Open Forum #23 Protecting Refugees Digital Resilience Info Integrity

Summary

This discussion focused on protecting refugees through digital resilience and information integrity, examining how misinformation and hate speech online directly impact forcibly displaced populations. Katie Drew from UNHCR moderated a panel exploring solutions to strengthen digital protection, improve access to reliable information, and foster social cohesion through multi-stakeholder partnerships.

The conversation centered on a case study from South Africa, where panelists described rising xenophobia and anti-foreigner sentiment amplified through social media platforms and online groups like “Operation Dudula.” Mbali Mushathama explained how misinformation targeting foreign nationals creates real-world violence, particularly affecting refugee children in schools who face xenophobic bullying. Liko Bottoman from South Africa’s Department of Basic Education highlighted how anti-foreigner narratives spread beyond classrooms into communities, making curriculum-based solutions insufficient.

The panel presented an innovative “pre-bunking” approach through a board game called “Nzanzi Life,” designed to counter anti-foreigner sentiment before children are exposed to harmful narratives online. Michael Power described how this gamified intervention, combined with facilitated discussions, achieved remarkable results, with student perceptions about online manipulation changing by nearly 50% after just three hours of engagement.

Participants discussed significant barriers to reporting hate speech and digital violence, including language barriers, fear of retaliation, and inadequate platform reporting mechanisms. Oluwaseun Adepoju emphasized the need for localized, anonymous reporting systems and partnerships between tech platforms and trusted local organizations. The discussion concluded with calls for continued multi-stakeholder collaboration, emphasizing that addressing information integrity challenges requires sustained partnerships across government, private sector, and humanitarian organizations to create comprehensive solutions rather than single technological fixes.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital resilience challenges for forcibly displaced communities**: The discussion explored barriers to safe information access including vulnerability to misinformation, xenophobia, surveillance, censorship, lack of network access, and trust issues with digital platforms and reporting mechanisms.

– **Information risks and xenophobic narratives in South Africa**: Panelists examined how anti-foreigner sentiment spreads through online platforms like “Put South Africa First” and “Operation Dudula” movements, leading to real-world violence and affecting refugee children in schools through xenophobic bullying.

– **Pre-bunking strategies and the “Mzanzi Life” board game**: The team presented their innovative approach using a board game (rather than digital tools due to connectivity issues) to proactively counter false narratives before they take hold, showing significant success in changing student perceptions about anti-foreigner sentiment.

– **Multi-stakeholder partnerships and collaboration**: The discussion emphasized the importance of bringing together humanitarian organizations, government departments, private sector partners, and tech platforms to address the complex “wicked problem” of information integrity for displaced populations.

– **Reporting mechanisms and platform accountability**: Participants discussed the inadequacies of current hate speech reporting systems on social media platforms, highlighting issues with localization, trust, fear of retaliation, and the need for anonymous reporting options supported by local civil society organizations.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine how multi-stakeholder partnerships can strengthen digital protection and information integrity for forcibly displaced people, focusing on practical solutions like pre-bunking strategies, improved access to reliable information, and fostering social cohesion while addressing xenophobia and misinformation.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, collaborative, and solution-oriented tone throughout. While acknowledging serious challenges like xenophobia and digital violence, the conversation remained constructive and forward-looking, emphasizing practical innovations and partnerships. The tone was particularly encouraging when discussing the success of their board game intervention and the potential for scaling solutions across different contexts.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Katie Drew** – Works for UNHCR (UN Refugee Agency), specifically for UNHCR’s digital service on a work stream called information integrity, focusing on strengthening information integrity to mitigate information risks online that impact forcibly displaced and stateless people

– **Therese Marie Uppstrom Pankratov** – Head of the Humanitarian Innovation Program at Innovation Norway, previously worked with the Permanent Mission of Norway to the UN in Geneva, the Norwegian Refugee Council, Save the Children and UNHCR

