous plans, and a can-do mentality, we connect the outside world to your company's strategy. For these outside-world insights, we use a rigorous methodology that includes data processing, quantitative and qualitative analysis, and a thorough review process to ensure the accuracy and consistency of our findings.

For more information, please contact theoutsideworld@ftrprf.com.

At The Outside World, our very own research center, we keep a pulse on global developments through a societal lens. As part of this mission, we’ve created The Outside World Journal—a weekly digest delivering a curated selection of the most compelling news insights with our interpretation of why this matters and what the consequences for society might be. Read the journal here.

Sources:

1. Hannah Ellis-Petersen. "At Least 19 Killed in 'Gen Z' Protests Against Nepal’s Social Media Ban." The Guardian, September 8, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/08/nepal-bans-26-social-media-sites-including-x-whatsapp-and-youtube
2. Pokharel, Sugam. "At Least 19 Killed in Nepal Protests Against Social Media Ban." CNN, September 9, 2025. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/08/asia/nepal-social-media-ban-protesters-killed-latam-intl
3. Al Jazeera. "Pakistan Says It Blocked Social Media Platform X over 'National Security.'" Al Jazeera, April 17, 2024. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/17/pakistan-says-it-blocked-social-media-platform-x-over-national-security
4. Reuters. "Senegal Seeks Regulation Deal with TikTok after Ban." Reuters, October 5, 2023. https://www.reuters.com/technology/senegal-seeks-regulation-deal-with-tiktok-after-ban-2023-10-05/.
5. Anganan, Villen. "Mauritius Blocks Social Media until After Election, Opposition and Civil Society Groups Cry Foul." Reuters, November 1, 2024. https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/mauritius-suspends-social-media-until-after-election-communications-regulator-2024-11-01/
6. Al Jazeera. "‘Deeply Concerned’ over India Press Censorship, Says X as Accounts Blocked." Al Jazeera, July 8, 2025. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/8/deeply-concerned-over-india-press-censorship-says-x-as-accounts-blocked
7. "India–Pakistan Tensions, Censorship, Press Freedom, and Social Media Ban." Frontline, 2024. https://frontline.thehindu.com/news/india-pakistan-tensions-censorship-press-freedom-social-media-ban/article69560634.ece
8. Africanews. "Ethiopia: Social Media Accessible Again after 5 Months of Blockage." Africanews, July 19, 2023. https://www.africanews.com/2023/07/19/ethiopiasocial-media-accessible-again-after-5-months-of-blockage/ 
9. Laketu, Adedayo. "Ethiopia Restores Access to Facebook, TikTok, and More After Five-Month Blackout." OkayAfrica, July 19, 2023. https://www.okayafrica.com/ethiopia-restores-access-to-facebook-tiktok-and-more-after-five-month-blackout/295822
10. Timberg, Craig, Elizabeth Dwoskin, en Reed Albergotti. "How Facebook Played a Role in the Jan. 6 Capitol Riot." The Washington Post, October 22, 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/22/jan-6-capitol-riot-facebook/.
11. Guesmi, Haythem. "The Social Media Myth about the Arab Spring." Al Jazeera, Januari 27, 2021. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/1/27/the-social-media-myth-about-the-arab-spring.
12. Bril, Lena. "Regels en richtlijnen gaan de problemen van sociale media niet oplossen." De Correspondent, January 22, 2021. https://decorrespondent.nl/12015/regels-en-richtlijnen-gaan-de-problemen-van-sociale-media-niet-oplossen/3f2e50ee-b638-0557-1f75-9d7ebaa8cc57.
13. Boardmix. "Facebook Mission and Vision Statement Analysis." Boardmix, https://boardmix.com/analysis/facebook-mission-and-vision-statement-analysis/.
14. Access Now. "Lives on Hold: Internet Shutdowns in 2024." Access Now, February 23 2025. https://www.accessnow.org/internet-shutdowns-2024/.
15. Parajuli, Rama. “Politicians get rich while we suffer - so I helped bring down our government in 48 hours”. BBC, September 17, 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg9n760gddo
16. Havey, Lex; Pokharel, Sugam. “A social media ban, corruption and ‘Nepo Kids:’ What we know about the deadly protests that ousted Nepal’s leader”. CNN, September 10, 2025. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/09/asia/nepal-protests-social-media-ban-explainer-intl-hnk
17. International Crisis Group. "Nepal Picks Up the Pieces after Protests Topple Government." International Crisis Group, September 19, 2025. https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia-pacific/nepal/nepal-picks-pieces-after-protests-topple-government
18. Das, Kalyan. "Nepal Protesters Delete Social Media Presence as Police Probe Closes In." The Times of India, September 19, 2025. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/south-asia/nepal-protesters-delete-social-media-presence-as-police-probe-closes-in/articleshow/123984686.cms.
19. Indo-Pacific Defense Forum. "Myanmar's Military Rulers Impose Wide-Ranging Online Censorship." Indo-Pacific Defense Forum, January 17, 2025. https://ipdefenseforum.com/2025/01/myanmars-military-rulers-impose-wide-ranging-online-censorship/.
20. Human Rights Watch. "Russia: Internet Blocking, Disruptions and Increasing Isolation." Human Rights Watch, July 30, 2025. https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/07/30/russia-internet-blocking-disruptions-and-increasing-isolation.
21. Wright, George. “White House outlines TikTok deal that would give US control of algorithm”. BBC, September 21, 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c89dd747yz7o