15 Sep 2025 | About Index, Asia and Pacific, Nepal, News and features, Newsletters
It’s been a week of political violence and while many might still be glued to news about the murder of Charlie Kirk (my response here), I want to turn attention to another unfolding crisis – the growing war on digital freedoms. This week that war flared dramatically in Nepal.
The story moved fast. Thousands of people, mostly young, took to the streets at the start of the week to protest the government’s decision to ban 26 social media platforms. Scores of unarmed protesters were killed and government buildings torched. The prime minister and other officials then resigned. The social media bans were lifted. Writing for Index from the country this week, Gary Wornell spoke of his horror and sadness at what unfolded. “The Nepal I had known as my second home for the last 13 years would never be,” he said. His piece is both a good explainer and a deeply emotional witness account.
The government tried to justify the bans as necessary to tackle fake news, hate speech and platform accountability. The youth saw it differently, and called it censorship, plain and simple. We agree, not least because we’ve heard this line before, many times. Across South Asia (and for that matter the world) governments use the pretext of “online safety” to roll back digital rights and, by extension, civil liberties.
In India, we’ve closely tracked how Narendra Modi’s government has tightened control over digital platforms through legislative and regulatory measures, often under the guise of combating fake news or protecting national unity and security. The ruling party has also benefitted from the mob veto, where right-wing groups and influencers have lodged a blizzard of police complaints about errant social media posts. These have resulted in prominent individuals, such as commentator Dr Medusa and journalist (and Index award winner) Mohammed Zubair, being charged with sedition. In Pakistan a bill was passed in January that gives the government sweeping controls on social media. Users can now be sent to prison for spreading disinformation. Sri Lanka’s Online Safety Act allows the government to take down content critical of it to apparently protect national security interests. Bangladesh has the Digital Security Act, which has been criticised for its breadth. I’ll park the UK’s Online Safety Act but we have concerns about that too, as we’ve frequently highlighted.
Not all legislation is cynical or censorious. Several voices from our South Asia network reminded us this week that digital spaces are indeed being used to incite hate and violence. The amplification of hateful content against the Rohingya in Myanmar on Facebook is a tragic example. But here’s a distinction: recognising and responding to harm is not the same as justifying an authoritarian response. Even those most concerned with digital hate in South Asia condemned Nepal’s actions.
The fury has died down in Nepal. Still, as the above pattern shows, it’s unlikely this woeful chapter will be the end of government attempts to shut down digital discourse.
9 Sep 2025 | Africa, News and features, Newsletters, Tanzania
Social media activist Edgar Mwakabela, better known as Sativa, shouldn’t be alive today. In an interview with the BBC this week he spoke about how he was abducted last June in Tanzania’s main city Dar es Salaam and later taken to a remote area. His captors interrogated him about his activism and his criticism of the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) party. He was tortured and shot in the head. The bullet went through his skull and shattered his jaw. He was meant to die. Somehow he didn’t. That he still has a voice is the only positive part of this grim story.
It’s made all the grimmer by the fact that it stands out because of Sativa’s survival. It’s unlike the story of Ali Mohamed Kibao, whose body was found beaten and doused with acid last September. It’s unlike Modestus Timbisimilwa, who was shot dead by police last November as he tried to stop interference at polling stations. It’s unlike George Juma Mohamed and Steven Chalamila, both killed in their own homes the night before. All were part of the opposition.
Tanzania goes to the polls next month but as these examples show it’s insulting to suggest the elections will be remotely free or fair.
The CCM have been in power for decades, ever since colonial rule ended in Tanzania in the 1960s. They are currently led by Samia Suluhu Hassan, who proceeded the increasingly autocratic John Magufuli, a regular on the pages of Index (see here, here and here). When Hassan first took office as Tanzania’s president, there was cautious optimism that the rights landscape would improve – and it did for a bit. Gains were made in the realms of media freedom and protest rights. A ban on opposition gatherings was lifted. The tide has however turned.
The main opposition party, Chadema, has been barred from participating in the election. Chadema’s leader, Tundu Lissu, is currently in jail charged with treason, after he called for electoral reforms.
