Kathmandu, October 7
A study has concluded that nearly 34 percent of the online discourse during Nepal’s Gen Z uprising on September 8 and 9 was driven by fake accounts and AI-generated content.
The research by Cyabra, a cyber intelligence company based in Tel Aviv, Israel, found that some fake users, mingling with real ones, used hashtags like #GenZProtest and #WakeUpNepal to push the movement toward extremism and violence.
Cyabra, an AI-powered platform, specializes in detecting misinformation and tracking online risks. Governments, brands, and institutions in many countries use its services.
Titled “Key Findings from Nepal’s 2025 Protests,” the report analyzed the online conversations surrounding Nepal’s Gen Z uprising.
The report notes that young people were portrayed as defenders of democracy who used their digital literacy to mobilize social media and build identities.
By analyzing online discussions on platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, and TikTok from September 6 to 9, the Cyabra report showed how social media heated up both before and after the street demonstrations.
One in three users on X was fake
According to Cyabra’s report, during the protest period (September 6–9), out of all profiles analyzed on X, 1,288, about 34 percent, were fake or suspicious accounts.
The report states that one in every three users was fake but appeared to engage as actively as real users, helping shape online narratives.
These accounts significantly contributed to amplifying reports of police brutality, political crisis, and anti-government sentiment, as well as urging people to take to the streets.
They blended seamlessly into genuine conversations, playing a role in spreading protest hashtags and strengthening anti-government discourse.
Early virtual mobilization
Although the protests took place on September 8, the report shows that virtual preparations had begun as early as August. Fake and real users alike posted calls to join the movement using hashtags such as #September8, #WakeUpNepal, #NepalProtest, #GenZProtest, and #EnoughIsEnough, helping content reach a massive audience.
Fake accounts mimicked real users by posting, retweeting, commenting, and engaging in debates to avoid detection.
Coordinated online activity
Cyabra termed this a “coordinated activity,” suggesting the fake accounts might have been part of a planned and organized campaign.
The report notes, “This shows how fake accounts can blend with real voices, amplify protest messages, and strategically influence real users through targeted messaging.”
While 66 percent of users were real, Cyabra explored how the remaining 34 percent of fake accounts could have such a large impact.
According to the report, 11.5 percent of all interactions including likes, retweets and comments came from fake profiles. Out of 1.4 million total interactions, more than 164,000 were from fake accounts.
These fake profiles’ content reportedly reached 326 million screens, accounting for 14 percent of total potential reach.
Fake accounts influencing narrative
The report states these fake or suspicious users didn’t just spread rumors, they were capable of redirecting the entire conversation.
Experts note that even a small organized group of fake accounts can strategically insert themselves into important discussions and amplify their messages.
“By posing as real users, they can deceive people into thinking a certain idea is more popular or widely supported than it actually is,” one expert said. “This questions how fair or organic public debate truly is.”
In a country like Nepal with rising social media influence but weak digital literacy this poses serious risks, especially when people rely heavily on these platforms for information.
According to social media researcher Ujjwal Acharya, multiple groups tend to become active during crises.
“If they run coordinated networks of multiple fake IDs, it can distort democratic discourse,” he said.
He added, “It’s natural for individuals to use pseudonymous accounts for safety, but when networks of fake IDs are used for manipulation, that’s wrong.”
The dangers of coordinated disinformation
When fake accounts spread organized misinformation, it can create confusion, polarization, and even lead to real-world conflict.
The report notes that the Gen Z protest was as intense online as it was on the streets.
Social media became not just a platform for sharing information but a battleground for shaping opinions, influencing public sentiment, and distorting facts.
AI-generated visuals were used in many promotional materials calling people to join the protests, boosting engagement and appeal.
Fake profiles played a significant role in amplifying aggressive and anti-government messages.
On X, 34 percent of analyzed profiles were fake. These profiles generated 11.5 percent of all engagement, 164,000 out of 1.4 million interactions, and their content reached over 326 million views (14 percent of potential reach).
The report portrays social media not merely as a tool of mobilization but also as a battlefield for constructing and expanding narratives.
Three dominant online narratives
The report identifies three main narratives dominating online discourse around the Gen Z uprising. They include, democratic struggle for youth leadership, state repression and police brutality, and political and leadership crisis.
Posts often contrasted the courage of the youth with the repressive nature of the disconnected ruling class, framing youth as brave and authentic, while the government appeared old-fashioned and out of touch.
This narrative gave emotional and moral legitimacy to the movement, portraying it as a fight to save the country’s future.
The virtual discourse depicted youth as guardians of democracy and the driving force of change against political stagnation and corruption.
Police violence and public outrage
The second narrative revolved around state violence. Social media flooded with images and videos showing police firing bullets, using tear gas, and beating protesters.
Rather than listening to citizens, the state appeared to suppress them, widening the gap between people and government and fueling public distrust.
Protesters were portrayed as victims, and the state as the oppressor, further intensifying anti-government emotions.
The third narrative focused on political and leadership failure, with widespread criticism and calls for the resignation of Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli and other leaders.
Posts framed the government as ineffective, irresponsible, and disconnected from citizens’ demands.
Digital tools and emotional mobilization
The report examined how digital tools and visuals were used to emotionally connect with people and draw their attention.
AI-generated images created an idealized picture of an organized movement, building momentum even before the real protest. Influencers with large followings also joined in, framing the movement as a generational fight for change.
From September 6–7, social media was flooded with calls to join the protest, but as the demonstrations turned violent on September 8–9, the tone of online discourse shifted dramatically.
Hopeful calls were replaced by anger, grief, and documentation of violence. People began sharing photos, videos, and personal accounts, turning social media into a collective space for mourning and outrage.
The physical violence on the streets mirrored an emotional upheaval in the virtual space.
From hope to rage
Many criticized police brutality, while others condemned vandalism by protesters. Overall, the digital atmosphere became charged with anger.
Posts calling for participation transformed into demands for accountability and justice.
The report concludes that while youth harnessed social media to move their protest from streets to screens, this also opened the door for misuse by fake accounts.
It also documented how AI-generated visuals were used during digital mobilization to attract and engage the younger generation.
“These findings reinforce the perception that the state responded to civic dissent with disproportionate force, painting a picture of a government detached from democratic values and public sentiment,” the report says.
“This narrative was driven by a mix of eyewitness accounts, news reports, and viral visuals of clashes near the Parliament.”
Not just a reaction, a decade of frustration
The report notes that the movement was “not merely an immediate reaction but an expression of years of frustration.”
The underlying narrative was that the problem lay not just in policies but in the political system and leadership itself.
No matter the issue raised, it was linked to political and leadership failure, creating what the report calls a “digital ecosystem of dissent,” a powerful, multi-dimensional environment of frustration that reinforced itself.
While the country became a physical battleground, the digital space too turned into a virtual war zone, where messages highlighted the incompetence of a government unable to address citizens’ demands.
The collective sentiment across platforms converged into one conclusion; “This is not okay. Change is needed.”
