What Does Meta’s About-Turn on Content Moderation Bode for Africa?

By CIPESA Writer |

Meta’s recent decision to get rid of its third-party fact-checkers, starting within the United States, has sent shockwaves globally, raising significant concerns about the concept of free speech and the fight against disinformation and misinformation. The announcement was part of a raft of major policy changes announced on January 7, 2025 by Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg that will affect its platforms Facebook, Instagram and Threads used by three billion people worldwide. They include the introduction of the user-generated “Community Notes” model, elimination of third-party fact-checkers, reduced content restrictions and enforcement, and enabling the personalisation of civic or political content.

While the announcement makes no reference to Africa, the changes will trickle down to the continent. Meta’s decision is particularly concerning for Africa which is unique in terms of linguistic and cultural diversity, limited digital and media information literacy, coupled with the growing challenges of hate speech and election-related disinformation, lack of context-specific content moderation policies, and inadequate investment in local fact-checking initiatives.

Africa’s content moderation context and needs are also quite different from those of Europe or North America due to the predominant use of local languages that are often overlooked by automated fact-checking algorithms and content filters.

Notably, the justifications given by Meta are quite weak, as the new changes appear to undermine its own initiatives to promote free speech, particularly the work of its third-party fact-checking program and the Oversight Board, which it set up to help resolve some of the most difficult questions around freedom of expression online and information integrity. The decision also appears to be politically and economically motivated as the company seeks to re-align itself with and appease the incoming Trump administration that has been critical against fact-checking and get assistance in pushing back against regulation of its activities outside the U.S.

The company also amended its policy on Hateful Conduct on January 7, 2025, and replaced the term “hate speech” with “hateful conduct” and eliminated previous thresholds for taking down hate content and will allow more hateful speech against specific groups. Further, whereas the company is moving its Trust and Safety and Content Moderation Teams to Texas, it is yet to set up such robust teams for Africa.

Importance of Fact-Checking

Fact-checking plays a critical role in combating disinformation and misinformation and fostering informed public discourse. By verifying the accuracy of online content, fact-checkers help to identify unauthentic content and counter the spread of false narratives that can incite violence, undermine trust in institutions, or distort democratic processes.

Additionally, it promotes accountability and reduces the virality of misleading content, particularly during sensitive periods, such as elections, political unrest, public health crises, or conflict situations, where accurate and credible information is crucial for decision-making. Moreover, fact-checking fosters media literacy by encouraging audiences to critically evaluate information sources.

Fact-checking organisations such as Politifact have criticised the assertions by the Meta CEO that fact-checkers were “too politically biased” and had “destroyed more trust than they had created, especially in the U.S.”, yet decisions and power to take down content have been squarely Meta’s responsibility, with fact-checkers only providing independent review of posts. The Meta assertions also undermine the work of independent media outlets and civil society who have been accused by authoritarian regimes of being corrupt political actors.

 However, fact-checking is not without its challenges and downsides. The process can inadvertently suppress free expression, especially in contexts where the line between disinformation and legitimate dissent is blurred. In Africa, where cultural and linguistic diversity is vast, and resources for local-language moderation are limited, fact-checking algorithms or teams may misinterpret context, leading to unjust content removal or amplification of bias. Furthermore, fact-checking initiatives can become tools for censorship if not governed transparently, particularly in authoritarian settings.

Despite these challenges, the benefits of fact-checking far outweigh their challenges. Instead of getting rid of fact-checking, Meta and other big tech companies should strengthen its implementation by providing enough resources to both recruit, train and provide psycho-social services to fact-checkers.

Impact of the Decision for Africa
  1. Increase of Disinformation

Africa faces a distinct set of challenges that make effective content moderation and fact-checking particularly crucial. Disinformation and misinformation in Africa have had far-reaching consequences, from disrupting electoral processes and influencing the choice of candidates by unsuspecting voters to jeopardising public health. Disinformation during elections has fueled violence, while health-related misinformation during health crises, such as during the Covid-19 pandemic, endangered lives by undermining public health efforts. False claims about the virus, vaccines, or cures led to vaccine hesitancy, resistance to public health measures like mask mandates, and the proliferation of harmful treatments. This eroded trust in health institutions, slowed down pandemic response efforts, and contributed to preventable illnesses and deaths, disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations.

