Meta's ambitious experiment in self-regulation, the Oversight Board, has acknowledged significant "frustrations" in its work over the past five years, raising critical questions about its power to police the world's largest social network. This comes as the body, often dubbed Facebook's 'supreme court', released a report detailing its progress and challenges in holding the tech giant accountable.

For Kenyans, the board's internal struggles are not a distant affair. They directly impact the safety of online spaces, the integrity of national conversations, and the very real-world consequences of digital content. The board's effectiveness is a crucial factor in determining whether platforms like Facebook and Instagram can curb the hate speech and incitement that have marred previous election cycles.

A Watchdog on a Leash?

Established in 2020 after years of public trust in Facebook eroding due to scandals like Cambridge Analytica, the board was designed to be an independent arbiter on contentious content decisions. It is composed of academics, civil society leaders, and media veterans who can make binding rulings on specific posts and issue policy recommendations to Meta.

However, the core of the board's frustration lies in the nature of its power: while its decisions on individual cases are binding, its broader policy recommendations are not. Meta is free to disregard them. "Over the last five years, we have had frustrations and moments when hoped-for impact did not materialize," the board wrote in its report.

This dynamic has led to concerns that the board, despite being funded by a $130 million (approx. KES 16.9 billion) trust from Meta at its launch, lacks the teeth to enforce systemic change.

The Kenyan Connection: A High-Stakes Arena

The challenges of content moderation are acutely felt in Kenya. In Nairobi, hundreds of former content moderators contracted by Meta have taken legal action, alleging severe psychological trauma from daily exposure to graphic and violent content for low pay. Legal filings describe moderators being diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) after reviewing videos of murder, self-harm, and child abuse. These cases highlight the human cost of policing Meta's platforms, a burden often outsourced to the Global South.

The Oversight Board has examined cases with direct relevance to the continent, including:

• A case involving threats of violence during the conflict in Ethiopia, where the board upheld Meta's decision to remove a dangerous post.
• A recent case assessing how Meta moderates content in African countries that criminalize same-sex relationships, highlighting the vulnerability of LGBTQIA+ users.
• Recommendations for Meta to conduct human rights impact assessments in conflict zones like Ethiopia, which critics note have not been adequately heeded.

These examples underscore the board's role in addressing regional harms, but also its limitations when Meta fails to fully implement its guidance. The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights has expressed concern over the regression in content moderation by major platforms, noting it undermines information integrity on the continent.

Looking Ahead: AI and Accountability

The board has stated it will widen its focus to include the responsible deployment of Artificial Intelligence, a technology that presents new frontiers for misinformation. It also plans to pilot a program in 2026 to review Meta's decisions on account suspensions, a major point of frustration for users.

While the Oversight Board has forced a degree of transparency and accountability that was previously absent, its five-year report is a sober reminder of the unresolved power imbalance. For Kenyans, the question remains whether this global experiment in governance can truly protect them from the harms that fester online, or if it will remain a watchdog struggling against its leash.