Responding to Weaponization The disruptive nature of weaponized social media demands a response from a broad array of actors, including governments, technology companies, media organizations and other private companies, and also international humanitarian, development and peacebuilding organizations — the focus of this assessment— that are affected by these phenomena or have mandates to design and implement programming in response. A new response framework: Phases and entry points for programming Digital weaponization phenomena challenge the way organizations develop responses to problems in international humanitarian, development and peacebuilding domains. In particular, these phenomena add a layer of complexity to traditional conflict drivers and the ways in which peacebuilding and violence prevention efforts seek to address those drivers. The actors and pathways of weaponized social media are cross-sectoral, trans-national and evolving at rates that outpace the international system’s current response. Effective alternatives require organizations willing to navigate new terrain. The response framework introduced below is based on analysis of how weaponization phenomena typically unfold and metastasize in different phases over time. The framework alludes to unique response entry points that correspond, in some cases, with how public, private and practitioner organizations are already responding. In reality, each case study of weaponization does not conform to a consistent lifecycle, and some activities are ongoing rather than sequential. This is a model and as such, it is imperfect and inexact (i.e., the categories aren’t mutually exclusive and the examples aren’t exhaustive.) The growing and multidisciplinary field of responding to the weaponization of social media in the context of violence prevention still requires more evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness or relevance of certain strategies or activities, as well as:    A common understanding of the collective solutions, pathways, resources and capacities needed for this work Shared criteria or indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of various approaches A comprehensive understanding of the various disciplines (e.g., cybersecurity, communications studies, cognitive and behavioral science, network theory) that can contribute to a comprehensive response framework Examples shared within the framework simply illustrate some of the efforts undertaken to date and help clarify the complementary purposes of each response category. Prevention Activities of prevention are intended to reduce the incidence of weaponization. These include regulations developed and enforced by governments, multinational bodies or industry associations, such as legislation or regulations concerning transparency, user data protection and accountability mechanisms, as well as punitive efforts that might deter future harms. For example, the European Union has developed a set of data MERCY CORPS The Weaponization of Social Media: How social media can spark violence and what can be done about it 20