Develop Constructive Uses of Information Technology

6. Civic Knowledge and Skills

This introductory article was written by ChatGPT at the direction of Heidi Burgess, who reviewed, edited, and approved the final content.
For more information

Information technology is often discussed as a driver of intractable conflict, and for good reason. Social media can amplify outrage, spread rumors, reward extremism, and help people retreat into hostile information bubbles. But technology is not inherently polarizing. The same basic tools that can intensify conflict can also be used to build understanding, widen participation, correct dangerous misinformation, and help peacebuilders see conflict dynamics more clearly. The emerging field, often called ICT4Peace or peacetech, starts from this premise: digital tools should be judged not only by what they make possible, but by the purposes, incentives, safeguards, and human relationships built around them.

One constructive use of information technology is to create structured opportunities for contact across dividing lines. Online dialogue and virtual exchange programs can bring together people who would rarely meet in person because of distance, cost, segregation, fear, or political pressure. Soliya, for example, uses facilitated virtual exchange to help participants engage across cultural, political, and religious differences. The technology is not the peacebuilding process by itself. The crucial elements are the facilitation, the design of the conversation, and the norms that encourage people to listen, explain, and ask questions, rather than simply argue. Still, the online platform makes it possible to scale these encounters beyond what face-to-face dialogue alone can usually accomplish.

Information technology can also help people see patterns of danger before violence escalates. Crowdsourcing, mobile reporting, geographic information systems, and secure messaging can allow citizens and local organizations to report threats, rumors, hate incidents, displacement, or attacks. The best-known example is Ushahidi, which began in response to Kenya's 2007-2008 post-election violence as a way to collect and map reports from citizens. Such tools can help communities and responders identify hotspots, verify information, and target protective action more quickly. They can also give visibility to events that powerful actors might prefer to deny. Used badly, however, the same tools can expose vulnerable people to retaliation, so privacy, verification, and local control are essential.

Technology can also be used to reduce the destructive effects of dangerous speech. In high-conflict settings, inflammatory words and coded phrases can spread quickly online, sometimes faster than outsiders can understand them. PeaceTech Lab's hate-speech lexicons are one example of an effort to combine local knowledge, interviews, workshops, and data analysis to identify language that may contribute to violence. The purpose is not simply to censor offensive speech. A more constructive goal is to help journalists, civil society groups, educators, and platform moderators distinguish between ordinary disagreement, harsh criticism, dehumanizing propaganda, and language that may increase the risk of real-world harm. Similar tools can support counter-speech, rumor correction, and early warning when they are paired with trusted local messengers.

Digital tools can also broaden participation in peace processes and civic problem solving. Formal negotiations often involve only a small number of official actors, while many affected groups are left outside the room. This United States Institute of Peace documents how digital consultation, online surveys, messaging platforms, and participatory mapping can sometimes help mediators hear from people who would otherwise be excluded. Search for Common Ground and other peacebuilding organizations are experimenting with digital tools to build trust, support collaboration, and strengthen local peace efforts. These approaches are especially valuable when they make participation safer, cheaper, and more representative. They are dangerous when they become symbolic exercises that collect public input without giving people any real influence.

The constructive use of information technology therefore requires more than better software. It requires conflict sensitivity, ethical design, local legitimacy, and constant attention to unintended consequences. Digital peacebuilding tools should be designed with the people most affected by the conflict, not imposed on them by outsiders who misunderstand local fears and relationships. They should protect privacy, avoid deepening surveillance, and be evaluated honestly to see whether they are reducing harm or merely producing attractive dashboards. Used in this way, information technology can become part of a larger conflict transformation strategy. It cannot substitute for human judgment, courage, organizing, or institutional reform. But it can help peacebuilders connect people, surface hidden information, counter escalation, and support the many small acts through which more constructive conflict systems are built.

—————————

This page was created by ChatGPT in response to this prompt. It was then reviewed, edited, supplemented and approved by Heidi Burgess. More information about how and why we are using AI in this way, and about the growing number of ways in which Beyond Intractability is using ChatGPT, Claude and other AI systems to generate content and build out the BI system, is available on our BI/AI Overview Page.