Safaricom’s Moves against Hate Speech


  • What steps did Safaricom take to prevent hate speech during the 2013 elections? Did Safaricom act ethically?  Why or why not?

Safaricon put an effective filter on messages that were sent on bulk. These messages has to be clean of hate content against tribes or other political opponents. Those who were sending bulk messages as part of the political campaign had to be from identified accounts. There was no filter put on messages were peer-to-peer or from individuals directed towards other individuals. That is why I believe that Safaricon was ethically right. We also have to consider at the extra ordinary circumstance that Safaricon had to take the steps it took. I believe it was necessary to put filters on SMS to save precious lives and get the election process progress smoothly. .


  • Were these steps effective? Why or why not?

As it has been mentioned in the case study that there was only one incident reported against the security personnel in the 2013 elections. It was a great success and a great move for democracy in Kenya. In contrast the 2007 elections were bloody and violent. That is why I think that the steps taken by Safaricon were effective and helped the electoral process with great effect.