APPENDIX Methodology This assessment followed two phases: problem analysis and analysis of responses. Data was drawn from a literature review and expert interviews. The following questions guided data collection and analysis:        What is the nature, scope, prevalence, and impact of the “weaponization of social media” phenomena? Are there, and what are the distinct typologies of weaponization? What is the role of social media in instances of weaponization of information? Where do we see these phenomena happening? Are there particular contexts (locations, incidents, platforms, or perspectives) that are exemplary of this problematic? What actors are implicated in the weaponization of social media? What are their goals? What techniques and tactics do they employ? What are the drivers, vulnerabilities, and other conditions that interact with weaponized information so as to amplify or exacerbate negative outcomes for populations of concern? What common patterns manifest in the initiation and development of weaponized social media phenomena? What are various actors doing to identify and respond to weaponized social media? The literature review canvassed peer-reviewed studies as well as non-academic reports, book chapters, independent evaluations, policy documents, case studies, news articles, and other documentation related to the weaponization of social media.76 Ninety-three published resources and over 270 news articles, investigations, opinion pieces, and other web-based content were identified.77 A short list of 55 key literature sources and 30 online resources were reviewed in depth for the problem analysis phase. Approximately 15 additional sources were consulted for the analysis of responses phase. Expert interviewees were drawn from within Mercy Corps and other humanitarian, peacebuilding and development organizations that might directly respond to these issues. Twelve external experts across various academic and practitioner domains were interviewed specifically in relation to the problem analysis phase.78 A further 12 interviews and a strategic workshop with headquarters and field-based humanitarian, development and peacebuilding practitioners within Mercy Corps provided data for the analysis of responses phase. 76 Sources were identified using a semi-systematic method based on combinations of search terms relating to: social media, disinformation, misinformation, computational propaganda, fake news, hate speech, dangerous speech, rumors, information warfare, information operations, hybrid warfare, polarization, radicalization, unrest, violence, elections, riots, social unrest, and upheaval. We also used back-chaining method to identify and prioritize key studies commonly cited by key scholars and practitioners, and took note of news stories and reports coming out of areas where weaponization of information issues are known to be prevalent, such as: Philippines, Myanmar, South Sudan, Nigeria, India, and Sri Lanka, as well as Syria, Ukraine, and Russian meddling in the U.S. 2016 Presidential election (although this last context was largely left out). 77 This information was derived from the following disciplines, fields, and domains: Information and Computer Science; Technology & Society Studies; Data and Network Science; Communications and Media Studies; Counterterrorism or CVE Studies; Cybersecurity, Threat Intelligence, and Information Security; Cognitive Science and Human Behavioral Science; Political Economy, Comparative Politics, and Social Science; Conflict Studies and International Security. 78 We are grateful to our interviewees: Alex Warofka (Facebook), Anahi Ayala Iacucci (Internews); Ben Nimmo (Digital Forensics Research Lab); Chris Tuckwood (The Sentinel Project); David Madden (Phandeeyar Labs); Helena Puig Larrauri and Maude Morrison (Build Up); Hugh Brooks (Omelas); Nanjira Sambuli (Web Foundation; Sanjana Hattotuwa (ICT4Peace Foundation); Steven Livingston (The George Washington University); and Theo Dolan (PeaceTech Labs). MERCY CORPS The Weaponization of Social Media: How social media can spark violence and what can be done about it 40