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

Nepal has made significant strides in enshrining women’s rights within its constitution, yet the real-life implementation of these rights remains far from ideal. While legal frameworks and policies exist to promote gender equality, the deeply ingrained societal mentality, particularly in rural areas, continues to act as a barrier to true empowerment. Even in modern urban spaces, although progress is evident, patriarchal norms still dictate many aspects of women's lives.

The Constitution of Nepal guarantees gender equality and explicitly prohibits discrimination based on gender. Laws have been enacted to ensure equal property rights, access to education and protection against domestic violence. In 2015, Nepal’s new constitution was hailed as one of the most progressive in South Asia regarding women’s rights. It mandates equal pay for equal work, sets a minimum quota for women’s representation in government and criminalizes discrimination based on gender.

However, merely having rights in the constitution does not equate to their full exercise. Many women, especially in rural areas, still struggle to claim their rights due to cultural and social constraints. The gap between legal provisions and their implementation remains significant. While some progress has been made in legal awareness and advocacy, the reality on the ground tells a different story.

Mentality in rural areas

Nepal remains a country where a significant portion of the population resides in rural areas. In these regions, women’s roles are still largely confined to household duties, and their opportunities for education and economic independence are severely restricted. Child marriage, though illegal, remains a common practice. According to a UNICEF report, about 40 percent of Nepali girls are married before the age of 18, with many of them forced into these marriages due to economic hardships or traditional beliefs. This not only deprives them of education but also exposes them to domestic violence and health risks associated with early pregnancy.

In many villages, women are still discouraged from seeking higher education or employment, reinforcing their financial dependency on male family members. Parents often prioritize their sons’ education over their daughters’, believing that investing in a girl’s future is unnecessary because she will eventually marry and move into her husband’s household. This outdated mindset prevents many women from attaining financial independence and self-sufficiency.

Additionally, the harmful practice of Chhaupadi, where menstruating women are isolated from their homes, persists despite being outlawed. Women are forced to live in small, unhygienic huts during their periods, facing harsh weather conditions and health hazards. Several deaths have been reported due to suffocation, animal attacks and exposure to extreme cold. Despite government intervention, the practice continues in many remote areas because of deep-rooted superstition and lack of education.

Domestic violence remains a significant issue, with many women suffering from physical, emotional and psychological abuse. Although laws exist to punish perpetrators, societal stigma prevents victims from coming forward. Many fear ostracization from their communities or worry about the lack of support from law enforcement agencies.

Urban spaces: Progress and challenges

In cities like Kathmandu and Pokhara, women’s participation in the workforce and politics has increased. Women now hold key positions in various sectors and activism for gender rights is more vocal. However, deep-seated biases still exist. Workplace harassment, wage gaps and societal expectations that women must prioritize family over careers continue to hinder genuine equality.

Despite constitutional provisions mandating at least 33 percent female representation in government, women in politics still struggle with gender discrimination. They often face character assassination and are expected to conform to patriarchal standards. Even when they attain leadership positions, they are frequently sidelined in decision-making processes.

Sexual harassment in public spaces remains another pressing issue. Women commuting via public transportation or walking alone at night frequently report cases of harassment, yet law enforcement often fails to take these complaints seriously. The normalization of such behavior discourages victims from seeking justice and reinforces a culture of silence.

Moreover, while legal protection against domestic violence exists, enforcement remains weak. Many cases go unreported due to victim-blaming culture and inefficient law enforcement mechanisms. Women who challenge traditional gender roles are often labeled as “too modern” or “rebellious”, indicating that even in urban areas, societal perception still limits their freedom.

Intersection of caste and gender discrimination

Women from marginalized castes, particularly Dalits, face even greater challenges. Dalit women are subjected to both gender and caste-based discrimination, making it even harder for them to access education, healthcare and employment opportunities. They are more likely to be victims of violence and have less access to legal recourse.

In rural areas, Dalit women are often forced into exploitative labor conditions and suffer from untouchability practices, which persist despite being legally abolished. Many are denied entry into temples and public places and are socially ostracized if they attempt to challenge these norms.

One of the most effective ways to improve women’s rights in Nepal is through education and economic empowerment. Girls’ education must be prioritized, and incentives should be provided to families to keep their daughters in school. Scholarship programs and awareness campaigns can help shift the mindset that prioritizes boys’ education over girls'.

Vocational training programs can also help women gain financial independence. Access to microfinance and small business loans can enable women, particularly in rural areas, to start their own businesses and become self-reliant. Economic independence is a crucial factor in breaking the cycle of oppression and domestic violence.

The rise of social media and activism has played a significant role in highlighting gender-based discrimination and injustices faced by women in Nepal. Movements such as #RageAgainstRape and #WomenMarch have brought attention to issues like sexual violence, gender pay gaps and reproductive rights. The media has also helped expose cases of abuse and discrimination, pressuring the government to take action.

However, media portrayals of women can still be problematic. Many television shows, advertisements and films continue to reinforce gender stereotypes, depicting women as submissive and dependent. Challenging these narratives and promoting positive representations of women in media is crucial for changing societal attitudes.

