Submit your Article

The  Social Media Bill  has raised important questions about freedom of expression and the right to privacy—two fundamental rights enshrined in Nepal’s Constitution. This article examines these issues, exploring how social media shapes relationships, the ethical dilemmas of digital self-disclosure, the increasing risk of misinformation, and the need for effective regulation to balance innovation with responsibility.

Miller’s ethnographic research demonstrates that social media has transformed how people interact and communicate. Platforms like WhatsApp encourage private, trust-based conversations among family and friends, while Snapchat fosters close connections through self-deleting messages. Facebook has evolved into a space where different generations interact, while Twitter has become a battleground for public discourse, activism, and debate. Cultural contexts influence how people use social media. In India, caste structures impact online engagement, while in China, migrant workers rely on digital platforms to maintain long-distance social ties. These examples highlight how social media both reflects and reshapes traditional values, reinforcing some social norms while challenging others.

Replogle’s study explores the ethical challenges of self-disclosure on social media. Public response to personal sharing often depends on an individual’s social status. Television anchor Robin Roberts was praised for openly discussing her cancer diagnosis, while actor Leonard Nimoy successfully used social media to campaign against smoking. However, when Lisa Bonchek-Adams, a non-celebrity, live-tweeted her battle with terminal illness, she faced criticism, illustrating biases in how society perceives digital self-disclosure.

These cases raise concerns about privacy, emotional vulnerability, and online judgment. The monetization of personal stories on platforms like YouTube and TikTok further complicates this issue, blurring the line between advocacy and exploitation. This also raises ethical questions about whether platforms should bear responsibility for ensuring that personal narratives are not manipulated for profit.

A new bill to regulate social media has been introduced in the National Assembly, proposing strict penalties for those who spread false or misleading content through fake accounts. The bill aims to establish legal frameworks for how social media operates and is used in the country. Under Section 27, individuals are banned from creating anonymous or fake profiles to spread false information.

According to subsection 2 of the bill, individuals caught engaging in such activities could face up to three months in prison, a fine of Rs 50,000, or both. For more serious offenses—such as using fake profiles to harm national sovereignty or disrupt public order—violators could face up to five years in prison and fines of up to Rs 1.5m.

The bill also includes provisions against inciting illegal activities through social media. Those who encourage unlawful acts online could face additional penalties, including one extra year of imprisonment. Public officials and individuals receiving state benefits who are found guilty of violating these laws could face even harsher punishments, with penalties increased by 50 percent.

Additionally, anyone using children or minors to engage in such activities could face further legal action, including an extra year of imprisonment. Our constitution protects both the right to privacy and the right to information. However, the balance between these rights has long been debated. The recent ordinance on social media has intensified concerns over whether government regulations are necessary safeguards or excessive restrictions. Supporters argue that every right has limitations, citing the legal principle of Volenti Non Fit Injuria—which holds that individuals who voluntarily expose themselves to risk cannot later claim harm.

Cybercrimes have become a major concern in Nepal, with social media being the main platform for offenses such as identity theft, cyberstalking, fraud, sexual exploitation, and defamation. Children are among the most vulnerable to these threats. While the Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) 2063 provides some regulations for digital activity, its vague provisions fail to define cybercrimes explicitly.

Guilbeault’s research sheds light on how social media is exploited to manipulate public opinion and spread misinformation. AI-driven bots generate fake engagement, inflating the visibility of misleading content and fueling political polarization. Facebook’s algorithm is designed to promote content that generates strong emotional reactions, leading to an environment where misinformation spreads more rapidly than factual information.

The Cambridge Analytica scandal highlighted the risks associated with data harvesting and voter manipulation, demonstrating how social media can be weaponized for political influence. Attempts to regulate misinformation—such as the Honest Ads Act (2018)—have struggled to keep pace with the evolving tactics of digital disinformation campaigns. Guilbeault argues that, without regulatory intervention, platforms will continue prioritizing engagement-driven content, further eroding trust in news media and democratic institutions.

