Govt. justifies its act to ban TikTok, says it lacks self-regulation

The Ministry of Communication and Information Technology (MoCIT) has furnished a written reply to the Supreme Court (SC) regarding the ban imposed on TikTok, stating that the decision to ban TikTok was taken as it was not possible to regulate the activities on TikTok.

The MoCIT submitted the written explanation to the apex court on December 4, claiming that Tiktok’s self-regulation is inadequate and that real-time content cannot be removed, so the government decided to ban it. In a written clarification sent to the SC by the Secretary of the Ministry of Communications, Krishna Bahadur Raut, it is stated that, “Unlike other social networks that remove content violating community guidelines, TikTok lacks the capability to remove real-time content. Besides, TikTok records live videos and shares them on other social networks, making regulation almost impossible.”

The ministry argues that TikTok’s failure to adhere to the principles, mainly in quickly removing false and misleading content, justifies the need for the restriction.

Tiktok has set an algorithm so that users can get videos according to their interests, so users will become addicted to watching the videos for hours and it will adversely affect human health, claimed the ministry.

“Excessive use of Tik Tok is causing problems such as insomnia, anxiety, and depression, as well as leading children and youth to the wrong direction and creating a toxic psychology,” pointed out the ministry in the written explanation.

Prior to this, Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal “Prachanda” had also provided a written clarification to the apex court regarding the banning of Tik Tok and claimed that Tik Tok has spread social anomalies. There were 16 writ petitions registered at the SC against the government’s decision to ban Tik Tok. Although the bench of Justice Binod Sharma refused to issue an interim order, it gave priority to the case and ordered the government to submit a written clarification on the hearing held on Tuesday. The SC has arranged regular hearing on this case from Tuesday, December 5.