Love, likes and toxicity

Sharon Mathala | Tuesday January 20, 2026 11:42

By the end of it, the video will have crossed over millions of views and by our local standards that is truly platinum viewership. The exchanges are brutal and the insults fly freely, at times the arguments unfold with a child visible in the background as we react in real time.

Some viewers plead with them to stop, others urge them on and many take sides. The videos trend precisely because they are raw, there is no script, no editing, no filter and what is on display is not performance in the traditional sense but emotional exposure, messy, uncomfortable and addictive.

No one needs to mention names. Any one with a Facebook account knows the story.

Offline, however, their story deserves national discourse, well so I believe. For the young woman to her critics, is reckless and provocative and a willing participant who knows exactly what going live will bring. However, to her supporters, she is trapped, economically, emotionally and socially in the relationship and escape is neither simple nor safe. The man, too, divides opinion. Some dismiss the clashes as mutual toxicity whilst others see patterns of control, humiliation and emotional domination playing out.

What is undeniable is that the conflict is now consumed as entertainment but at what cost?

Interestingly this is where the law struggles to keep up. Botswana does not have a specific Gender-Based Violence law or policy framework. What exists instead is the Domestic Violence Act, legislation that largely treats domestic abuse as a civil matter.

Victims who approach the courts are typically seeking restraining orders, eviction of the alleged abuser or removal from a shared home. The burden of proof rests heavily on the applicant. Physical assault claims require medical reports while allegations of threats or harassment must be substantiated. In many cases, the legal process ends with a protection order.

Emotional abuse, psychological harm, coercive control and public humiliation especially when amplified through social media, occupy a legal grey area. They are visible, widely witnessed and deeply impactful, yet difficult to prosecute under existing frameworks and there are many cases to cite as examples.

A legal practitioner familiar with domestic violence cases tells me: “What guides the courts is the Domestic Violence Act. There is no GBV policy.” As a result, what millions of people watch online does not always translate into what the justice system can meaningfully address.

Meanwhile we, the audience knowingly or not, become part of the cycle of dysfunction. Does every view validate the behaviour? Do every share amplify it?

What is undeniable is that every comment, whether condemning or cheering, feeds an algorithm that thrives on conflict and what begins as a domestic dispute becomes a public performance sustained not only by the couple but by a society that keeps watching, myself included.

The responsibility, then, becomes difficult to place. Is it with the couple, who repeatedly choose to broadcast their most volatile moments or is it with social media platforms that profit from prolonged engagement regardless of the human cost. Or does the responsibility rest with the audience, which consumes pain as entertainment and rewards it with attention?

We often blame social media that it has collapsed the boundary between private and public life. Domestic disputes are no longer hidden behind closed doors. B

But we are the consumers of this, me and you, as evidenced by the 1.5 million views.

Perhaps the most uncomfortable question of all is whether violence is only acknowledged once it leaves physical scars or when it happens closer to home?

Maybe as a society we consume it as entertainment because it is a figure who is not close to us. We only condemn it if it is closer to home or worse if it is happening in our own bedrooms.