Recent events have raised alarming questions about social media giant Meta and its role in suppressing political dissent and protest movements across the globe. While international attention has focused on Meta’s alleged censorship of pro-Palestinian content during the Israel-Gaza conflict, similar concerns are now emerging in Kenya, where activists suspect collaboration between the company and the government to silence critics.
A damning report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) in 2023 accused Meta of “systemic and global” censorship on its Facebook and Instagram platforms, documenting over 1,000 instances of content removal, account suspensions, and restricted sharing related to Palestine across more than 60 countries.
The report cited inconsistent policy enforcement, over-reliance on automated moderation tools, and undue government influence as key factors behind the censorship.
This pattern of yielding to government pressure is not new for Meta. In India, the company faced criticism for failing to curb hate speech and calls for violence against Muslims, with internal documents revealing a reluctance to act against inflammatory content posted by members of the ruling party. The company’s actions in India have reportedly set a precedent for other authoritarian governments to exert control over social media narratives.
Now, similar suspicions are arising in Kenya. Activists and content creators report experiencing sudden drops in engagement and visibility when posting about ongoing protests and government criticism.
Popular content creator Dennis Ombachi shared a revealing case study on X, demonstrating how a video criticizing the government’s Finance Bill 2024 received minimal views over 20 days, while the same video reposted with subtle changes to evade detection obtained significantly more engagement within an hour.
According to Ombachi, the tactics he identified for circumventing censorship include:
- Avoiding hashtags, which are easily flagged by automated systems
- To confuse AI moderators, embed messages within seemingly unrelated content.
- Using basic, non-political captions
- Deleting previously flagged content before reposting
- Focusing on video content rather than easily flagged images
These strategies suggest a sophisticated system of content suppression that goes beyond mere algorithmic quirks. The need for such elaborate workarounds has led many to suspect direct collaboration between Meta and the Kenyan government to stifle dissent.
Critics argue that Meta’s pursuit of growth in developing nations like Kenya may be leading it to compromise on principles of free expression and human rights.
The parallels between Meta’s actions in India, its handling of Palestinian content, and the emerging situation in Kenya paint a concerning picture of a platform increasingly willing to bend to government pressure at the expense of free speech.
As protests continue in Kenya and other parts of the world, the tension between Meta’s business interests, stated values, and role as a communications platform is likely to remain under intense scrutiny.
While Meta has denied accusations of deliberate bias, stating that enforcing policies during fast-moving conflicts inevitably leads to some errors, the mounting evidence across multiple countries suggests a pattern that warrants further investigation and transparency from the company.