Government role

The government must also strengthen law enforcement mechanisms to ensure that women’s rights are not just written in the constitution but actively protected and practiced. Many women hesitate to seek justice due to inefficient legal procedures, corruption and the fear of retaliation from perpetrators. Establishing more women-friendly police stations and fast-track courts for gender-based violence cases could help address this issue.

Moreover, policymakers must focus on closing the loopholes in existing laws and ensuring their effective implementation. For example, while laws against child marriage exist, they are often not enforced strictly. A stronger judicial system, along with grassroots awareness campaigns, can help in eradicating these issues.

Legislative changes alone cannot bring about real equality. A fundamental shift in mindset is required, starting from families and educational institutions. Schools should integrate gender sensitivity training, and families should encourage equal opportunities for both sons and daughters. Additionally, community-driven awareness programs can play a crucial role in dismantling outdated patriarchal beliefs.

It is also crucial for men to be actively involved in the fight for gender equality. The movement should not be seen as a “women’s issue” alone but as a societal issue that affects everyone. Encouraging men to challenge toxic masculinity and support gender-equal policies will create a more inclusive society.

Women’s rights in Nepal remain a paradox—legally recognized but socially restricted. The constitution provides a strong foundation, but societal mentality, particularly in rural areas, continues to hinder progress. Even in urban settings, gender biases persist. True change will only come when laws are not just written but actively enforced, and when society fully embraces the idea that women deserve equal rights in every aspect of life. Until then, the struggle for genuine gender equality continues.

Have you ever imagined a scenario where the National Police issue search warrants or execute arrests with the assistance of AI tools?

Would any type of ethical safeguards be respected in such a process? 

Would human control over the final decision of taking action, in the pursuit of justice, against an alleged perpetrator of a crime, be assured? 

In the EU AI Act, the first ever legislation governing the use of artificial intelligence entered into force in August 2024 and in the process of phase-wise implementation, there are clear provisions on when and in which circumstances, and under which type of oversight, the law enforcement agencies can make use of AI-enhanced tools. For example, AI-powered real-time facial recognition in public places is prohibited but there are exceptions for law enforcement agencies of the member-states. 

Indeed, the Act has come under fire for allowing too many loopholes for police use. But, in a trailblazing move, it has also put in place a risk-based approach with four levels of risks, including AI deployments with unacceptable risks that are forbidden. It is to be updated and revisited to ensure it will remain a “fit for purpose” instrument for a technology with apparently unlimited potential. 

This example of emerging AI regulations in the EU proves the complexities in finding a right balance not only on how to make the most effective use of the AI. It also shows the challenges of ensuring that ethical guardrails are in place before the deployment of new AI instruments whose full potential and capacities are still not fully comprehended. That’s why the recent news that the Nepal Police has not only acquired some AI software from India but also trained some of its staff on its use should be taken as very alarming. 

In a fast-evolving scenario of AI development where there have been a lot of talks about regulations but much less action, the recent government act of issuing a draft AI Policy is a positive step. The draft lists out several worthwhile policy objectives and it correctly highlights how any development and use of artificial intelligence in the country should always be focused on the creation of positive impacts for the wider society. Yet there are concerns about the lack of specificities and technicalities in relation to the implementation of any future AI regulations. At the same time, it is vital to contextualize any AI Policy with the urgent need for the country to have in place strong data protection and privacy laws, cybersecurity and digital infrastructure that Nepal still lacks.

Finalizing the AI Policy, therefore, would require, as suggested by the Digital Rights Nepal and AI Association Nepal, establishing a robust framework to ensure proper conduct in the way data protection and privacy rights are ensured by AI developers and their users. These represent major conundrums not only for Nepal but for the international community as a whole and are crucial themes widely underlined by the UN High Level Advisory Body on AI through its Governing AI for Humanity report.

One of the major deficiencies of the draft is its “generalized and listing all” approach without any timeline. For example, legislating a data protection framework would be itself a gigantic effort with a high degree of complexity. Addressing it head-on alone would, as a consequence, demand a strong sense of urgency on the part of the legislator and executive powers. But lack of specificities is not the only problem of the draft. 

A concerning aspect is also the system of governance that is envisioned to govern AI in the country. First of all, the document foresees the creation of an AI Regulatory Council whose chairperson would be the Minister for Communications and Information Technology. Together with other very high-ranking officials, including the Governor, this mechanism would, among others, issue ethical AI guidelines and standards.

The draft also envisions a National AI Center that, among other things, will be in charge of regulating the development and use of AI at the national level and overall coordination and evaluation of AI development.

It is crucial to reassess the purpose of establishing a high-level body like the AI Regulatory Council, as their effectiveness is often questionable, with many of such high-level bodies struggling to even meet the quorum for meetings. Instead, the focus should shift toward empowering an institution like the National AI Center, which could serve as the "guardian" of future AI legislation and ensure its proper implementation.

