Mediating in the Digital Age: Social Media’s Role in Peace Processes

The increasing integration of social media into the fabric of contemporary conflict dynamics has significant implications for peace processes. Digital platforms now influence not only how information is disseminated, but also how actors engage with one another and how public perceptions of peace negotiations are formed. While social media offers opportunities to enhance transparency, broaden participation, and support conflict analysis, it also introduces risks such as the spread of disinformation, the erosion of trust, and challenges to confidentiality. This blog examines the role of social media within peace processes and peacebuilding efforts, focusing on its operational use by mediators, the practical challenges of implementation and monitoring, and the complex dynamics of engaging with social media platforms in conflict-affected contexts.

Challenges of Implementation and Monitoring

Despite the growing relevance of social media in conflict dynamics, its treatment within peace agreements remains limited and inconsistently formulated. Many of the existing provisions are rhetorical rather than substantive, limiting their practical impact. The effectiveness of such clauses has been undermined by ambiguity regarding their purpose, scope, and the level of commitment required from signatories. This rhetorical framing not only reduces the utility of these provisions but also makes it more difficult to hold parties accountable for their online conduct, thereby weakening the potential for meaningful implementation.

Even when social media is addressed in peace agreements, the nature of digital activity presents practical difficulties for monitoring and implementation. Unlike traditional areas of implementation, such as ceasefires or territorial arrangements, digital activity introduces additional complexities in verification, monitoring, and attribution. Identifying who is responsible for cyber incidents or the spread of disinformation is complicated by the anonymity of online actors and the absence of clear geographic boundaries. These difficulties are intensified in fragmented conflict settings, where negotiating parties may lack control over their constituencies and where internal divisions can hinder consistent implementation. Such conditions create uncertainty over the source of harmful online content, making it difficult to determine whether it originated from an authorised representative, an affiliated proxy, or a user on an open platform acting independently. To be effective in mitigating these uncertainties, monitoring frameworks must be clearly defined, context-specific, and adaptable to the fast-evolving nature of the online information environment.

Social Media as a Tool for Supporting Peace Processes

Despite these challenges, social media presents real opportunities for enhancing peace processes. It can be a valuable tool for conflict analysis, allowing mediators to map actors, track narratives, and identify entry points for dialogue. In Nigeria, for example, practitioners used social media to monitor conversations around specific hashtags, helping to identify trends, influential figures, and emerging themes. Furthermore, as artificial intelligence becomes more widely used, machine learning tools are increasingly applied to social media data to detect trends, assess risks, and flag potential security threats at early stages. Social media can also be used to broaden participation by reaching marginalised communities and creating more inclusive avenues for public engagement. During the Havana talks between the Colombian government and the FARC, which began in 2012, negotiators launched an online consultation platform, receiving thousands of written submissions from citizens. However, the volume of input created new challenges as negotiators struggled to process the data effectively, limiting the consultation’s impact on the final outcome. This illustrates both the promise and complexity of integrating digital participation into peace processes.

In both conflict analysis and public engagement, it is important to recognise that social media does not amplify all voices equally. Platforms are more likely to elevate content that aligns with dominant narratives or that performs well under algorithmic measures of engagement. As a result, certain perspectives – particularly those from marginalised or less connected groups – may receive less visibility. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) found that, globally, 70% of men and 65% of women were using the Internet in 2024. This gender gap is even more pronounced in low- and middle-income countries, where men are 11% more likely to use the Internet than women. In conflict-affected settings, such disparities can limit women’s ability to document abuses, participate in peace discussions, or counter harmful narratives, thereby reinforcing existing power imbalances. Ensuring inclusive digital engagement requires awareness of these dynamics and active efforts to broaden the range of voices represented. Mediators must therefore remain conscious of the structural inequalities and algorithmic biases embedded in social media platforms, and ensure that the use of digital tools complements, rather than distorts, efforts to promote inclusive and equitable peace processes.

Engagement with Social Media Platforms

The involvement of social media companies offers both opportunities and challenges for peace mediators. Platforms are central to the digital landscape and can serve as valuable partners in monitoring and implementation. This is particularly relevant given that digital monitoring is often resource-intensive, requiring technical expertise and sustained financial investment. Platforms have unique access to data, content moderation tools, and account-level controls, and may also have rapid response capabilities. However, collaboration with corporate actors requires careful consideration. Platform interests may not always align with the objectives of the peace process, and their content moderation policies – shaped by internal governance and commercial imperatives – can shift in response to political or market pressures. Moreover, such policies often fail to account for the specific dynamics of conflict-affected contexts. Close partnerships may also risk undermining the perceived neutrality of mediators or monitoring bodies. These risks underscore the importance of ensuring that any engagement with social media platforms is approached with careful consideration, balancing the benefits of access and cooperation with the need to preserve the impartiality and legitimacy of the peace process.

Conclusion

As peace practitioners continue to engage with the digital sphere, they must do so with both caution and adaptability. Social media can support analysis, inclusion, and transparency, but also poses risks in the form of misinformation and unequal participation. Engaging with platforms may offer technical advantages, but it must be balanced against the need for neutrality and independence. Going forward, mediation practice must develop adaptive, inclusive, and well-defined strategies for navigating the digital landscape, ensuring that social media becomes a bridge to peace rather than a barrier.

Celeste Popoff is an LLM Human Rights candidate at the University of Edinburgh Law School. Her research focuses on gender, conflict and peacebuilding practice, freedom of expression in the digital sphere, and human rights law.

The Future Voices Series
This blog was produced for the Future Voices Series. The Future Voices Series supports the publication of innovative research by emerging scholars. The series cuts across regions and themes while drawing on work relevant to academics and policymakers engaged in peace and security. Authors are drawn from exceptional students in PeaceRep courses. The research is unfunded but reviewed and mentored by PeaceRep staff, who provide guidance to support the development of high quality, policy-relevant scholarship.