Addressing social media’s challenges requires collaboration between governments, tech companies, and users. Strengthening digital governance can mitigate the risks of misinformation, privacy violations, and unregulated data collection. As social media continues to influence personal relationships and public opinion, well-structured policies are essential to protect users while fostering genuine connections online.

A more responsible digital environment also depends on ethical self-disclosure and stronger media literacy. Users must be aware of the consequences of sharing personal information, while educational initiatives can help individuals identify and resist digital manipulation. Governments and tech companies must promote algorithmic transparency, ensuring that platforms serve the public good rather than amplifying harmful or misleading content.

The regulation of social media should not equate to censorship but rather ensure a safe and democratic digital space. Policy development should involve input from various stakeholders—including the public—to create fair and balanced solutions. Striking a balance between protecting free speech and preventing digital harm will be crucial in shaping the future of online communication.

As Nepal and the world navigate digital governance, the focus must be on promoting innovation while ensuring ethical responsibility. Transparent AI systems, improved content moderation, and legal frameworks that protect both user rights and public interest are critical to achieving this balance. Governments, tech companies, and individuals must work together to create a digital landscape where social media fosters meaningful connections without compromising privacy, integrity, or democracy.

The author is an advocate and development practitioner

Until the filing of this report, the Air Quality Index (AQI) of the Kathmandu Valley was 163, putting it as the fifth most polluted city in the world.

As per the AQI chart, Hanoi, the capital of Vietnam was the most polluted with 210 AQI while Beijing of China in the second position with 184 followed by Dhaka of Bangladesh in the third with 175 and New Delhi of India in the fourth with 170.

Amidst this, the Department of Environment has suggested the increased risk of air pollution till the month of Jeth (May-June). Smokes from industries, factories, motorcycles, construction sites, households, from the burning of waste in the open and dust from the construction works are among the identified major sources for air pollution.

Children, aged people, people with respiratory illness including asthma and heart diseases and expectant women are considered more vulnerable to the impact of air pollution.

Disaster Management Expert Dr Dharmaraj Upreti said an AQI 0-50 is good for human health and indicated by green signal and it is suggested by yellow when it is measured 51-100 to urge us to remain alert to the situation.

An AQI of 101 to 150 is indicated by orange and is considered unhealthy for sensitive groups. It is capable of further impacting people with breathing issues and heart diseases.

Similarly, an AQI of 151 to 200 is considered unhealthy and is suggested by red and when it is in between 201 to 300 it is considered very unhealthy and it is hazardous when it exceeds 300. In this emergency condition, everyone is more likely to be affected.

Air Quality Management Action Plan-2076 BS for the Kathmandu Valley has also stated that a situation where the AQI value is higher than 300, it will be treated as a disaster.

China announced tariffs on over $2.6 billion worth of Canadian agricultural and food products on Saturday, retaliating against levies Ottawa introduced in October and opening a new front in a trade war largely driven by U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff threats, Reuters reported.

The levies, announced by the commerce ministry and scheduled to take effect on March 20, match the 100% and 25% import duties Canada slapped on China-made electric vehicles and steel and aluminium products just over four months ago.

By excluding canola, which is also known as rapeseed, and was one of Canada's top exports to the world's No.1 agricultural importer prior to China investigating it for anti-dumping last year, Beijing may be keeping the door open for trade talks.

But the tariffs also serve as a warning shot, analysts say, with the Trump administration having signalled it could ease 25% import levies the White House is threatening Canada and Mexico with if they apply the same extra 20% duty he has slapped on Chinese goods over fentanyl flows.

"Canada's measures seriously violate World Trade Organization rules, constitute a typical act of protectionism and are discriminatory measures that severely harm China's legitimate rights and interests," the commerce ministry said in a statement, according to Reuters.

China will apply a 100% tariff to just over $1 billion of Canadian rapeseed oil, oil cakes and pea imports, and a 25% duty on $1.6 billion worth of Canadian aquatic products and pork.

"The timing may serve as a warning shot," said Dan Wang, China director at Eurasia Group in Singapore. "By striking now, China reminds Canada of the cost of aligning too closely with American trade policy."

