Attention Pursuit Eclipses the Sanctity of Truth

Attention Pursuit Eclipses the Sanctity of Truth

Apr 4 , 2026. By Shumye Getu (PhD) ( Shumye Getu (shumye.getu@addisfortune.net) studied philosophy at a doctoral level and lectures at universities. )

Last week, the Ethiopian Media Authority (EMA) announced it would tighten monitoring and regulation of hate speech and fake news using artificial intelligence (AI).

The Authority urged the public to share responsibility, arguing that the duty should not be left to a single institution. Yet the remark also blurred responsibility, as the law on the prevention of hate speech and disinformation grants the Authority the power and responsibility to monitor. Without putting the right to free expression at risk, lawful and impartial monitoring remains essential to strike a workable balance between hate speech and freedom of expression.

That need has become more pressing as public polarisation and radicalism deepen under digital culture, where outrage outruns reflection and attention often outranks accuracy.

The rapid spread of “cyberhate” through digital platforms presents new challenges for regulating expression. It shows the need to adapt legal frameworks and tools to contemporary realities while protecting the right to expression. Although freedom of expression is a fundamental element of democracy, it is not an absolute right. Limits on speech are justified when they are necessary to protect people from harm. Hate speech can incite violence, discrimination and social discord, undermining the democratic principles that free expression is meant to uphold.

It is important to distinguish harmful speech from legitimate dissent. The right to express unpopular opinions should be protected, but so should the rights and safety of those targeted by hatred. Preserving that balance is essential to social order and the protection of all citizens.

Monitoring hate speech across online creators and platforms is therefore vital. Yet such efforts have often failed due to the technological limitations of automated monitoring systems and the lack of transparency in how information spreads online. Even so, the growing use of social media to spread hateful and divisive narratives, amplified by online algorithms, has pushed the authorities toward holding creators accountable for unlawful content. That response, in turn, continues to raise concerns about censorship and the narrowing of freedom of speech.

The authorities often argued that the absence of a legal framework criminalising hate speech can hinder efforts to implement Article 29 of the Constitution, which protects democratic rights, freedom of thought, opinion and expression. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of pluralism, democracy and progress. It allows people to voice ideas, assemble in groups and take part in public life.

Still, the tension between protecting speech and limiting harm is growing harder to manage.

According to the European Union Agency’s Country of Origin Information Report on Ethiopia for 2024, most private media outlets were established to serve the interests of a specific political group. The result, the report said, was a polarised media landscape driven more by opinions than by reporting facts. Social media platforms have widened the problem. They compete for attention and money, while the institutional and legal tools needed to regulate them remain weak.

Many social media users hide behind anonymous accounts, making responsibility harder to assign and claims more difficult to verify. Their purpose is often not persuasion but attack. In that setting, assumptions about accountability fail.

The rise of social media has challenged the credibility and relevance of mainstream journalism. It has changed the business model from regulated institutional content production to a highly decentralised model shaped by individual volition, sometimes described as the “creative economy.” This shift demonstrates declining trust in mainstream media and has transformed how information is produced, distributed and consumed.

News that once moved through formal channels now travels through a web of posts, clips and messages. Smartphones and fast internet connections have enabled millions to produce content that reaches vast audiences within seconds. The publishing power of individual users increasingly challenges the mainstream media. Power also moves toward content creators whose main advantage lies in their ability to hold attention.

Yuval N. Harari, a historian who has become a global public intellectual, speaks and writes extensively about humanity, belief, power, and AI. He argues that what is often posted on social media platforms “doesn't matter whether you agree or didn't agree, it is a lie or truth" so long as it captures people’s attention. Harari says, for capturing their attention solely is the key to economic power.

This helps explain the pressure to produce huge volumes of content at speed, even when the truth is compromised in shaping the views of millions with a video or a text. Content creators for social media platforms can break news quickly and disclose information that once remained under tighter control. But the same speed creates another danger in the spread of unverified information, with hardly any responsibility attached. Once the mode of content production shifts from institutions to individuals, the older mode of responsibility weakens as well.

As the direction of information flow changes, so does the mode of accountability. Holding an institution responsible could be easier, as it has designated addresses, responsibilities, and stated duties. If it fails to act in accordance with the legal contract, its leaders can be held accountable. The same cannot be said for responsibility shifting to individuals, especially anonymous ones. That process is costly, tedious and potentially more dangerous.

A more bottom-up model emerges, in which followers and viewers may be better placed to deter or discourage the sources of fake news and hate speech through a new “punishment structure”. In this arena, followers can be more powerful than the judiciary, because they give creators not only attention but also economic power. They can unfollow, unlike, unfriend, unsubscribe or report.

PUBLISHED ON Apr 04,2026 [ VOL 27 , NO 1353]