In addition to those who’ve been killed or jailed are the many disappeared. Posters of the missing have become a pre-election fixture. One high-profile case is that of artist Shadrack Chaula, who last July was imprisoned for an online video in which he allegedly “insulted” Hassan. He paid a hefty fine in exchange for his freedom only to disappear a month later. Another is Deusdedith Soka, a 30-year-old Chadema youth leader who disappeared last August after calling for a demonstration precisely against disappearances.
Hassan has condemned many of these brutal acts, denied any involvement and called for investigations. But they’re still happening under her watch in a country she leads. Last year Lissu said that Hassan “has done with a smile what Magufuli did with a snarl.” Compared to the execrable Magufuli, who was nicknamed the “bulldozer”, we’ve paid little attention to her. It’s clear that needs to change.
5 Sep 2025 | Americas, Asia and Pacific, Canada, Europe and Central Asia, Georgia, Nepal, News and features
Bombarded with news from all angles every day, important stories can easily pass us by. To help you cut through the noise, every Friday Index publishes a weekly news roundup of some of the key stories covering censorship and free expression. This week, we look at the Alberta school library book ban, and the sentencing of twenty protesters in Georgia.
Alberta pauses controversial book ban amid backlash
The government of Alberta has paused a proposed book ban, which aimed to take out books from school libraries which contained what the authorities called “explicit sexual content”
Books such as Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, Maya Angelou’s I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World were included in a list of more than 200 that would be removed under the new measures.
There was a public outcry and Atwood released a short story on social media, stating: “Here’s a piece of literature by me, suitable for 17-year-olds in Alberta schools, unlike — we are told — The Handmaid’s Tale.”
Now, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says she has pressed pause in order to review the policy and “preserve access to classic literature.”
The Christian parents group Action4Canada had previously hailed the book ban as a “great victory” following a meeting with the state’s education minister.
Byline Times Journalists denied access to Conservative Party annual conference.
The UK Conservative Party has banned Byline Times from attending its annual conference, refusing to give an explanation as to why.
It has been normal practice for political parties to allow journalists from established outlets to cover their annual gatherings which take place in the autumn. However in recent years that convention has been eroded.
The Labour Party was criticised in 2024 by Reporters without Borders for refusing to accredit critical journalist John McEvoy from Declassified.
And in 2023 the Conservative party faced an accusation of discrimination, when some journalists were forced to pay for entry whilst others were not. In the same year 2023 the Scottish Tory Party tried to restrict a q&a session with then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to only six carefully chosen outlets.
Nigel Farage’s Reform Party last year also banned Byline Times from attending their conference as well as Carole Cadwalladr from the Observer.
Anti-Government protestors sentenced in Georgia amid torture allegations
Georgian courts have sentenced 20 protesters including actor Andro Chichinadze and activist Saba Skhvitardze to prison in connection with anti-government rallies.
Skhvitaridze, who was arrested on 5 December, alleges that he faced torture whilst in prison, a claim that according to Amnesty has not been properly investigated. He was jailed for two years after being found guilty of causing “intentional bodily harm” to a police officer during a protest.
Chichinadze, who was also sentenced to two years following charges of disruption of public order said: “I want to address the prosecutors and you from my side, I forgive what you have been doing to me for so long.”
Georgia has faced widespread demonstrations following the 2024 parliamentary elections, which saw the ruling Georgian Dream party secure victory. Claims of electoral fraud triggered the protests as well as the arrest of opposition leader Zurab Japaridze who has not only now been jailed for seven months but barred from holding public office for two years.
Social media platforms banned in Nepal
Nepal’s Ministry of Communications has issued a ban on all social media platforms that failed to register with the government following a 25 August directive.
The ban comes following a Supreme Court ruling from 17 August that required the registration of online platforms in order to “monitor disinformation”.
Multiple large platforms, including Facebook, YouTube and Reddit failed to register before the deadline. Japanese social media Viber and Chinese owned TikTok remain accessible.
The Committee to Protect Journalists has warned that the ban severely undermines press freedom and the public access to information, urging the government to reverse its decision.
CPJ Regional Director Beh Lih Yi said: “Blocking online news platforms vital to journalists will undermine reporting and the public’s right to information. The government must immediately rescind this order and restore access to social media platforms, which are essential tools for exercising press freedom.”
3 Sep 2025 | Americas, News and features, United States, Volume 54.02 Summer 2025
This article first appeared in Volume 54, Issue 2 of our print edition of Index on Censorship, titled Land of the Free?: Trump’s war on speech at home and abroad, published on 21 July 2025. Read more about the issue here.
