examine their existing toolkit of responses for addressing those conflict drivers and determine how those responses need to be adapted to the changing realities presented by social media specifically. As noted above, digital drivers will not always necessitate digital solutions. However, in some cases, due to the qualitatively different dynamics that social media introduces to conflict environments — including the introduction of unconventional and non-local actors, the difficulty of detecting digital harms that are far “upstream” to violent conflict, and the ubiquitous access to disseminate and receive information, among others — peacebuilders will need to design and test groundbreaking approaches. These will require new types of engagement with private sector actors and new ways of thinking, working and learning. 6) Humanitarian, development and peacebuilding organizations engaging with weaponization problems will likely require an unconventional skill mix across teams to design and implement programs that take advantage of social media’s incredible power to reach and influence people. Teams sometimes include lawyers, journalists, refugees, creative content producers and coders, alongside more traditional civil society practitioner roles. The program development pathway will likely build on and amplify current trends in traditional programming, including concepts and calls to “never stop iterating,” conceiving of interventions as “test kitchens” that must “adapt and innovate” and achieve “proof of concept” before they can be “taken to scale”. Humanitarian, development and peacebuilding organizations have much to learn from their private-sector counterparts about how to respond more quickly and effectively to dynamic socio-technological processes, and will again need a different mix of organization capacities and types of internal processes. MERCY CORPS The Weaponization of Social Media: How social media can spark violence and what can be done about it 28