The absence of fact-checking exacerbates the existing challenges of context insensitivity, as automated systems and under-resourced moderation teams fail to address the nuances of African content. The introduction of the user-driven Community Notes, which is similar to the model used on X, will still require experts’ input, especially in a region where many governments are authoritarian. Yet, media and information literacy and access to credible and reliable information is limited, and Meta’s platforms are primary ways to access independent news and information.

Research on the use of Community Notes on X has shown that the model has limited effectiveness in reducing the spread of disinformation, as it “might be too slow to intervene in the early (and most viral stages of the diffusion”, which is the most critical. The move also undermines efforts by civil society and fact-checking organisations in the region who have been working tirelessly to combat the spread of harmful content online.

  1. Political Manipulation and Increased Malign Influence

Dialing down on moderation and oversight may empower political actors who wish to manipulate public opinion through disinformation campaigns resulting in the surge of such activities. Given that social media has been instrumental in mobilising political movements across Africa, the lack of robust content moderation and fact-checking could hinder democratic processes and amplify extremist views and propaganda. Research has shown an apparent link between disinformation and political instability in Africa.

Unchecked false narratives not only mislead voters, but also distort public discourse and diminish public trust in key governance and electoral institutions. Authoritarian regimes may also use it to undermine dissent. Moreover, the relaxation of content restrictions on sensitive and politically divisive topics like immigration and gender could open floodgates for targeted hate speech, incitement and discrimination which could exacerbate gender disinformation, ethnic and political tensions. Likewise, weak oversight may enable foreign/external actors to manipulate elections.

  1. Regulatory and Enforcement Gaps

The effect of Meta easing restrictions on moderation of sensitive topics and reduced oversight of content could lead to an increase of harmful content on their platforms. Already, various African countries have  weak regulatory frameworks for harmful content and thus rely on companies like Meta to self-regulate effectively. Meta’s decision could spur efforts by some African governments to introduce new and more repressive laws to restrict certain types of content and hold platforms accountable for their actions. As our research has shown, such laws could be abused and employed to suppress dissent and curtail online freedoms such as expression, assembly, and association as well as access to information, creating an even more precarious environment.

  1. Limited Engagement with Local Actors

Meta’s decision to abandon fact-checking raises critical concerns for Africa, coming after the tech giant’s January 2023 decision to sever ties with their East African content moderation contractor, Sama, based out of Nairobi, Kenya, that was responsible for content moderation in the region. The Sama-operated hub announced its exit from content moderation services to focus on data annotation tasks, citing the prevailing economic climate as a reason for streamlining operations. Additionally, the Nairobi hub faced legal and ethical challenges, including allegations of poor working conditions, inadequate mental health support for moderators exposed to graphic content, and unfair labour practices. These issues led to lawsuits against both Sama and Meta, intensifying scrutiny of their practices.

Meanwhile, fact-checking partnerships with local organisations have played a crucial role in addressing disinformation, and their elimination erodes trust in Meta’s commitment to advancing information integrity in the region. Meta has fact-checking arrangements with various companies across 119 countries, including 26 in Africa. Some of the companies in Africa include AFP, AFP – Coverage, AFP – Hub, Africa Check, Congo Check, Dubawa, Fatabyyano فتبين,  Les Observateurs de France 24 and PesaCheck. In the aftermath of Meta’s decision to sever ties with their East African third-party content moderators, Sama let go of about 200 employees.

Opportunities Amidst Challenges

While Meta’s decision to abandon fact-checking is a concerning development, it also presents an opportunity for African stakeholders to utilise regional instruments, such as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa, to assert thought leadership and demand better practices from platforms. Engaging with Meta’s regional leadership and building coalitions with other civil society actors can amplify advocacy about the continent’s longstanding digital rights and disinformation concerns and demands for more transparency and accountability.

