“Online mediation has great potential to assist in resolving disputes. In the Asia Pacific region, it has a particular place in enabling access to justice for large populations who have little access to dispute resolution by other means.”[1] This observation, from two decades ago, remains profoundly relevant. My argument then was that a Western-centric, technology-based conflict-resolution paradigm was inadequate for Asian contexts. Long before the ubiquity of social media and smartphones, our focus was on developing online conflict-resolution architectures that leveraged nascent technologies such as mobile telephony and community internet radio.
A prime example of this was in 2002, as an integral part of the official ceasefire negotiations in Sri Lanka. Here, a specially adapted commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software, Groove Virtual Office, was used in an unprecedented manner to support active mediation processes anchored to a one-text process[2]. This platform, which I co-architected and led the development of tools to backstop the mediations, enabled encrypted, asynchronous, and multilingual communication, creating searchable repositories of documentation, decision-support tools, and multi-stakeholder position mapping. Crucially, it was designed to integrate input not just from the primary negotiating parties, but also from the diaspora and those involved in Track 2 and Track 3 of the peace processes,[3] demonstrating a long-standing practice of using ICTs for complex mediation far from the Global North.
In 2025, two decades after the One-Text process in Sri Lanka, the role and relevance of technology in peacebuilding is far better established. However, the intervening years reveal a fundamental challenge for mediators. The very platforms that offer unprecedented opportunities for dialogue also serve as vectors for spoiler dynamics that can derail fragile peace talks. This dilemma is acute because these new vectors of information production lie entirely beyond the remit of the Chatham House rules and the sandboxing required to incubate trust. Mediators are now bombarded with information, and their carefully managed processes face a constant threat from online campaigns of mis- and disinformation designed to inflame hate, spread incendiary falsehoods, and erode public confidence in a potential agreement. This ’emotional contagion’ effect, where online sentiment directly impacts how people feel offline, means that the security of a closed-door negotiation room is no longer sufficient to protect the integrity of the process. What, if any, frameworks can reconcile technology’s capacity to both ruin and rebuild trust within the specific context of a mediated negotiation?
The very platforms that offer unprecedented opportunities for dialogue also serve as vectors for spoiler dynamics that can derail fragile peace talks
Immediately evident is the dark(er) side of technology and social media, which poses a direct and increasing threat not just to social cohesion writ large but to the very mechanics of peace mediation. Algorithmic amplification of inflammatory content on social media can harden the positions of negotiating parties and their constituencies, making compromise, which is the cornerstone of mediation, politically untenable. The spread of disinformation can be weaponised to undermine the credibility of mediators, derail specific talks, or violate the confidential ‘sandboxing’ essential for fragile negotiations. For a mediator, this creates an unprecedented challenge: key aspects of the conflict environment are being shaped in real time by forces entirely beyond the remit of the Chatham House rules or established codes of conduct. Spoiler dynamics are no longer confined to physical acts of violence but manifest as viral campaigns of hate and falsehood that can unravel delicate progress achieved at the negotiating table.
Conversely, and less often highlighted, is the transformative potential of technology in mediation is most profound when it moves beyond elite processes and empowers grassroots communities. As I envisioned in 2006, the future of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) in the Global South lay not in replicating PC-based systems, but in leveraging technologies already in people’s hands. The explosive growth of mobile telephony presented an opportunity to design ODR systems with a ‘human face’. Concrete applications for community-based mediation included: using SMS to send vernacular notifications of settlements to disputants; enabling in-field mediators to gather audio and video testimonies via their mobile phones; creating expert systems that could provide mediators with real-time options for resolving common disputes, such as those over land; and using mobile video-conferencing to connect parties in remote areas with Alternatives Dispute Resolution (ADR) centres. This approach takes mediation to the paddy fields, the post office, and the village chieftain’s residence, transforming it from a centralised, inaccessible process into a pervasive, user-friendly, and culturally resonant service for nonviolent dispute resolution.
Spoiler dynamics are no longer confined to physical acts of violence but manifest as viral campaigns of hate and falsehood that can unravel delicate progress achieved at the negotiating table
This dualism reflects the work by Prof Miriyam Aouragh, who likened social media to Damocles’ sword, and argued “that those who are empowered by taking the seat under the sword do so haunted by the constant threat of being hurt by the same sword, because slaughter could come at the slightest disruption”[4]. As Prof Admire Mare avers, Aouragh’s central thesis is that “social media is an open-ended technology without closure, which allows state and non-state actors to harness it for good and nefarious purposes. In other words, though it is rare to find it acknowledged in policy debates or even in academic literature from the Global North, social media is simultaneously good and bad, helpful and harmful, conciliatory and divisive, peaceful and violent.