In late April, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt decided to do things differently by holding a new type of press briefing. Instead of fielding questions from credentialled journalists, she held separate briefings specifically for social media news influencers.
“Tens of millions of Americans are now turning to social media and independent media outlets to consume their news, and we are embracing that change, not ignoring it,” Leavitt said at the beginning of the first such briefing on 28 April.
Jackson Gosnell – a college student who runs a popular TikTok news account and sometimes appears on the pro-Donald Trump broadcaster One America News – attended that briefing. He asked about Russia’s war in Ukraine given Trump’s promise to end it quickly.
“I thought it was important to ask questions that people at home wanted to know,” Gosnell told Index. “Not the fluff that others might have given.”
Unsurprisingly, nearly all the 25 people identified by NBC as having attended that week’s briefings at the White House have a history of clear support for Trump. The “fluff” from the other news influencers – dubbed “newsfluencers” or “news brokers” by various academics – included a combination of softball questions, overt praise for Trump, false information and conspiracy theories.
But how did these people make their way into the heart of the federal government? In January, Leavitt announced that “new media” – such as podcasters and social media influencers – would be permitted to apply for credentials to cover the White House. She began reserving a rotating “new media” seat at regular press briefings and giving its occupant the first question. Analysis by The New York Times found that the seat often went to either right-wing media or newer outlets such as digital start-ups Semafor and Axios.
The White House then took over the press pool in February, giving it control for the first time in a century over which reporters were permitted close access to cover the president. It announced it would start inviting “new media” to join the press pool, with most of the invited outlets being conservative or right-wing, according to analysis by the non-profit Poynter Institute for Media Studies.
Historically organised by the independent White House Correspondents’ Association, the press pool is a group of rotating journalists, who cover the president up close every day for a wider group of media, who are known as the press corps.
The rise of citizen journalism in the USA has been a long time coming. But in the months since Trump returned to the Oval Office, the phenomenon has quickly reached a crescendo as the White House embraces pro-Trump newsfluencers in a way that has never been done before.
Former president Joe Biden invited social media influencers to the White House, too. But the current administration openly welcomes, champions and legitimises pro-Trump newsfluencers and other members of the “new media” cohort – many of whom tend to disseminate falsehoods and conspiracies.
The White House has simultaneously used other mechanisms – such as co-opting the press pool – to box out traditional media and make it more difficult for mainstream journalists to cover the current administration.
Multiple academics said that, taken together, these phenomena are concerning for US democracy because they make holding the president accountable a taller order. They also send the message to the rest of the world that the USA doesn’t care as much about championing global press freedom as it once did.
“This is about trying to eliminate criticism and dissent,” Kathy Kiely, chair of free press studies at the Missouri School of Journalism, said. “[It’s] lapdogs versus watchdogs.”
The White House’s spokesperson Anna Kelly told Index over email that the media has enjoyed “an unprecedented level of access to President Trump, who is the most transparent and accessible president in history.”
“Under the president’s leadership, the press office has been more inclusive of new media, whose audiences often dwarf those of legacy media outlets, and local syndicates – ensuring that the president’s message reaches as many Americans as possible,” she added.
The concept of a newsfluencer is relatively new. In the USA, they were once on the fringes of the media ecosystem. But the 2020 election and the subsequent “big lie” narrative – that the election was stolen from Trump – was a major inflection point that accelerated the rise of far-right newsfluencers. False narratives about the Covid-19 pandemic and the 6 January insurrection in 2021 also helped facilitate their ascent.
Many rose to prominence by deliberately differentiating themselves from the mainstream media. But now some of them are on the verge of entering the mainstream themselves, if they haven’t already.
“These Maga [Make America Great Again] influencers see their role not as sceptical journalists but as boosters of the president and his administration,” said Aidan McLaughlin, editor-in-chief of the media news site Mediaite.
The months leading up to the 2024 presidential election crystallised the vast reach that newsfluencers now wield. Trump appeared on an array of podcasts and online shows popular with male audiences, including the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. Former vice-president Kamala Harris also turned to “new media” in her campaign.