For example, the EU AI Act established a powerful European AI Office within the European Commission, giving it wide-ranging powers, including enforcement and implementation. But this is not the only mechanism created through European legislation. There are also a Scientific Panel, composed of independent experts in the field of AI and the Advisory Forum, representing a diverse selection of stakeholders. There is also a European Artificial Intelligence Board comprising representatives of member-states. This open, inclusive approach to governing AI development where together with policymakers, experts and members of the civil society have a seat on the table, is innovative.

At RightsCon 2025, held in Taiwan on 24-27 Feb 2025, AI discussions emphasized inclusivity, ethics and accountability in AI governance and development. Key sessions explored civil society’s role in AI policymaking, particularly in Asia and Latin America, and the integration of global perspectives for responsible generative AI. Topics like multilingual AI, neurotechnology governance and feminist AI highlighted the need for diverse voices in shaping equitable AI systems. Further, sessions on AI for climate action, healthcare and natural resource governance underscored its potential to address global challenges while ensuring rights-respecting approaches. The conference also discussed AI bias, fairness and the democratization of AI infrastructure, advocating for transparency and public participation. It is important for Nepal to consider these issues while finalizing the AI draft policy and legislating AI regulation. 

Moreover, recently, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change has developed a new report, “How Leaders in the Global South Can Devise AI Regulations that Devise Innovation”, that should be thoroughly taken into consideration. 

If Nepal wants to really become an emerging IT hub as envisioned by the government, then it needs to step up its tempo on AI regulation. The country should have a holistic AI framework in place founded on strong data and privacy rights pillars. Together with strong ethical guardrails, Nepal can design an agile system that, while not over cumbersome, can ensure safety and AI alignment with human rights. 

By studying global practices and adapting them to local context, Nepal can have an ethically solid and innovation-promoting AI framework in place.

Any use of AI tools by state agencies, including law enforcement, should be stopped before any such a framework is established.

When we talk about technology in the context of development, we often treat it as a tool that simply exists to make life more efficient. But I see technology as something that shapes our identities, influences our sense of agency and carries ethical responsibilities across generations. This is why we need to reframe ICT4D (Information and Communication Technology for Development) through an ethics-based lens—one that doesn’t just ask what technology can do, but who it serves, how it  empowers and whether it respects the people and cultures it touches. 

Technology isn’t something that arrives in a vacuum, rather it enters communities endowed with their own ways of understanding the world, their own traditions, identities and their own ethical frameworks. If we introduce technology without considering these dimensions, we risk erasing identities rather than strengthening them. According to Martin Heidegger, the essence of technology is not just about tools or instruments; it’s about how technology shapes the way we see and interact with the world. When technology is introduced into a community without awareness of this shift in perception, it can transform local cultures and identities into mere resources to be exploited rather than ways of life that deserve  respect and preservation. For ICT4D to be responsible, it must integrate into the ways of  communities, aligning with their values rather than imposing external ones. 

I have seen  instances where digital tools were designed with good intentions but ended up disrupting  local practices because they failed to acknowledge the social and ethical realities of the  people using them. 

Agency is at the heart of ethical technology use. People should not just be passive  recipients of digital solutions; they should have the power to shape, adapt and use  technology in ways that enhance their lives. Too often, ICT4D projects are rolled out with a top-down approach, where decisions are made by outsiders who assume they know what’s best for the rest. But when people are involved in designing and implementing technology—when they  have ownership over it—it transforms from an external intervention into a meaningful part  of their lives. This isn’t just about usability; it’s about empowerment. It’s about ensuring that communities are not just given tools but also the knowledge, skills and autonomy to decide how those tools should work for them. This perspective aligns with Amartya Sen’s emphasis on agency in development. 

Intergenerational justice, a concept explored by Hans Jonas, is another crucial dimension  that is often overlooked in ICT4D. When we introduce technology, we aren’t just shaping the present; we are making choices that will impact future generations. If we don’t think carefully about the ethical implications of technology, we risk creating dependencies, eroding cultural knowledge or deepening inequalities. Sustainable technology isn’t just about function or economic efficiency; it’s about ensuring that the benefits of today’s  innovations don’t come at the cost of future resilience. 

Environmental sustainability must also be central to ethical ICT4D. As Fritjof Capra  emphasizes in his work on systems thinking, nature operates through interconnected and  self-sustaining networks. Technology should follow these principles, supporting rather than disrupting ecological balance. Too often, technological advancements come at the cost of  ecological health, depleting natural resources and contributing to environmental degradation. If we are to create truly sustainable solutions, we must embrace a philosophy  that respects and aligns with the natural world rather than exploiting it. This means developing digital infrastructures that minimize environmental impact, encouraging circular economies in technology use and integrating local ecological knowledge into digital innovations. Ethical ICT4D must recognize that the well-being of communities is inseparable from the health of the environment that sustains them. 

An ethical ICT4D means recognizing that technology is never just a tool; it is always part of a larger social and ethical system. If we want it to truly serve communities, we need to ask deeper questions: Does this technology respect local identities? Does it enhance people’s agency rather than diminish it? Does it uphold justice not just for this generation, but for the ones that will follow? And does it honor the ecological systems that sustain life? These are the questions that should guide our approach. If we fail to ask them, we risk using technology as a force of disruption rather than as a means of meaningful progress.