Remote Conflict Resolution

Social media platforms WANT us to be divided. Why? Because outrage-inciting content keeps us online longer, increasing their advertising revenue. Researchers at NYU have found that Twitter, TikTok, and Instagram prioritise content with angry-face emojis and emotionally-charged moral language. With 'out-group criticism' driving likes, comments, and shares more than anything else, fuelling polarisation. Social media platforms literally want us to hate each other. Because division creates profit. I’ve wondered why, especially since COVID, the world seems so vitriolic. It makes sense now: social media use increased during lockdown. We were programmed to hate and given a voice without consequence or accountability. But now, as the researchers confirm, this online divisiveness has spilt into real-world hostility, misinformation, and violence. However, while platforms thrive on outrage, the study also notes they could just as easily reward constructive, prosocial content – IF WE DEMAND IT. So what can we do? → Stop feeding the outrage-seeking algorithms: don’t like, share, or comment on hate-bait. Pay attention to solution-oriented content instead. → Unfollow people who profit from creating division - your attention fuels their agenda and fills their pockets. → Comment with solutions, not blame. Angry commenting is more about you needing to express your anger than helping the cause. → Share to educate, not to incite “us vs them”. → Convert your anger into meaningful action and prosocial activism, especially offline. → Hate often reflects inner conflict: a dislike of oneself or one’s life. Check in with yourself before posting. What inner conflict are you avoiding by projecting anger and hate online? What else should we demand of social media platforms? How else can we hold ourselves accountable for exacerbating the divide? Thoughts? #socialmedia #community #mentalhealth

I’ve just shared my research paper, Cyber Operations and Escalation Dynamics in Hybrid Warfare (April 2026). The core argument is that cyber escalation often happens without a deliberate decision to escalate. All this happens because leaders operate under uncertainty, attribution lags behind events, signalling stays ambiguous, and technical effects spill into civilian systems. Using Ukraine as a central reference point, the paper shows how cyberattacks on energy, telecommunications, and public services can be tightly synchronized with kinetic strikes. That convergence blurs the line between pressure and provocation and shortens decision time in ways that traditional doctrine and international law still struggle to anticipate. I propose a conflict-resolution oriented framework for escalation management built on three practical pillars. ➡️Set political and operational thresholds before a crisis hits. ➡️Build credible signalling tools that reduce misinterpretation when facts are incomplete. ➡️Institutionalize NATO–EU de-escalation exercises that reflect real cyber-kinetic interaction and include civilian infrastructure operators. My takeaway is that cyber strategy needs a shift in mindset. Treat it as conflict management, not only as technical warfare. Stability improves when we design restraint, communication, and interoperability as deliberate policy tools. I’d genuinely value feedback, especially from colleagues working on hybrid threats, critical infrastructure protection, crisis communication, NATO–EU coordination, and escalation control. #CyberSecurity #HybridWarfare #CyberOperations #Escalation #CrisisManagement #Resilience #CriticalInfrastructure #NATO #EU #ConflictResolution #StrategicStability

Today’s discussion at NYU’s Center for the Study of Antisemitism on 𝗗𝗶𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗰𝗸𝘀: 𝗢𝗻𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗠𝗼𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗩𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 brought into focus a structural challenge that continues to be underestimated: We are very good at tracking 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 circulates across platforms — but still far less precise when it comes to understanding 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 within these environments. The report by Mariana Rosenblatt and Luke Barnes offers a detailed and empirically grounded mapping of cross-platform dynamics: how extremist actors exploit trigger events, migrate across infrastructures (Telegram, X, decentralized platforms), and sustain coordinated propaganda ecosystems. Three points stood out in particular: • 𝗖𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀-𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲: Far-right and far-left networks increasingly align around antisemitic targeting, especially in response to high-salience events. This convergence is not incidental—it follows stable narrative patterns. • 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺 𝗮𝘀𝘆𝗺𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀: Enforcement remains uneven across ideological categories, with significant implications for how different forms of extremism evolve and persist online. • 𝗧𝗵𝗲 “𝗻𝗶𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰” 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲: Irony, ambiguity, and meme-based communication (“edgelording”) are not marginal phenomena—they are central to contemporary extremist discourse and systematically evade existing detection frameworks. From a discourse-analytical perspective, this points to a gap: legal categories such as “incitement” or “threat” are necessary, but analytically too coarse to capture the layered, often implicit forms of meaning-making that drive mobilization. Bridging this gap — between platform-level observation and fine-grained semantic analysis — will be critical if we want to move from reactive moderation toward actual understanding. Many thanks to Mariana O., Luke Barnes, and Dr. Tessa Harmon for a sharp and important conversation, and to Prof. Avinoam Patt, Tracy Figueroa, the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, and the NYU Center for the Study of Antisemitism team for organizing. Looking forward to continuing this discussion. 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁: https://lnkd.in/eHJPtYBC #DigitalHate #OnlineExtremism #Antisemitism #PlatformGovernance #DiscourseAnalysis #OSINT #DecodingAntisemitism #AddressHate #SocialMedia #HateSpeech #Polarization #Radicalization #Conspiracy 