It’s difficult to measure the extent that newsfluencers impact how people vote or think about societal issues, said Roxana Muenster, a graduate in communications at Cornell University in New York who studies far-right lifestyle movements online. She said the outsized role they played around the 2024 election was undeniable.
Shortly after the election, a Pew Research Centre report confirmed the growing power that newsfluencers hold. Roughly one in five Americans regularly get news from influencers on social media, the report found, and about two-thirds of that group say this helps them better understand current events and civic issues.
No longer on the outskirts of the US media sphere, right-wing TikTokers and podcasters are now welcomed into the White House. Some, such as Laura Loomer, influence Trump himself (her sway has allegedly led to the sacking of several government officials, including former national security adviser Mike Waltz).
Others – including Robert F Kennedy Jr, Kash Patel and Dan Bongino – have even become members of the administration.
To a certain extent, these newsfluencers don’t really need the White House, says Muenster, because they already have significant followings of their own. But they do get something else out of it.
“It bestows them with a certain legitimacy,” she said. “It says that these are reliable sources to get your news from.”
This can pose problems when the newsfluencers aren’t actually reliable or accurate, as is often the case. “They are not as strict with the truth as people in the actual news industry,” Muenster said.
That means false information and conspiracy theories can run rampant, which doesn’t bode well for the health of US democracy.
Disinformation and misinformation can erode trust in institutions and make authoritarianism seem more appealing, according to Mert Bayar, a post-doctoral scholar at the University of Washington’s Centre For an Informed Public.
“In a normal democracy, you want credible sources of information,” he said.
For instance, while in the “new media” seat during an official briefing in late April, Tim Pool – the prominent host of several conservative podcasts, which last year were found to have links to Russian state media – lambasted “legacy media” for “hoaxes” about Trump and asked Leavitt to comment on their “unprofessional behaviour”. (“We want to welcome all viewpoints into this room,” Leavitt replied.)
And at one of the influencer briefings, Dominick McGee – a highly-followed conspiracy theorist on X who operates under the pseudonym Dom Lucre – asked Leavitt whether Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would ever be investigated for election integrity. Forbes reported that McGee was briefly suspended from X (then Twitter) in 2023 for posting a video of child sexual abuse.
Leavitt said McGee’s question was “refreshing” and that “the legacy media would never ask” it.
In a phone interview, McGee told Index he thought US media was “broken” and had “betrayed the American people”.
He said he considers himself a journalist; but he also said he was more concerned with being “freaking entertaining”.
Like McGee, Gosnell thinks mainstream media is dead and influencers are the future of the media industry.
But compared with other “new media” in the Trump orbit, Gosnell is relatively balanced in how he delivers the news. Even though he welcomes the rise of the newsfluencer, he knows it comes with risks. “It’s a little scary, too, because people on the internet can lie just as much as news hosts – if not [more],” Gosnell said.
Still, he is sometimes tempted to produce more opinionated content, adding: “It seems way more profitable.”
The White House gets something out of its new arrangement, too, according to Bayar. Speaking directly to Maga newsfluencers gives the White House a sympathetic ear to peddle its messages to. Meanwhile, prioritising these voices also limits the ability of journalists from mainstream outlets to ask hard questions that can hold the administration accountable.
To Bayar, the situation in the USA reminds him of his home country, Turkey, where the government picks and chooses which journalists are and aren’t allowed at press conferences with president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
“It is part of this authoritarian playbook,” said Bayar. “If you don’t get asked tough questions, you can actually control public opinion better because you control your answers.”
While the White House’s embrace of Maga newsfluencers appears to be bad news for democracy in the “land of liberty” and the home of the First Amendment, it also has implications for the rest of the world.
The USA has historically championed press freedom globally. But the administration’s simultaneous embrace of pro-Trump influencers and attacks on critical media signal that Washington doesn’t really care about independent journalism anywhere in the world, according to Kiely. “It sends a very strong signal to dictators elsewhere,” she said.
Some authoritarian countries appear to have already been emboldened by Trump’s actions. As part of the Azerbaijani government’s crackdown on independent media, authorities in May imprisoned Voice of America contributor Ulviyya Guliyeva. Press freedom experts and her colleagues believe the Trump administration’s campaign to gut VOA emboldened Baku to target the reporter.
As McLaughlin says, “this has a bad ripple effect on the rest of the world”.
