As the debate over Nepal’s Social Network Bill-2081 intensifies, UNESCO has weighed in with its official review, published on Monday.

The initiative is part of UNESCO’s ongoing partnership with the federal parliament of Nepal to enhance the legal framework for media and digital platforms.

According to UNESCO Nepal office, the official review was shared with National Assembly chair Narayan Prasad Dahal, Legislative Committee chair Tulasha Kumari Dahal, and Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives Indira Rana.

Dr Joan Barata Mir, senior consultant for UNESCO who conducted the legal analysis of the bill noted that countries like Bangladesh, Turkey, Russia, China, Myanmar, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Sri Lanka have adopted similar controversial bills in the past. But they have not been effective.

“Instead, they have increased social discontent and political tensions. Bangladesh is a good example,” said Mir.

He adds that although these laws are often justified as protecting public order or social cohesion, they are typically aimed at securing political control, identifying dissent, and suppressing views inconvenient to the government.

Looking at the bill, Article 2 contains ambiguities in its definitions of ‘platform’ and ‘social media’. Paragraph (c) defines a platform as a “publicly available social media platform” that enables users to exchange ideas and interact, while paragraph (i) describes social media as a ‘system’ facilitating interactive communication and content dissemination via electronic technologies.

These definitions overlap and allow for multiple interpretations, potentially encompassing anything from internet infrastructure to specific digital applications, the review says.

UNESCO has recommended that the bill define digital platforms in alignment with international standards, describing them as digital services that enable interaction between users. It also suggests that the bill address online platforms or social media services, highlighting activities such as data collection, platform design, content moderation, and content curation. The review also points out a problematic definition of “misuse of social media.” The definition includes a broad range of actions—such as posting, sharing, commenting, or tagging—if they involve content contrary to the Act or prevailing laws.

It treats different behaviors the same, raising concerns about fairness and proportionality. As per the review, the bill fails to differentiate between reposting harmful content to criticise it and intentionally spreading harmful information, which could lead to excessive penalties, including imprisonment.

The review raises concerns about the bill’s definition of the ‘Department’ responsible for information technology. The Bill refers to the “Department” as a government body.

UNESCO posits that regulatory authorities overseeing digital platform content should be independent, free from political and economic influence, and subject to external review systems.

But, by establishing a government body as the primary regulatory authority, the bill fails to meet these requirements and violates international standards.

Further concerns arise with the bill’s licensing requirements outlined in Article 3. Unlike standard business registration, the bill mandates social media platforms to obtain a license, with additional conditions.

These include adherence to user policies, security measures, and alignment with national interests. Platforms risk having their licenses revoked for disseminating harmful content or failing to comply with government directives.

According to the report, this licensing process imposes a form of prior restraint, which does not meet the three-part test established under international human rights law.

Its vague criteria permit arbitrary restrictions on legitimate political speech, while granting excessive enforcement power to a non-independent, politically controlled body.

The review also mentions the Bill’s user-imposed content restrictions are inadequate for justifying limits on online freedom of expression.

In addition, the prohibitions on hate speech and incitement to hatred or enmity are overly broad and vague, which fails to align with international human rights standards, particularly Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and could disproportionately affect certain political opinions.

Equally concerning is the Bill’s approach to compensation for damages. Article 31 mandates offenders to compensate victims for “harm, loss, distress, or damage,” but the review says that the lack of clear criteria for justifiable claims makes this provision overly broad, the review says.

Rather, UNESCO recommends that the bill define specific cases of quantifiable damages and set limits to prevent disproportionate penalties that could hinder free expression.

In a similar vein, the bill’s mention of awareness programmes falls short by not integrating Media and Information Literacy (MIL) into education systems or requiring platforms to offer users more control over digital services. While the bill criminalises dis/misinformation, it lacks preventive education strategies.

In its legal analysis, UNESCO recommends integrating MIL into national curricula and launching proactive media literacy campaigns, as these initiatives offer a more lasting and effective solution than punitive measures.

Manoj Kumar Giri, committee secretary of the Legislative Division of the National Assembly, said they have yet to start a detailed discussion of UNESCO’s review.