Due to the ongoing pushback against the recently announced changes, Meta should be more receptive to dialogue and recommendations to review and contextualise the new proposals. For Africa, Meta must address its shortcomings by urgently investing and strengthening localised content moderation in Africa. It must reinvest in fact-checking partnerships, particularly with African organisations that understand local contexts. These partnerships are essential for addressing misinformation in local languages and underserved regions.

The company must also improve its automated content moderation tools, including by developing tools that can handle African culture, languages and dialects, hire more qualified moderators with contextual knowledge, provide comprehensive training for them and expand its partnerships with local stakeholders. Moreover, the company must ensure meaningful transparency and accountability as many of its transparency and content enforcement reports lack critical information and disaggregated data about its actions in most African countries.

Lastly, both governments and civil society in Africa must invest in digital, media and information literacy which is essential to empower users to critically think about and evaluate online content. Meta should partner with local organisations to promote digital literacy initiatives and develop educational campaigns tailored to different regions and languages. This will help build resilience against misinformation and foster a more informed digital citizenry.

In conclusion, it remains to be seen how the new changes by Meta will be implemented in the U.S., and subsequently in Africa, and how the company will address the gaps left by fact-checkers and mitigate the risks and negative consequences stemming from its decision. Notably, while there is widespread acknowledgement that content moderation systems on social media platforms are broken, efforts to promote and protect rights to free expression and access to information online should be encouraged. However, these efforts should not come at the expense of user trust and safety, and information integrity.

Job Opportunity: CIPESA Seeks a Communications Officer

Call for Applications |

Job title:                                               Communications Officer

Deadline for applications:                 January 10, 2025

Location:                                              Can be Remote, or based at CIPESA office in Kampala, Uganda

Duration:                                             Two (2) Years

About CIPESA

The Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) works to defend and expand the digital civic space to enable the protection and promotion of human rights and to enhance innovation and sustainable development. With a focus on disparate actors, including the private sector, civil society, media, policymakers, and multinational institutions, our work aims to engender a free, open, and secure internet that advances rights, livelihoods, and democratic governance. CIPESA’s work responds to a shortage of information, research, resources, and actors consistently working at the nexus of technology, human rights, and society.

CIPESA is seeking a Communications Officer to help increase the visibility of our work in defending and expanding the digital civic space.

Job Summary:

This is an opportunity to work with CIPESA’s expanding team and network of collaborators, including the private sector, civil society, media, academia, policymakers, and multinational institutions. The Communications Officer will work collaboratively with the CIPESA team to create, implement, and oversee internal and external communications programmes that effectively engender a free, open, and secure internet that advances rights, livelihoods, and democratic governance.

Key Areas of Accountability Include:
  • Implement the CIPESA Communications Strategy, so as to increase brand awareness and recognition and to reach out to external stakeholders and respond to the needs of targeted audiences.
  • Document and communicate CIPESA’s work through powerful storytelling using various tools and platforms.
  • Manage communication tools to ensure that CIPESA partners and collaborators are kept informed and engaged and messages effectively and consistently describe CIPESA and its goals and activities.
  • Monitor and evaluate communication and advocacy activities.
  • Manage the production of CIPESA publications, including research reports, impact reports, policy briefs, annual reports and newsletters.
  • Work with CIPESA staff to draft, edit and refine press releases, talking points, blog posts, speeches, grant applications and other external communications.
  • Engage staff and key stakeholders in promoting CIPESA’s mission. This includes establishing rapport with them and ensuring visibility.
  • Oversee and grow the content of CIPESA’s website and other digital and social media resources.
  • Liaise with various media houses and content publishers for publicity and promotion as required.
  • Media monitoring and outreach to mainstream and technology-focused media.
  • Manage the communications related logistics and support for CIPESA events.
  • Oversee the maintenance of CIPESA’s contact database, events and publications calendar, and other communication tools.
  • Curate thematic news content for CIPESA’s platforms including reporting on the latest trends and developments in technology in the region.
  • Conducting other tasks as appropriate to support CIPESA’s mission.  
Qualifications and Experience:

This position is applicable to people with at least five years of relevant experience. An ideal candidate would demonstrate the following:

