Social Media: A Tool for Peace or Conflict?

Human rights activists have used social media technology to organize peaceful protests and defend democracy for more than a decade. More recently, peace builders have discovered it can be a tool to understand conflict dynamics and counter extremism better. Yet the potential of social media as a megaphone for promoting human rights, democracy and peace is overshadowed by its dismal record of being used to drive radicalization and violence through disinformation campaigns. This ‘online front-line' will continue to be the case, unless regulators, social media firms and citizens revisit current policies and practices.

?At the 2021 Stockholm Forum on Peace and Development researchers, policymakers, tech companies and civil society organizations had an opportunity to explore how social media can be harnessed for peace building purposes and to assess policy responses to harmful online disinformation campaigns. This Topical Backgrounder is inspired by these discussions, particularly on the Janus-faced nature of social media. It makes four recommendations—one each for peace building practitioners, policymakers, social media companies and citizens—to protect peace, democratic institutions and people's welfare:

Peace building practitioners should systematize the use of social media technology for conflict stakeholder analysis, early warning, counter-messaging and the defense of democracy and human rights; Policymakers should stem harmful social media disinformation campaigns by creating effective oversight and strict data management guidelines; Tech companies should redesign their social media tools to prevent them from being employed for harmful political ends and from favoring conflict over consensus; and Citizens should improve their resilience to disinformation, but also demand insight into the information collected about them by social media firms, how it is used and by whom.

Social media technology has also created opportunities for people to mobilize politically in defense of democracy and human rights. In 2009 in Moldova, for example, young people relied on Twitter to oppose the country's communist leadership. In Iran, citizens used Twitter to organize protests against the results of the 2009 presidential election, leading to calls for Twitter to be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize.

During the Arab Spring in 2011, protestors in Egypt and Tunisia took to social media platforms to organize, spread their message internationally and ultimately overthrow dictatorial regimes. Particularly in repressive regimes, social media has been a communication channel for people to stand up for human rights or share evidence of human rights abuses thereby preventing government monopolization of information. It is hence no coincidence that social media giants, such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, are blocked in China.

In the worst cases, social media platforms have been used to suppress internal dissent, meddle in democratic elections, incite armed violence, recruit members of terrorist organizations or contribute to crimes against humanity, as in the case of persecution of the Rohingya in Myanmar. In 2020 there was evidence of social media manipulation in 81 countries and of firms offering ‘computational propaganda' campaigns to political actors in 48 countries.

The rise of news distribution and consumption via social media platforms has shifted the gatekeeping power for information dissemination from editors and journalists—bound by professional codes of ethics, principles of limiting harm and editorial lines—to tech companies owing allegiance primarily to their shareholders. Professional news outlets across the globe now ‘compete with content producers—domestic and international—who produce junk news that is sensational, conspiratorial, extremist, and inflammatory commentary packaged as news.

Peace builders have discovered that social media platforms can be used to research conflict actors, their strategies and grievances. Nevertheless, social media users' track record of employing the technology to incite polarization, extremism or violence casts a deep shadow over social media's potential as a peace building tool.

Legislators in democracies and global tech firms are responding to the harmful use of social media technology and systematic disinformation campaigns by adopting codes of conduct, strengthening monitoring and oversight, and collaborating with non-governmental organizations [NGOs] and civil society actors. Long-term investment by national governments is also required to build trust in traditional media and to strengthen civil society's capacity to distinguish fact from fiction.

However, progress will be limited if disinformation remains a source of control by autocratic governments and a source of revenue for social media providers. It will also be futile if social media companies' understanding of how technology interferes in local conflict dynamics remains weak.

Although codes of conduct and investment in resilience through digital literacy programmes are promising, self-regulation has had limited effects. To protect peace and stability, democratic institutions, as well as the health and welfare of societies or specific communities, it is crucial for: peace building practitioners to use social media technology much more strategically and systematically for analysis of conflict actors, early warning, counter-messaging and the defense of democracy and human rights; policymakers to create more effective oversight and data management guidelines to stem systematic disinformation campaigns; social media platforms to redesign their tools to prevent them from being employed toward harmful political ends and from favoring conflict over consensus; and citizens, civil society groups and researchers to increase their resilience to disinformation, but also demand insight into the information collected about them by social media firms, how it is used and by whom.

?Source - Stockholm International Peace Research Institute [SIPRI]