Social media algorithms often amplify hate, negativity, and division, not connection. According to a University of California, Davis study, the design of social media itself plays a major role in the spread of hate speech. People naturally gravitate toward others with similar opinions in a phenomenon known as “homophily”. This strengthens online echo chambers where extreme views go unchallenged. Humans have a tendency to bond with those who are similar to them. Social media platforms are designed to maximise engagement, and emotionally charged content tends to perform the best. This results in a cycle where contentious and hateful content spreads rapidly. Outrage and hostility tend to drive engagement. The more people interact with extreme content, the more it gets promoted. Platforms built to maximise engagement tend to boost emotionally charged, polarising content because anger and outrage generate more clicks and comments. - https://lnkd.in/gvBddt8B Likewise, the two studies conducted by the Tech Transparency Project found that some of the biggest tech platforms directly contribute to the proliferation of online antisemitism, hate, and extremism. - https://lnkd.in/gzE7XqWU Key Points - Algorithms optimise for engagement, not wellbeing. - Emotion-driven content holds attention longer. - The more we react, the more it spreads. - Echo chambers show users more of what they already engage with, reinforcing negativity. - Detection of hate speech in many languages remains weak. Why it matters Exposure to hateful content normalises harassment, fuels radicalisation, and corrodes empathy. For children and young people, constant exposure to negativity can harm mental health, increase online conflict, and erode trust in digital spaces. What needs to be done ✅ Algorithmic transparency: Platforms must disclose how content is ranked, especially for minors. ✅ Safety metrics: Redesign engagement systems to include risk-of-harm measures. ✅ Local-language moderation: Invest in detecting hate speech in different languages. ✅ Design for children: Age-appropriate defaults and down-ranking of harmful content. ✅ Public oversight: Partner with civil society for algorithm audits and accountability. ✅ Algorithmic literacy: Equip parents, teachers, and children to understand how feeds are shaped. At ChildSafeNet, we call on tech companies, governments, and educators to redesign algorithms that nurture empathy, truth, and safety, not outrage. Let’s build an internet that reflects the best of humanity. Platforms must act responsibly and prioritise accountability over profit. Safe Online Tech Coalition WeProtect Global Alliance Sonia Livingstone Sue Atkins Abhishek Modi Grace Hoyt Dan Mills Liz T. Jonathan Bertrand UNESCO #ChildSafety #OnlineSafety #AlgorithmicHarm #DigitalWellbeing #ChildSafeNet

Conciliation Resources has been working in the Central African Republic for more than a decade. It is striking to see online mis- and disinformation testing hard-earned peace by directly exploiting conflict histories and gender dynamics. We've seen that in communities where we work, where memories of recent conflict are vivid and trust is fragile, it capitalises on people’s fears by providing false alarms of impending threats and offering immediate, albeit unverified, explanations in moments of uncertainty. Weaponised by political elites and armed groups, false narratives trigger immediate real-world consequences – forcing families to flee, keeping children out of school, shaming women out of public life and encouraging young men to engage in violent conflict. Our new report, “Kete tene: Little rumours,” looks at how these dynamics affect young men and women in different ways. The report argues that as long as responses to mis- and disinformation are limited to content moderation or fact-checking, without questioning gender and conflict norms which shape how information is circulated and acted upon, results will be fragile. Read the full report to explore our findings and recommendations: https://lnkd.in/eA-GegHG

'Researchers at the Peace Research Institute Oslo cross-checked posts on a social media network popular with Hindu nationalists in India with reports of attacks against religious minorities. Hateful posts were statistically linked to more violence against Muslims and Christians, the researchers found. At the same time, posts “alluding to the overcoming of religious divisions” were linked to fewer attacks. “Digital platforms do not merely reflect tensions – they can actively amplify or reduce them,” lead author Sebastian Schutte said. “Online speech must be part of any serious approach to conflict prevention.”' Summary of new research by the always excellent The New Humanitarian. Full study here https://lnkd.in/eSz4s7fx