In recent months, Dagoretti North Member of Parliament Beatrice Elachi has emerged as a vocal advocate for the regulation of social media in Kenya. Her impassioned pleas, particularly during the 2025 National Prayer Breakfast, have ignited a national conversation on the role and impact of digital platforms in Kenyan society. While some commend her stance as a necessary intervention against online toxicity, others criticise it as an overreach that threatens freedom of expression.
Beatrice Elachi’s fervent campaign against social media misuse is deeply personal. In March 2025, she suffered the tragic loss of her son, Elvis Murakana Namenya, in a car accident. The subsequent online discourse, which included insensitive comments and speculations, compounded her grief. She recounted this experience, stating
“My worst experience is when they talked about my son, whom nobody knew. Thank God I don’t read social media, but sometimes families come to you and give you a story, and you are wondering, is it on social media?”
This personal ordeal has been a catalyst for her public advocacy, highlighting the potential harm of unregulated online spaces.
What Beatrice Elachi Said At The National Prayer Breakfast
Beatrice Elachi’s concerns culminated during the 2025 National Prayer Breakfast at Safari Park Hotel. In a heartfelt prayer, she lamented the negative influence of social media on Kenyan youth and society at large
“Our youth are hopeless, and we pray that the spirit of social media running our country is sorted out. We want to confess, as legislators, that we must indeed address that sector.”
Her remarks resonated with some attendees but also sparked widespread debate on social media platforms, with critics accusing her of attempting to stifle free speech.
Beatrice Elachi’s statements have elicited mixed reactions. Supporters argue that regulation is necessary to curb cyberbullying, misinformation, and moral decay. Conversely, detractors view her proposals as veiled attempts to suppress dissent and control public discourse.
One social media user commented: “Beatrice Elachi is trying to mock Kenyans because they have introduced a bill in parliament that will control social media.”
This dichotomy underscores the complexity of balancing regulation with the preservation of digital freedoms.
Kenya’s debate mirrors global discussions on social media regulation. In China, stringent controls have curtailed online freedoms, leading to criticisms of censorship. Conversely, the United States has implemented measures like visa bans targeting foreign leaders who suppress free speech online, emphasizing the importance of digital rights. These international examples highlight the delicate balance between safeguarding citizens and upholding freedoms.
Beatrice Elachi’s advocacy spotlights genuine concerns about the detrimental effects of unregulated social media. However, any regulatory framework must be carefully crafted to protect individuals from harm without infringing upon fundamental rights. Engaging diverse stakeholders, including civil society, tech companies, and the public, is crucial in developing balanced policies that address the challenges of the digital age.
Here are some instances of social media regulation worldwide, both positive and negative.
European Union – Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA)
The EU has introduced some of the most comprehensive regulations for digital platforms.
The key provisions include the requirement for platforms to remove illegal content promptly, prohibit targeted ads to minors, and mandate algorithmic transparency (DSA, 2024). Under the DMA, “gatekeeper” platforms (like Google, Meta) are targeted to prevent anti-competitive behaviour.
These laws aim to make Big Tech more accountable and protect users’ rights, serving as a global benchmark for digital regulation.
Germany – Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (NetzDG)
Enacted in 2017, Germany’s NetzDG law was one of the first to penalise platforms for failing to remove “obviously illegal” content.
One of the key requirements is that platforms must delete such content (e.g., hate speech) within 24 hours of notification. Failure to comply can result in fines of up to €50 million.
NetzDG has been both praised for reducing hate speech and criticised for promoting over-censorship.
India – Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
India introduced strict guidelines to regulate online content, particularly on social media and OTT platforms.
The guidelines call for traceability requirements for originators of messages on platforms like WhatsApp, as well as mandatory grievance redress mechanisms. There is massive government oversight of content.
Critics see it as a threat to press freedom and privacy, especially in the context of political dissent and activism.
China – Total Control and the “Great Firewall”
China has the world’s most extensive and aggressive internet censorship and control regime.
All social media platforms must register with the state and comply with strict content controls. At the same time, foreign platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Google are banned. All algorithms and data must align with “socialist core values” in China.
China’s model prioritises state control over freedom of expression. It has inspired some other authoritarian governments to copy the aggressive censorship.
United States – Section 230 Reform Debate
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields platforms from liability for user-generated content.
Critics argue that it gives tech giants too much power without responsibility. Proposals in the act include conditioning immunity on content moderation practices or transparency.
The U.S. has yet to pass significant federal legislation, but the conversation around reform continues to shape global tech policy.
Brazil – Fake News and Misinformation Laws
Brazil passed laws aimed at curbing the spread of misinformation, especially ahead of elections.Key provisions included the requirement to identify bulk messaging services and fake accounts and greater transparency on political content promotion.
The laws are a response to the role social media played in electoral interference and political unrest, including the January 2023 riots in the capital, Brasília.
Nigeria – Twitter Ban and the Social Media Bill
In 2021, Nigeria suspended Twitter after the platform deleted a tweet from President Buhari. Lawmakers then sensationally proposed the Social Media Bill, meant to criminalize the spread of false information.
This move was widely seen as an attempt to suppress dissent. This is a demonstration of how social media regulation can be misused to silence opposition.
Australia – News Media Bargaining Code
This law was enacted in 2021 to force tech giants to pay local news publishers for content. Some of the key provisions include the requirement for platforms to negotiate payment deals with media companies. The government has powers to stand in for arbitration if deals fail.
Prominent backlash to this include Facebook temporarily blocking news content in Australia, leading to global debate on platform power.
Social media regulation varies widely. Authoritarian regimes like China or Nigeria often use it to suppress dissent, while Democratic societies like the EU, Germany, and Australia seek to ensure accountability, user protection, and fairness.
Whether or not Beatrice Elachi succeeds in an onslaught against free speech remains to be seen.
ALSO READ: Dr Obiageli Ezekwesili Reveals What African Youth Need To Fix Governance Issues