  • Undergraduate degree and/or equivalent experience in communications, public affairs, advocacy or journalism; and a demonstrated interest/knowledge related to one or more of these fields: human rights law or policy, technology policy, digital rights, social or development studies. Postgraduate qualifications are a distinct advantage.
  • Outstanding verbal and written communication skills — including strong writing and editing skills for different platforms (social media, blogs, campaign tool kits)  and varied external audiences.
  • Experience working with journalists or in the media.
  • Proficiency in creatively using  digital and social media, including multimedia content development and storytelling.
  • Confidence/experience in multi-stakeholder environments and differing cultural settings, and in working with diverse constituencies.
  • Exceptional project and time management, planning and organisational skills, resourcefulness and attention to detail.
  • Fluency in English is required, and proficiency in another language is an advantage.
  • Familiarity with Content Management Systems and creative software suites are an advantage.

Salary and Benefits: Salary will be commensurate with experience. CIPESA provides a benefits package that includes health care, provident fund, statutory pension and paid leave.

Standards of Professional Conduct: CIPESA staff and partners must adhere to the values and principles outlined in the Code of Conduct, and the Safeguarding against Sexual Exploitation and Abuse and Sexual Harassment (SEAH) Policy. In accordance with these, CIPESA operates and enforces policies on Beneficiary Protection from Exploitation and Abuse, Child Safeguarding, Harassment-Free Workplace, Fiscal Integrity, Anti-Retaliation, and several others.

To Apply: Please send your interest including a cover letter detailing why you think your skill set would be ideal for this position, along with a CV, the names and contact details of two referees and 2-3 writing/content samples in one PDF file to [email protected] with Application for Communications Officer in the email subject line.

African Commission Resolution to Bolster Data Governance

By Edrine Wanyama |

The Resolution adopted by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) during its 81st Ordinary Session held from October 17 to November 6, 2024 in Banjul, The Gambia potentially bolsters data protection and governance on the African continent.

The Resolution calls upon states parties to take all relevant measures to ensure transparent and accountable collection, processing, storage and access to data. It also underscores the importance of ethical principles in data usage, equitable access to data, and addressing biases to prevent structural inequalities while safeguarding privacy and combating discrimination.​

The resolution acknowledges the rapid advancement of technology and the increased dependence on data in governance and socio-economic development, and is in line with the African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection, African Union’s Data Policy Framework, and the Digital Transformation Strategy for Africa (2020–2030).

Similarly, this timely resolution aligns closely with the vision of the Global Digital Compact (GDC), which calls for inclusive, rights-based governance of digital technologies and artificial intelligence (AI), and the ACHPR’s Resolution 473 on the need to undertake a study on human and peoples’ rights and AI, robotics and other new and emerging technologies. These frameworks emphasise the potential of data and digital technologies while cautioning against risks such as bias, inequities, unwarranted surveillance, and privacy violations.

By embedding human rights principles in digital governance, both the ACHPR’s Resolution 473 and the GDC advocate for responsibly leveraging digital tools to reduce inequalities and protect vulnerable populations. The ACHPR’s focus on equitable data access and capacity-building within African states resonates with the GDC’s call for global collaboration to address disparities in digital infrastructure and skills. Together, these initiatives present a unified agenda to ensure that digital technologies and AI are harnessed for equity, justice, and sustainable development that foster a shared vision for a more inclusive digital age.

The ACHPR Resolution further urges state parties to ensure open access to data which is in possession of public and private in public interest, in accordance with the prescribed regional and international human rights standards.

The Resolution reinforces the African Union’s Data Policy Framework which, among others, seeks to maximise the benefits of the data-driven economy for African countries. With common anticipated benefits, data governance systems will be harmonised to enable secure and free data flow on the continent which potentially contributes to a people-centred approach which is not inward-looking for individuals, institutions and businesses and, enhances data utility for accelerated attainment of Agenda 2063 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

There is increasing recognition of the need for data governance frameworks that create a safe and trustworthy digital environment, foster intra-Africa digital trade, enable states’ cooperation on data governance, enable domestication of continental policies, and ensure free and secure data flows across the continent. As such, the  Resolution also calls for the establishment of collaborative mechanisms, coordinating data issues, enabling and facilitating competitiveness in the global economy, promoting sustainable data use and benefits to society, as well as facilitating innovative ways to promote and maximise benefits of data for the African peoples.