This dual nature of digital tools manifests directly in mediation processes themselves. WhatsApp, for instance, has revolutionised how mediators engage with conflict parties – the UN Office of the Special Envoy for Yemen uses WhatsApp groups to maintain real-time communication with negotiators[5], whilst simultaneously grappling with how the same platform spreads disinformation about the peace process. In Libya, UNSMIL established “Trusted Partner” relationships with Facebook to remove harmful content targeting members of the Libyan Political Dialogue Forum, particularly women participants, whilst using the same platform to promote peace narratives[6]. This paradox – where the same app, technology, platform, product or tool that enables inclusive consultation can weaponise spoiler dynamics – requires mediators to develop sophisticated digital strategies that leverage opportunities whilst mitigating risks.
Beyond traditional web-based platforms, innovative digital mediation approaches have emerged across diverse contexts. Build Up’s 2021 WhatsApp consultations reached 93 Yemeni women across 11 governorates, creating dialogue spaces where physical meetings were impossible[7]. The Civil Society Support Room for Syria established an interactive website that enables Syrian civil society actors to submit input directly to the UN Special Envoy, bridging the gap between Track 1 negotiations and grassroots perspectives[8]. These initiatives reveal how digital tools, when designed with specific mediation objectives, can overcome traditional barriers of geography, gender, security, and access.
Mediators need to develop sophisticated digital strategies that leverage opportunities of technologies whilst mitigating their risks
The evolution of online dialogue extends beyond formal peace processes into emergent digital societies. Writing on the future of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)[9], I pointed to the complex social and commercial transactions occurring in virtual worlds like ‘Second Life’. These environments, with their own economies, property rights, and social norms, were already generating novel disputes that spilt over into the real world, including the first murder induced by a conflict over a virtual artefact. This raised a crucial question for the future of mediation: do we need ODR systems explicitly designed for disputes that arise and exist entirely within virtual domains? The ‘metaverse’ of today is grappling with these same challenges of governance, harm, and resolution. This demonstrates that the need for innovative mediation frameworks, across varied technology products and platform surfaces, is constantly expanding, requiring us to bridge not only the physical world but also the increasingly complex, fluid, and dynamic interplay between online, virtual, and real-world domains where communities form and conflicts arise.
Today’s mediators increasingly recognise that effective digital mediation requires meeting parties where they communicate – whether through encrypted messaging apps, social media platforms, or mobile-first interfaces – rather than expecting universal access to traditional web platforms. And yet, fundamental platform reforms are essential to support this verdant potential. Algorithms must prioritise constructive dialogue over engagement metrics, with circuit-breakers that slow the viral spread of incendiary and false commentaries during heightened, sudden-onset crisis periods or in contexts defined by democratic deficits or democratic backsliding[10]. Resource allocation must achieve parity between Global North and South operations, hiring local language speakers and cultural experts while investing in AI systems designed for non-English and non-Western contexts.
Community-led and community-level interventions require sustained investment and capacity building. Traditional peacebuilders need training in adopting and adapting digital platforms in grounded, gendered, sustainable, accessible, and equitable ways. At the same time, the constellation of domestic policy, regulatory, media, and legal frameworks around information integrity must also be strengthened. In fact, I would argue that digital media literacy should be made a public education priority, from children to adults. Women’s groups and youth organisations that use social media for peace require dedicated support and resources, recognising their roles as both vulnerable populations and innovative peace agents.
Algorithms must prioritise constructive dialogue over engagement metrics, with circuit-breakers that slow the viral spread of incendiary and false commentaries
Social media’s impact on peacebuilding in Global Majority contexts defies simplistic, binary categorisations of it as either beneficial or harmful[11]. As Prof Mare argues, the platforms represent “open-ended technology without closure” that requires a sophisticated understanding of local contexts, power dynamics, and sociotechnical relationships[12]. My own doctoral research in 2021 established how, in Sri Lanka, social media “simultaneously contributed to authoritarian entrenchment as well as resistance to democratic erosion”, how “different user motivations on Facebook and Twitter simultaneously supported prosocial and violent frames during moments featuring significant offline unrest”, and how the likes of Facebook, and Twitter “simultaneously amplified hate as well as produced prosocial, nonviolent and conciliatory content that called for civility, upheld democratic institutions and celebrated diversity”.