– **Mbali Mushathama** – UNHCR protection associate working for UNHCR’s multi-country office, based in Pretoria, supports social cohesion in South Africa and advocates for refugee rights with a community-based approach

– **Micheal Power** – Public interest lawyer, managing director and co-founder of ALT Advisory and Power Associates (South African office of Power Law Africa), serves as chairperson of the Power Law Africa Alliance, specializes in technology law, information rights, and digital governance

– **Likho Bottoman** – Senior official within the South African government department of basic education, holds the position of director of social cohesion and equity in education

– **Oluwaseun Adepoju** – Technology and innovation leader, managing partner at Co-Creation Hub, oversees Co-Creation Hub’s design lab and supports technology and society work streams, has a master’s in public policy with focus on technology policy and is a PhD researcher in creative technologies

**Additional speakers:**

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members who asked questions during the Q&A session, including Olivia (from London story working in India context), Pumzele (works on disinformation in South Africa), and others

# Protecting Refugees Through Digital Resilience and Information Integrity: A Multi-Stakeholder Approach

## Executive Summary

This comprehensive discussion examined the critical intersection of digital protection and refugee safety, focusing on how misinformation, hate speech, and inadequate digital infrastructure create significant risks for forcibly displaced populations. Held as an IGF (Internet Governance Forum) workshop, the session was moderated by Katie Drew from UNHCR’s information integrity work stream and brought together humanitarian practitioners, government officials, technology experts, and legal professionals to explore innovative solutions for strengthening information integrity and fostering social cohesion through collaborative partnerships.

The conversation began with an interactive Mentimeter session where audience members contributed key terms including “access,” “protection,” “vulnerability,” “xenophobia,” “misinformation,” and “digital literacy,” setting the stage for the discussion. The panel then focused on a compelling case study from South Africa, where rising xenophobia amplified through social media platforms has created tangible threats to refugee communities, particularly affecting children in educational settings. The panel presented an innovative board game intervention that achieved significant success in countering anti-foreigner sentiment before harmful narratives take hold.

## Key Participants and Perspectives

The discussion featured diverse expertise across sectors. **Katie Drew** from UNHCR’s information integrity work stream provided the humanitarian perspective on digital protection challenges. **Therese Marie Uppstrom Pankratov**, Head of the Humanitarian Innovation Programme at Innovation Norway, brought insights on multi-stakeholder partnerships and innovation processes, explaining how UNHCR responded to Innovation Norway’s annual call for proposals. **Mbali Mushathama**, a UNHCR protection associate based in Pretoria, offered ground-level experience working with refugee communities in South Africa’s complex social environment.

**Michael Power**, a public interest lawyer and technology governance expert, contributed legal and policy analysis alongside practical experience developing digital protection interventions. **Likho Bottoman** from South Africa’s Department of Basic Education provided the government perspective on addressing xenophobia in educational settings. **Oluwaseun Adepoju**, a technology and innovation leader from Co-Creation Hub, shared expertise on platform engagement and community-based reporting mechanisms.

## Digital Resilience Challenges for Displaced Communities

Katie Drew defined digital resilience as creating robust information ecosystems that allow displaced communities secure access to information and freedom of expression. As Therese Marie Uppstrom Pankratov articulated, “Safeguarding information integrity is one of the key challenges of our times… in humanitarian operations, we tend to talk about information being protection… when we have access to quality information, it helps keep us safe. And when we don’t, it causes a significant risk.”

The panel identified multiple barriers preventing refugees from achieving digital security. These challenges include vulnerability to misinformation campaigns, exposure to xenophobic narratives, surveillance concerns, censorship, inadequate network access, and fundamental trust issues with digital platforms and reporting mechanisms.

Mbali Mushathama emphasized that refugees seek safe spaces to share their stories and access reliable information in languages they understand. She stressed that digital literacy initiatives must be context-specific and utilize real-life examples from the community rather than generic approaches. This localization requirement emerged as a recurring theme throughout the discussion.

