When the Nepalese government abruptly blocked most major social media platforms in September 2025, the world witnessed a stark reminder of how deeply digital platforms are woven into everyday life. Moreover, the swift backlash demonstrates how fragile social media connections can be when state power collides with user beliefs and control. The ban, enforced by the Nepal Telecommunications Authority, came after platforms failed to comply with a new directive requiring registration, local offices, grievance officers, and self-regulation mechanisms. Literally overnight Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, LinkedIn, YouTube, and many others went dark in Nepal, sparking a chain reaction that has significant implications for both governance and brand safety. The move by Nepal to restrict social media access was stated to be for protection of the public and accountability of the platforms. Meanwhile the public, who was already vocal about allegations of corruption, maintained that the move was about censorship and securing unfettered access to the public's private data.
The results were immediate, significant, and tragic. Within days, protests led largely by Generation Z (people under 30 as of 2025) escalated into violent clashes with police, leading to the loss of several lives. Demonstrators set fire to government buildings and attacked politicians’ homes, while army helicopters evacuated government officials to safety. The government eventually lifted the ban, but not before the resignation of the prime minister and what many are calling the worst unrest Nepal had seen in decades. This episode serves as stark notice to everyone in the ecosystem of the volatility of the digital commons/Town Square foundation that young people find on social platforms - and the very real human consequences of restricting or mishandling it. A lesson for all: for brands, it’s the true power of social, for platforms it’s the lesson of a more balanced approach to responsibility, and for governments it’s the consequences of authoritarian acts of censorship. As we have seen throughout the years from a brand safety perspective, cooperation among the entities is critical to maintaining some level of equilibrium.
From a brand safety perspective, Nepal’s crisis highlights several urgent considerations: Youth-led digital identities are here to stay, and are societally powerful. There is need for proactive self-regulation by platforms, and transparent self-regulation that may serve as buffers against disruptive crackdowns. The risks of NO audience, or adjacency to crisis situations, easily leads to reputational risk issues since social media platforms are not neutral terrain.
For global advertisers and brand stewards, even while quickly resolved and repaired, Nepal’s turmoil underscores the dual imperative of platform’s social responsibility and navigating a continually shifting political landscape. In a world where access to platforms can vanish overnight, and where users may take to the streets in response, brand safety priorities can shift in real time. Increasingly brand safety is about navigating the unpredictable intersection of technology, politics, and human behavior. The events in Nepal may feel far away to some marketers, but it gives us an advisory “window” into what can unfold when quick and restrictive measure are taken. The lesson lies in how digital ecosystems shape, and are shaped by, the societies they serve.