Ethiopia Facebook Hate Speech Lawsuit Advances in Kenya

By Darius Spearman (africanelements)

Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.

Big news recently came out of Kenya. A court there decided that a major lawsuit against Meta, the company that owns Facebook, can move forward. This case is serious business. It accuses Facebook of not doing enough to stop hate speech that fueled deadly violence in Ethiopia. For many of us in the diaspora, watching events unfold back home can be painful. This ruling feels like a small step towards justice. It signals that maybe, just maybe, tech giants can be held responsible for the harm spread on their platforms, even across borders.

The lawsuit centers on the horrific Tigray conflict in Ethiopia, which raged from 2020 to 2022. People argue that Facebook’s algorithms and weak content moderation allowed hate speech to spread like wildfire. This, they say, made the violence much worse. Now, a Kenyan court is saying, “Yes, we can hear this case.” This decision challenges Meta’s argument that Kenyan courts don’t have the power to judge them. Indeed, it’s a significant moment for global accountability.

Kenyan Court Greenlights Facebook Hate Speech Lawsuit

On April 4, 2025, the High Court of Kenya delivered a crucial ruling. It dismissed Meta’s attempt to stop the lawsuit based on jurisdiction (The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Foxglove, domain-b.com). Meta had argued that Kenyan courts couldn’t handle the case since it isn’t officially registered as a business in Kenya. They tried to say they were outside the court’s reach.

However, the court didn’t buy it. The judge essentially stated that global problems sometimes need local solutions. Just because a company operates worldwide doesn’t mean it can escape local responsibility (domain-b.com, Trends Africa). This decision allows the case, which blames Meta’s platform for worsening ethnic violence during Ethiopia’s Tigray war, to proceed. This ruling is significant because it insists that even powerful international companies must answer questions about their impact within specific countries, especially when lives are at stake.

Ethiopia Violence Social Media Link Under Scrutiny

The backdrop to this legal battle is the devastating Tigray conflict. This war, lasting from 2020 to 2022, resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Many of these killings were driven by ethnic hatred (The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Trends Africa). The lawsuit claims that Facebook became a tool for spreading this hate. Posts allegedly called for horrific acts like rape, the creation of concentration camps, and the targeted murder of specific ethnic groups.

Worse still, evidence suggests Meta knew about the problem. A 2022 investigation revealed that the company was aware its platform hosted dangerous hate speech targeting Ethiopians but failed to remove it effectively (The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Trends Africa). For Ethiopians and the diaspora community watching anxiously from abroad, the connection between online hate and real-world violence is painfully clear. Furthermore, this case highlights the urgent need for social media platforms to take responsibility for content that incites violence, especially in regions already facing conflict.

Personal Stories Fuel Content Moderation Accountability

This lawsuit isn’t just about abstract legal arguments; it’s driven by real people who have suffered immense loss and fear. The lead claimant is Abrham Meareg Amare. He alleges that his father, Professor Meareg Amare Abreha, a respected academic, was hunted down and murdered in November 2021 (The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, domain-b.com). This happened after hateful posts appeared on Facebook, specifically targeting him as a Tigrayan. These posts reportedly included his photo, address, and false accusations, essentially putting a target on his back.

Another claimant, Fisseha Tekle, works with Amnesty International to research human rights abuses in Ethiopia. Because of his work, he faced a barrage of online threats and harassment on Facebook (The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Trends Africa). These personal accounts underscore the real-world consequences when social media platforms fail to control the spread of dangerous content. Therefore, their stories put a human face on the call for greater content moderation accountability from tech giants like Meta.

Demanding Change: Algorithm Amplifying Violence Targeted

The plaintiffs aren’t just seeking punishment for past harms but demanding concrete changes to prevent future tragedies. A central demand is the creation of a massive £1.8 billion (about $2.4 billion) restitution fund. This money would be used to compensate victims of hate-fueled violence allegedly amplified by Facebook (The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, domain-b.com).

Beyond financial compensation, the lawsuit targets the core mechanics of Facebook’s platform. The plaintiffs want Meta to change its algorithms to stop promoting violent content. They also demand increased content moderation staffing, specifically for the East and Southern Africa regions, where moderation has allegedly been inadequate (The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, domain-b.com). Ultimately, they want Meta to implement effective measures to stop hate speech from going viral (Foxglove). These demands aim directly at the systems believed to contribute to the spread of harmful content.

Meta’s Defense and the Bigger Picture

Meta hasn’t officially commented on the Kenyan court’s latest ruling, but most observers expect the company to appeal the decision (The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Foxglove). Challenging jurisdiction is a familiar tactic for the tech giant. They’ve used similar arguments in other Kenyan cases, including one involving former content moderators suing over alleged poor working conditions and psychological harm (domain-b.com).

Generally, Meta defends itself by stating it invests heavily in content moderation technology and teams to remove harmful posts (domain-b.com, Trends Africa). However, it’s worth noting that Meta reportedly stopped proactively scanning for certain types of hate speech globally in 2023 (domain-b.com). This Ethiopia case is just one of three active lawsuits Meta faces in Kenya, highlighting the country as a key battleground for tech accountability (The Bureau of Investigative Journalism). Consequently, the outcome could set an important precedent, influencing how tech companies are held responsible for content on their platforms worldwide (domain-b.com).

The decision by the Kenyan High Court is a significant development. It keeps the door open for holding one of the world’s most influential companies accountable for its impact in an African nation. For the Ethiopian community and the wider diaspora, this case represents a fight for justice and recognition of the harm caused. While the legal battle is far from over, this ruling provides a glimmer of hope. Perhaps global tech platforms will finally have to answer for the real-world consequences of the digital spaces they control. Indeed, the world is watching what happens next in Kenya.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Darius Spearman has been a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College since 2007. He is the author of several books, including Between The Color Lines: A History of African Americans on the California Frontier Through 1890. You can visit Darius online at africanelements.org.