## Information Risks and Xenophobic Narratives in South Africa

The South African context provided a stark illustration of how online hate speech translates into offline violence. Mbali Mushathama described the rise of misinformation and hate speech targeting foreign nationals, particularly during election periods, with groups using coded language across South Africa’s 11 official languages to evade platform moderation systems.

She explained how movements like “Put South Africa First” and “Operation Dudula” (which means “to push out or to push away”) have leveraged social media to spread anti-foreigner sentiment, creating direct correlations between online incitement and physical violence in host communities. This digital-to-physical violence pipeline particularly affects refugee children in schools, who face xenophobic bullying that extends beyond educational settings into broader community tensions.

Likho Bottoman provided crucial context about South Africa’s multicultural complexity, noting that the country’s innate diversity management challenges create vulnerabilities that anti-foreigner narratives exploit. He observed that foreign nationals become scapegoats for socioeconomic problems, particularly given South Africa’s unemployment rate of just over 32% and limited public resources.

## Innovative Pre-bunking Strategies: The Mzanzi Life Board Game

One of the discussion’s most compelling elements was the presentation of an innovative “pre-bunking” approach through a board game called “Mzanzi Life,” similar to snakes and ladders. Michael Power explained that pre-bunking involves addressing harmful narratives before they take hold, rather than attempting to debunk false information after it has spread.

The team chose a board game format rather than digital tools due to connectivity issues and the need to reach populations without reliable internet access. This decision proved highly successful, with the intervention achieving significant results. As Michael Power reported, when students were asked whether they agreed with the statement about online manipulation, agreement increased from 43% to 86% after just three hours of engagement combining gamification with facilitated learning.

The board game approach addressed several critical challenges simultaneously. It provided an offline solution to online problems, created safe spaces for discussion about sensitive topics, and allowed for nuanced conversations about information manipulation that might be difficult to achieve through digital platforms alone.

Therese Marie Uppstrom Pankratov contextualized this success within broader innovation principles, explaining that “we call it a wicked problem, not because the problem is evil, but because it is really complex.” She noted that innovation processes require iterations, multiple testing, and redevelopments rather than linear solutions. The board game project exemplified this iterative approach, moving into a second phase of testing scheduled to conclude by August, followed by printing and distribution with digital facilitation guides.

## Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships and Collaboration

A central theme throughout the discussion was the necessity of multi-stakeholder partnerships for addressing complex information integrity challenges. Therese Marie Uppstrom Pankratov argued that solving these challenges requires partnerships across sectors with different expertise in context, technology, and behavioral sciences.

The panel demonstrated this collaborative approach in practice, bringing together humanitarian organizations, government departments, private sector partners, and civil society organizations. Each stakeholder contributed distinct capabilities: humanitarian organizations provided community access and protection expertise, government offered policy frameworks and educational infrastructure, private sector contributed technological solutions and innovation capacity, and civil society organizations served as trusted intermediaries.

The success of the South Africa project was attributed partly to this collaborative approach, with each partner contributing essential elements that no single organization could have provided independently. This model suggested potential for scaling across different contexts while maintaining local adaptation.

## Platform Engagement and Reporting Mechanisms

The discussion revealed significant inadequacies in current social media platform reporting mechanisms for vulnerable populations. Oluwaseun Adepoju provided particularly critical analysis, noting that “80% of the reporting platforms from the big techs are afterthoughts, after building the technology… The pressure was mounted by civil society organizations and technology activists to be able to do that. So it’s always challenging to even create the awareness about some of these tools for people using their platforms.”

These reporting systems suffer from multiple deficiencies: lack of localization, limited awareness among vulnerable populations, trust issues stemming from past failures to act on reports, and fear of retaliation among potential reporters. Oluwaseun Adepoju described cases where organizations had to work with multiple intermediaries to escalate situations to platforms because individuals refused to report directly due to past experiences where reports were made but no action was taken.

