At least 19 killed so far, including children.
Think you meant a different word there?
Autocorrect is nobody’s friend.
Yes indeed, thanks for the catch!
Looks like they probably typed “kiled”, and the typo was miscorrected to “liked” instead of “killed”.
EDIT: And ninjaed.
There’s a lot unsaid, here. First, what’s the real reason for the social media bans? Is it because they’re spreading false information, or is is just information that the government is redefining as false? Is the government, in fact, corrupt, or is it just perceived that way? And how did those 19 die: Was it from protestors’ actions, or from the police response?
I don’t know enough about Nepal to know the answers to any of those questions.
It’s a developing situation. If this needs to be moved to different forum please flag and let a moderator know.
With respect to the law, what precisely is the difference between these two things? As far as I know, no government has access to an oracle which enables them to distinguish Platonically true from false statements.
I mean, things like criticizing the government. A lot of governments like to say that any criticism of them is automatically false and automatically subject to sanctions. Is that what’s happening here?
19 deaths is a very small number in comparison to the massive number of deaths social media has caused. Many of us believe that if social media didn’t exist Trump would not have been elected President. And just Trump’s cut in foreign aid are projected to cause 14 million deaths by 2030:
Evaluating the impact of two decades of USAID interventions and projecting the effects of defunding on mortality up to 2030: a retrospective impact evaluation and forecasting analysis
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)01186-9/fulltext
Or look at another social media creation: the anti-vax movement.
Hitler was elected without social media. Genghis Khan ravaged much of the world without social media. Death, tyranny and war have never needed social media to happen.
As far as I’ve concerned blaming social media for everything is mostly just the latest iterations of blaming newer technology or entertainment for everything bad. Television, Dungeons and Dragons, movies, jazz, heck even reading if you go back far enough.
The situation seems to have escalated significantly, with ongoing protests and number of government buildings being set on fire. The Prime Minister and a number of other ministers have resigned. BBC has a live feed:
Apparently there was a viral social media movement targeting “nepo kids”, accusing the children of prominent politicians of having unexplained wealth and suggesting corruption. The social media ban followed shortly afterwards, which is suggestive.
Sounds familiar. The US government has the power to lean on social media companies directly, so doesn’t have to resort to anything so crass as banning them - except in the case of CCP-owned Tiktok.
The printing press can justly be said to have fueled the Reformation and consequent wars of religion, killing millions of Europeans, including one third of the population of Germany.
Technology has huge benefits, but by its nature it is destabilising.
Up until last year, I worked for a company with its main office in Kathmandu, I visited a couple times, and I’m in contact with old colleagues who live there. It’s an absolute mess, and if anything, the news we’re getting here is underselling how dangerous it is right now.
The social media ban was definitely government overreach intended to clamp down on dissent. I’m not a fan of social media, but this had nothing to do with protecting kids or people, and everything to do with protecting the government. The ban had serious impacts beyond people who couldn’t watch cat videos. Millions of young Nepalis work outside the country because of the lack of opportunities locally, and these services were the way they communicated with family and managed family money.
The social media ban was only the final straw in several years of frustration at the government and economic conditions. This is much bigger than that ban (which has already been rescinded).
For now, my friends tell me it’s unsafe to leave the house no matter whose side you’re on, and it’s not even really safe in your house because protesters are targeting homes of current or former government employees with bricks and firebombs (and in tightly-packed areas like Kathmandu, fire doesn’t stop at the one house). One friend today told me he figured it was a good time to visit family outside the valley.
No one knows what’s going to happen next. With the government essentially gone, there’s no obvious path forward, and it’s rarely someone good who steps in to fill a void like that.
Apparently one of the buildings that were lit was a former PM’s house (not the guy who just resigned, a prior PM) and his wife burned to death inside.
I was wondering about China (and Chinese social media’s) role in all this. Interestingly, it appears that the social media ban came 7 days after the government told all social media companies theyust register and agree to hand over data; and TikTok unlike the other social media firms complied, which means that it was not banned.
We can all see the way that TikTok is leveraged in the United States, but I’m not up to speed enough on Nepalese-Chinese relations to guess if something similar was happening in Nepal.
I don’t know enough either. China is not the economic bogeyman to Nepal like it is in the US, and the former PM who just resigned was pro-China. It’s a very different relationship than what we have, but I can’t say exactly how it’s different.
TikTok was banned in Nepal in 2023 for “spreading content detrimental to social harmony.” They established a local liaison and made some other changes, so they were already in compliance with the new rules and weren’t caught in the latest ban. Is it easier for them to comply, being right next door? Do they care more about their Nepali users than Meta? Is TikTok used in Nepal to further China’s goals? I don’t know (but I’d guess it’s either 1 or 3).