Monitoring, detection and assessment of threats: Bringing together a wide variety of stakeholders, from intelligence organizations to civil society organizations, to identify threats and their potential impact. In Kenya’s Tana Delta, for example, the Sentinel Project’s Una Hakika program counters rumors that have contributed to inter-ethnic violence by creating a platform for community members to report, verify and develop strategies to address misinformation.2 Building resilience: Helping fragile populations resist the worst impacts of the weaponization of social media, with digital media literacy training, online and offline awareness-building and education, and strategies to build social cohesion. For example, the Digital Storytelling initiative in Sri Lanka seeks to build skills in citizen storytelling as a way to balance polarizing online rhetoric, while also helping individuals become more responsible consumers of online information.3 In another example, Mercy Corps’ peacebuilding work in Nigeria’s Middle Belt has increased trust and perceptions of security across farmer and pastoralist groups while including specific initiatives to support religious and traditional leaders in analyzing and leading discussions aimed at reducing the impacts of hate speech in social media.4 Mitigation: Minimizing harm once weaponized information has already spread, particularly in times of crisis. These activities might take place offline or online and include integrating referral or warning and response components into monitoring systems, establishing crisis and response plans, and addressing and countering online hate speech and radical or violent extremist narratives. An example is the Dangerous Speech Project’s Nipe Uwell in Kenya project, which provided public information on dangerous speech as well as mechanisms to report and remove such speech online during the height of electoral tensions.5 Collaboration to counter weaponization Social media has created fertile ground for online misinformation and manipulation that can lead to offline violence. For organizations working in international humanitarian aid, development and peacebuilding, weaponized social media adds complexity to the already difficult work of preventing and responding to violent conflict. Responding effectively to weaponized social media requires building new knowledge, capabilities and partnerships to better understand what’s possible, what works and what doesn’t. By working together, aid and development organizations, governments and private sector companies can help make the world safer, responding to the threat of weaponized information on social media with actions and programs that meet the scale and sophistication of the challenge. Next steps The response framework outlined here includes a range of possible actions to address weaponized information on social media, drawing from cybersecurity, communications studies, cognitive science, conflict resolution and media studies. Our next step is to pilot and test this response framework in a variety of relevant contexts and, from this, build a working model and playbook for how to combat weaponized information and advance peace. “How It Works: Una Hakika.” Sentinel Project. https://thesentinelproject.org/2014/02/17/how-it-works-una-hakika/. Digital Literacy Project. https://www.linkedin.com/school/digitalstorytelling/about/. 4 Mercy Corps. https://www.mercycorps.org/research/does-peacebuilding-work-midst-conflict. 5 Dangerous Speech Project. Nipe Ukweli. https://dangerousspeech.org/nipeukweli/. 2 3 MERCY CORPS The Weaponization of Social Media: How social media can spark violence and what can be done about it 4