The path forward for mediation in the digital age requires a fundamental rethinking of the online environment in which peace processes unfold. Platform business models that profit from a “war of stories” directly undermine the mediator’s core task of de-escalation by amplifying divisive narratives and accelerating epistemic decay[13]. The solution lies not in tweaking harmful platforms, but in designing bespoke digital mediation architectures grounded in genuine partnership with local civil society. This ensures that those with situated experience in conflict transformation are central to creating tools that are not just technically functional but contextually grounded. For a mediator, the recognition that code is not neutral is paramount; it reflects inherent biases that can either support the delicate balance of a negotiation or sabotage it entirely.
For the contemporary mediator, the persuasive, projected, and perceived authority of sophisticated AI tools must be met with profound professional scepticism. Their role is not to supplant the mediator’s craft, but to augment their capacity. As demonstrated by the One-Text platform during the Sri Lankan peace process decades ago, the true value of technology lies, aside from its endogenous development, in its ability to help mediators manage vast amounts of information, facilitate structured dialogue across distances, and model complex scenarios to enhance human judgment. We must constantly question the biases in AI’s data sources and flawed analyses, remembering that no algorithm can replicate the essential, human-led tasks of building rapport, demonstrating empathy, and making critical, nuanced judgements at the negotiating table.
We must question the biases in AI’s data sources, remembering that no algorithm can replicate the essential, human-led tasks of building rapport, demonstrating empathy, and making critical, nuanced judgments at the negotiating table
Ultimately, transforming digital platforms from arenas of conflict into practical tools for mediation demands that we centre the wisdom of those who negotiate peace daily in the world’s most fractured places. It is local communities and peace practitioners, including those from First Nations, Adivasi, and indigenous communities, who understand the granularities of trust-building and narrative management essential to any successful mediation. Their insights, experience, and knowledge must inform the design of a new generation of digital mediation environments. This requires abandoning Silicon Valley’s extractive logics, rapacious platforms, and mercenary endeavours, and instead building online spaces architected to support dialogue, confidentiality, and consensus-building, which are the very pillars of the mediation process that current algorithms are incentivised to destroy.
To wit, the modern mediator’s task is no longer confined to a physical negotiating table, but extends to online content, commentary, and currents that feed conflict. Success, therefore, will not be found in only skilfully navigating today’s adversarial digital commons, but in actively reshaping them. The craft of mediation, with its emphasis on de-escalation, confidentiality, and measured dialogue, must now inform the code’s very logic. This is the next frontier challenge: not adapting peace processes to the whims of the algorithm but bending the algorithm to the enduring principles of just peace.
[1] Hattotuwa, S., & M. C. Tyler. 2005. An Asian Perspective on Online Mediation. Asian Journal on Mediation 1 (1): 1–24. U of Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper No. 158.
[2] ICT4Peace Foundation. 2013. The Janus Effect: Social Media in Peace Mediation. Zürich: ICT4Peace Foundation.
[3] Women’s Peace and Humanitarian Fund. Definitions of peace process, track 1 and track 2, and implementation of a peace agreement.
[4] Mare, A. 2024. Social Media, Conflict, and Peacebuilding in Southern Africa: A Primer. Kujenga Amani, Social Science Research Council. December 17, 2024.
[5] UNITAR. 2021. ‘WhatsApp Diplomacy’: The Future of Multilateralism in a Post-COVID-19 World? United Nations Institute for Training and Research. May 19, 2021.
[6] Sustaining Peace Select. 2023. Platform Engagement.
[7] Build Up. 2023. Feminist Approaches to Online Consultations and What They Reveal. Blog by Build Up. May 18, 2023.
[8] Office of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Syria (OSE-Syria). 2016. Civil Society Support Room. September 26, 2025.
[9] Hattotuwa, S. 2006. The Future of ODR: One Brief Glimpse. ICT for Peacebuilding (blog). February 22, 2006.
[10] Bunse, S. 2021. Social Media: A Tool for Peace or Conflict? SIPRI Commentary. August 20, 2021.
[11] Reuss, A., i S. Stetter (eds.). 2023. Social Media and Peacebuilding: How Digital Spaces Shape Conflict and Peace. Palgrave Mcmillan.
[12] Ibid
[13] Hattotuwa, S. 2024. A ‘War of Stories’: Humanitarianism in the Disinformation Age. ICT for Peacebuilding (blog). December 23, 2024.
Photography
Symbolic representation of mediation in a digital and algorithmic context. Author: Anbu-Creations (Shutterstock).