"China's delayed response (to Ottawa's October tariffs) likely reflects both capacity constraints and strategic signalling," she added. "The commerce ministry is stretched thin, juggling trade disputes with the U.S. and European Union."

"Canada, a lower priority, had to wait its turn."

The Canadian embassy in Beijing did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in August that Ottawa was imposing the levies to counter what he called China's intentional state-directed policy of over-capacity, following the lead of the United States and European Union, both of which have also applied import levies to Chinese-made EVs.

In response, China in September launched an anti-dumping investigation into Canadian canola imports. More than half of Canada's canola exports go to China and the trade was worth $3.7 billion in 2023, according to the Canola Council of Canada.

"The investigation on Canadian canola is still ongoing. That canola was not included in the list of tariffs this time might also be a gesture to leave room for negotiations," said Rosa Wang, an analyst with agricultural consultancy JCI.

Beijing could also be hoping that a change in government in Ottawa makes it more amenable. Canada's next national election must be held by October 20.

China is Canada's second-largest trading partner, trailing far behind the United States. Canada exported $47 billion worth of goods to the world's second-largest economy in 2024, according to Chinese customs data.

China is Canada's third-most important pork export market. It takes products for which Canada does not have easy alternate markets, said Cam Dahl, General Manager of the Manitoba Pork Council.

“The things we export to China, heads for example, are parts of the animal that don’t have easy other markets," he said. "We can’t take that container that’s going to China and just ship it to Mexico.”

China is Canada's number-two market for canola, said Chris Davison, president and CEO of the Canola Council of Canada, Reuters reported.

"The (tariff) levels that are being talked about here are prohibitive levels, for sure. ... The impacts will be felt across the industry," he said, adding that he would like to see financial support from the government.

Canadian government spokespersons did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

"To be honest I don’t understand why they are doing this one at all," said Even Pay, agriculture analyst at Trivium China.

"I expect Beijing will use the election and change of leader as an opportunity to reset relations as they did with Australia," she added.

China in 2020 introduced a series of tariffs, bans and other restrictions on key Australian exports, including barley, wine, beef, coal, lobster and timber in retaliation to Canberra calling for a COVID origins probe.

Beijing did not begin lifting the bans until 2023, one year after Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese ousted Scott Morrison, who had called for the inquiry.

US President Donald Trump on Friday renewed his criticism of Ukraine’s approach to his diplomatic push to end the war, saying that it has been “easier” to deal with Moscow, while claiming that his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin wants to get the war “stopped and settled”, The Indian Express reported.

“I’m finding it more difficult, frankly, to deal with Ukraine, and they don’t have the cards,” he said addressing reporters at the Oval Office.

Trump has been stressing for weeks that Ukraine’s position in the conflict is weak and dependent on US support.

The US president underscored his earlier statement threatening Russia with sanctions and tariffs for bombing Ukraine, saying that he is “trying to help” Kyiv.

“Ukraine has to get on the ball and get a job done,” he said, according to The Indian  Express.

Trump also warned Russia, saying it(Russia) “is bombing the hell out of Ukraine” – and that he’s told them they “can’t do that”.

“I think he’s doing what anyone else would do – he’s hitting them harder than he’s been hitting them, and anyone in that position would be doing right now,” Trump said, describing Russian attacks.

“And I think probably anybody in that position would be doing that right now. He wants to get it ended. And I think Ukraine wants to get it ended, but I don’t see – it’s crazy. They’re taking tremendous punishment. I don’t quite get it.”

This comes hour after Trump announced ‘considering sanctions’ on Russia after bombardment of Ukraine.

In a post on Truth Social, Donald Trump appeared to criticise Russia’s latest bombardment.

He posted: “Based on the fact that Russia is absolutely ‘pounding’ Ukraine on the battlefield right now, I am strongly considering large scale Banking Sanctions, Sanctions, and Tariffs on Russia until a Cease Fire and FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PEACE IS REACHED.

Trump’s vague threat was in contrast to the punitive steps he has already taken against Ukraine, including an end to US military supplies announced earlier this week and the intelligence shutdown.