Besides, the Resolution will potentially grow the impetus of Regional Economic Communities (RECs) to adopt harmonised data governance systems, which will quicken continental initiatives such as the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) Agreement whose growth and benefits depend on secure and free cross-border data flows. For instance, the East African Community (EAC) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) are set to develop regional data governance policy frameworks with the aim of harmonising data governance in the region for economic growth and regional integration.

The Resolution echoes sentiments shared in various panels at the September Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa 2024 (#FIFAfrica), which highlighted contemporary issues in data governance in Africa, including in collection, management, and processing of data. The Forum emphasised the role of national and regional actors in policy harmonisation, enabling greater cross-border data flows, maximising the benefits of data for all countries and all citizens, and the need for greater privacy protections over personal data. Among others, speakers at FIFAfrica singled out  national parliaments, RECs, civil society organisations, the African Union, and the private sector as having pivotal roles to play in promoting effective data governance.

Navigating the Complex Digital Rights Terrain in the Sahel: Advocates Speak Out

By Simone Toussi |

Countries in the Sahel region, including Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, present a perilous environment for human rights defenders as military regimes entrench themselves in power. The digital space, once considered a beacon of opportunity for free speech and access to pluralistic information, has steadily come under siege, with the rights to privacy, freedom of expression, and the ability to access and share information increasingly being stifled. 

Whereas these countries face the digital rights prevalent in other Francophone African countries, such as internet disruptions, state surveillance, online censorship, and weaponisation of cybersecurity and disinformation laws, the overthrow of civilian governments by the military  in the three countries has deepened the level of authoritarianism. 

At the Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa – hosted by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and AfricTivistes in September 2024 in Dakar, Senegal, experts gathered to discuss the mounting challenges and opportunities for digital rights in the region. The session highlighted the precarious position of human rights defenders in the region and the role of digital technologies in both exacerbating and addressing these challenges. 

In line  with CIPESA’s work to address the information disorder in Sub-Saharan Africa and equip actors to better advocate for rights-respecting digital laws, the session addressed critical digital rights concerns  as well as pressing social issues such as gender inequality, armed conflict, and the deteriorating press freedom, while examining the regulatory framework emerging in response to these issues. 

Human rights defenders in the Sahel, particularly women’s rights activists and journalists, face immense challenges due to the political instability, armed violence, and authoritarian regimes which have imposed severe restrictions on press freedom, the flow of information, and civil society activities. 

According to Djibril Saidou from International Media Support (IMS), digital rights challenges in the Sahel go beyond protecting free speech. It’s about ensuring access to information on urgent issues like gender rights and armed conflicts,” said Saidou. Given the challenging contexts, he stated that intervention efforts should be focused on resisting censorship and promoting resilience for advocates of digital rights and democracy. 

Chantal Nare, a feminist blogger of Bloggueuses226 and activist from Burkina Faso, shared her experience advocating for women’s rights in such a volatile environment. She highlighted the constant fear of retaliation and surveillance, which stifles free expression, even on digital platforms. Chantal raised a crucial question: “How can digital technologies like WhatsApp or blogs be used to protect and empower women without exposing them to further risk from state or extremist actors?”

Urbain Yameogo from Centre for Information and Training on Human Rights in Africa (CIFDHA) cited the abuse of cybercrime and anti-terrorism laws to curtail freedom of expression. 

The 2015 Anti-Terrorism law in Burkina Faso, initially allowed journalists some latitude to access sensitive information related to terrorism for professional purposes. However, revisions to the Penal Code in 2019 removed these exemptions, exposing journalists to prosecution for acts they would have previously carried out in the course of their work, such as accessing websites linked to terrorism. This change has created a legal grey area where journalists and human rights defenders are left vulnerable to legal persecution.” – Urbain Yameogo, CIFDHA.

