As the debate over Nepal’s proposed and rather controversial social media bill continues, the Post’s Aarati Ray spoke with Ana Cristina Ruelas, Senior Programme Specialist on Freedom of Expression at UNESCO. Ruelas offered an assessment of how the bill falls short of international human rights standards.

You engaged with members of Parliament as part of the social media bill review process. How did they respond?

We organised a workshop on March 5 and 6 to engage with MPs. The discussion was based on UNESCO’s ‘Guidelines for the Governance of Digital Platforms’. We aimed to integrate international human rights principles and a multi-stakeholder approach into the debate on Nepal’s proposed social media bill.

The MPs were open to the dialogue and genuinely willing to hear different perspectives, which is very important for stakeholder engagement in the evaluation and monitoring process. There was a lot of positive responsiveness.

Does the proposed bill align with global standards? In what aspects does the bill fall short on international human rights principles?

In our discussions with MPs and stakeholders, we emphasised the need to revise the bill to align with international human rights standards and to establish evidence-based regulations that are legitimate, necessary, and proportionate in upholding freedom of expression.

Certain provisions in the bill [such as the definition of ‘misuse of social media’, content restrictions affecting users, overly broad definitions, and vague criterias] do not fully comply with frameworks like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), particularly Article 19 of the UDHR and Articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR, along with their associated recommendations.

Regulating social media requires a multi-stakeholder approach. Given that this is a relatively new issue, it’s understandable that the first attempt didn’t come out perfect. While opening Parliament is a good step forward, it would only be wise to acknowledge the need for important revisions and input from diverse stakeholders to ensure a human rights centre approach.

Aside from Nepal, many countries around the world have brought controversial social media laws. Based on UNESCO’s work, what key human rights principles should Nepal consider when shaping its social media regulations?

When examining how countries regulate digital platforms globally, we found two main approaches. Some focus on censorship, directly targeting users, while others regulate systems and processes to ensure platforms apply their community guidelines transparently.

To uphold human rights principles, regulations must prioritise transparency, accountability, and human rights due diligence. The focus should shift from targeting specific content to addressing systemic issues in content governance. Instead of content control, what we need is independent governance of digital platforms.

This requires three key steps. First, ensuring regulatory independence. Second, creating an environment where freedom of expression thrives, allowing journalists and media to operate freely. And third, holding platforms accountable to international human rights obligations.

Criminalising specific content that is not illegal, as proposed in the bill, is inconsistent with global human rights standards. For instance, while the bill mandates content removal, it does not require platforms to disclose how their moderation systems operate. There are no obligations on platforms to enhance transparency in content moderation, algorithmic decision-making, or due diligence processes.

So UNESCO guidelines suggest a systems-based approach that ensures platform design, content curation, and moderation measures align with international human rights standards, rather than narrowly focusing on individual content removal or user behaviour.

I would like to clarify that UNESCO is not calling on member states to create new laws but to review existing ones through the lens of the ‘Guidelines for the Governance of Digital Platforms’. For instance, when applying electoral laws to the digital environment, countries should interpret them in line with these principles to ensure a rights-based approach.

While there is freedom of expression and access to information on social media, so are things like hate speech, disinformation, and fake news. If not by penalising, how can we address the problems without restricting legitimate dissent and freedom?

All the digital platforms should be transparent, accountable, and conduct a human rights risk assessment tied to their design, content moderation, and curation. Human rights risk assessment is a very important part. This should happen at all stages, from promotion to dissemination and usage. This means platforms need to identify and understand any potential systemic risks that could arise with their services and how they may affect users.

Platforms should adhere to international human rights standards. This includes having content moderation practices that are consistent with human rights, whether automated or handled by humans, and using knowledge of local languages and cultural contexts.

Accountability here means, when risks like AI-driven disinformation or deepfakes emerge, they should transparently disclose how their algorithms and moderation systems function, mitigation strategies, and explain their implementation.

We also need to understand that disinformation, while harmful to individuals’ ability to exercise their rights, is not the root cause but rather a result of societal crises and a decline in public trust.

Freedom of expression protects all forms of information, regardless of the truth or falsehood of the content. So, imposing a blanket obligation on private actors, such as journalists, media, bloggers, and individuals, to only share accurate information or penalising non-defamatory false content contradicts international law.

In many countries including Nepal, the legal system already provides a way to address issues with particular pieces of content through the courts. So, for social media regulation, we recommend a systems-based and risk-based approach to digital platform regulation, ensuring proactive engagement from states, companies, international organisations, civil society, and the media.

What could be the effect of the currently proposed bill on press freedom?

In 2022, UNESCO approved the Windhoek Declaration, which stresses that “information is a public good” and highlights the importance of verified and reliable information. Public good, because information is a shared resource that enables people to participate in a healthy civic society.

To preserve information as a public good, the declaration outlines four key pillars: protecting and ensuring the safety of journalists, media viability, transparency of digital platforms, and promoting media and information literacy.

Since the current social media bill does not fully align with these principles, revisions have been recommended.

If bills that undermine freedom of expression or disregard any of the four essential pillars are passed, press freedom will inevitably suffer. Freedom of expression and press freedom cannot be viewed in isolation.

Digital platforms are now part of our lives and new civic spaces. The government, media organisations, and civil society all have roles to play.

The bill penalises the use of pseudonyms, fake profiles and anonymous accounts. What’s your opinion on this?

Anonymity and encryption are fundamental protections recognised by the UN and human rights principles. Marginalised individuals like women often rely on anonymity to speak out and be heard.

In the case of fake profiles and deepfakes, they are often used for parody, political criticism, and challenging mainstream societal beliefs. It’s the core of freedom of expression that every individual gets the space to speak. These forms of expression deserve protection. General prohibitions or restrictions on expressing ideas and opinions in an anonymous manner or through a pseudonym would be incompatible. More precise provisions should be thought of for this case.

Does UNESCO plan to formally submit recommendations to the Nepal government?

During the workshop, we conveyed the importance of taking time to deeply revise the bill to clearly define its objectives and scope in light of international human rights standards and to continue an open parliament process. We have already submitted a set of key recommendations. It is part of UNESCO’s mandate to review issues related to freedom of expression and access to information in our member countries. We have offered to continue providing support throughout the revision process.

Are there any international examples that Nepal can learn from when it comes to regulating social media and digital platforms?

There isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach because regulations must be tailored to the specific context, stakeholders, and digital environment of each country. That’s why UNESCO created guidelines—not as a template to copy, but as a framework for discussions within each country. While there are good practices worldwide, this is a relatively new issue, and many laws are still being evaluated. But, there’s a genuine interest in doing it right, and I believe Nepal could set a positive example if they are willing to revise the provisions in their social media bill.