Panelists emphasised that journalists in the region who report on sensitive topics such as terrorism and human rights violations are increasingly prosecuted under cybercrime laws rather than traditional press laws, which historically offered more protection for media practitioners. This shift undermines the rights of journalists to report freely, as cybercrime laws are often ill-defined and can be interpreted broadly to suppress legitimate journalistic work.  

Faced with the challenge of defending digital rights in an environment of heightened fear of reprisals from the military regimes, some participants emphasised the need for exercising extreme caution and  taking  a conciliatory approach to their work. 

This was underscored by Cheikh Fall from the regional human rights organisation AfricTivistes: “Sometimes, we must choose between life and freedom. In Sahel countries under military rule, digital rights are overshadowed by the immediate need for survival. This stark reality emphasises that when basic human rights are at stake, the struggle for freedom becomes paramount. It’s essential to recognise that in such situations, the struggle for basic human rights is intertwined with the fight for freedom.” 

Proposals were made to create unified laws addressing both digital and media issues. However, given concerns that such laws could be double-edged, potentially enhancing repression rather than protecting freedoms, inclusive dialogue and participatory policy processes were crucial. This would ensure strengthened protection not only for journalists and advocates, but also women and other vulnerable groups.  In this regard, Nare called for legislation that encompasses both physical and digital forms of repression. 

Beyond the legal reforms, the panelists also emphasised the need for increased digital security training and stronger collaboration between local and international actors.

ACHPR 81st Ordinary Session: CIPESA and Partners Host Dialogue on Advocacy Against Internet Shutdowns

By Patricia Ainembabzi |

At the 81st Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) held in Banjul on October 17-November 6, 2024, the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA), the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL), and the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) hosted a side event centered on technology and electoral democracy in Africa. While drawing impetus from various experts, discussions delved into the impact of internet shutdowns on freedom of expression, access to information, business transactions, and exclusion of vulnerable communities across the African continent. This is despite the growing role of technology as an enabler of democratic participation and increased transparency and accountability.

In March 2024, the ACHPR adopted Resolution 580, urging African states to refrain from imposing internet shutdowns, particularly during electoral periods. Eight months on, the resolution is yet to gain traction. Over 100 shutdowns have been documented in Africa since 2019, reflecting a worrying escalation in digital rights abuses. The cumulative effect of these shutdowns includes suppression of political discourse, economic losses, and an erosion of public trust in government institutions, ultimately infringing on fundamental rights to free and fair participation in the digital age.

“37% of Africa’s population has experienced internet disruptions in recent years”, Florence Nakazibwe, ICNL.

Thobekile Matimbe of Paradigm Initiative, stated that national security as the rationale for internet shutdowns was disproportionate and Courts including at the Economic Community for West African States (ECOWAS) had rejected the security argument in favour of protecting digital rights. Acknowledging disinformation as a growing threat on the continent and one of the common themes in the national security justifications, Matimbe recommended targeted policies that balance free expression and countering disinformation alongside digital literacy programmes towards strengthening public trust and promoting access to information during electoral periods.

According to Grace Wangenchi from the  Independent Medico-Legal Unit (IMLU) internet shutdowns also have social impacts. Citing the example of heightened risks and isolations for victims of violence who rely on online resources for support, Wangechi called on interventions pushing back against shutdowns to be centred around the unique needs of vulnerable and marginalised communities.

Martin Mavenjina from the Kenya Human Rights Commission, added that documenting the social impact of internet shutdowns through case studies could support strategic litigation against shutdowns. He noted precedent set by the ECOWAS Court in cases from Togo, Guinea and Nigeria, Mavenjina called for advocacy efforts to ensure rulings “led to meaningful change”. 

Other avenues for pushing back against shutdowns put forward included the development of toolkits for civil society, that are anchored in ACHPR resolutions and continued research and documentation to inform engagements with policymakers, regulators, and internet service providers. Where opportunities were available, advocates were also called upon to inform consultations and calls for input by national task forces on elections.

Discussions also featured unpacking the newly developed toolkit to support the monitoring, documentation, and reporting on digital rights violations such as internet shutdowns by National Human Rights Institutes (NHRIs). The side-event builds on CIPESA and partners’ efforts to prioritise and spotlight digital rights issues as part of ACHPRs proceedings.