Despite these challenges, the panel identified some positive developments in platform engagement. Mbali Mushathama described productive engagement with platforms like TikTok and Meta to understand moderation systems and create opportunities for refugees to develop counter-narratives. However, she emphasized that meaningful engagement requires platforms to work with local civil society organizations as trusted intermediaries rather than expecting direct reporting from vulnerable populations.

## Policy and Regulatory Challenges

The panel identified significant gaps in current policy frameworks for protecting displaced populations from digital harm. Michael Power provided stark assessment of existing systems: “The practice in supporting vulnerable groups who are subjected to hate speech missing disinformation is wholly inadequate. There’s often re-victimization… from policing stations… The practice is simply not to involve people or to re-victimize or victim-blame through a series of processes.”

This re-victimization problem extends beyond platform reporting to institutional responses across law enforcement, legal systems, and government services. The panel noted that South Africa lacks specific policy addressing refugees and displaced people regarding digital protection, with scattered regulatory approaches across different government departments and jurisdictions.

An audience member raised the critical question of “how does UNHCR respond when harmful narratives are either generated or tolerated by state actors?” This highlighted the complex operational challenges facing humanitarian organizations in non-cooperative or hostile government environments.

Likho Bottoman emphasized that protecting refugee rights requires global conversation rather than just action by host countries due to international influences, suggesting the need for coordinated international responses rather than purely national solutions.

## Community Participation and Voice

A fundamental principle that emerged throughout the discussion was the necessity of meaningful refugee participation in developing solutions that affect them. Mbali Mushathama articulated this principle clearly: “We cannot make decisions for them and about them without them… unless you’re a refugee and you have that lived experience, we can’t really dictate what works and what doesn’t work.”

She emphasized that refugees want to be included in policy drafting conversations and need safe spaces for open dialogue and to report violations without re-traumatization. The discussion highlighted how community-based approaches and local civil society organizations serve as trusted intermediaries between vulnerable populations and formal systems.

This participatory approach influenced the methodology of the South Africa project, which prioritized refugee voices in identifying problems, developing solutions, and evaluating effectiveness. However, the panel also acknowledged challenges in ensuring authentic participation rather than tokenistic consultation.

## Audience Engagement and Key Questions

The session included significant audience participation, with several important questions raised. One audience member provided detailed context about India’s situation, describing how refugees face challenges accessing basic services and how misinformation spreads through WhatsApp groups. Another critical question addressed whether digital resilience initiatives should be prioritized when basic needs like food, water, and shelter aren’t met.

Mbali Mushathama responded that different contexts require different approaches, noting that “South Africa’s progressive legislation allows focus on xenophobia rather than basic service access,” highlighting how context determines appropriate intervention priorities. She emphasized that in South Africa, progressive legislation already provides basic services, making xenophobia the primary challenge rather than basic needs access.

## Global and Contextual Considerations

The discussion grappled with balancing global coordination with local contextualization. While refugee protection requires international cooperation, effective interventions must address specific local dynamics and cultural contexts.

The panel recognized that digital resilience initiatives must not overshadow urgent basic needs but should address context-specific challenges. The success of non-digital solutions in addressing digital problems challenged assumptions about the need for purely digital solutions to digital challenges.

## Implementation and Next Steps

The discussion concluded with several concrete action items. The Mzanzi Life board game project is moving into its second phase of testing, with plans for printing and distribution accompanied by digital facilitation guides.

Continued engagement with tech platforms aims to improve reporting mechanisms and empower refugee communities to create counter-narratives. The panel emphasized the need for developing anonymous reporting policies and accountability measures for those responsible for protecting vulnerable populations.

Implementation of combination approaches using both digital and non-digital methods emerged as a priority for reaching all population segments, recognizing that purely digital solutions exclude those without reliable internet access.

## Conclusion

This comprehensive discussion revealed both the complexity of protecting refugees in digital environments and the potential for innovative, collaborative solutions. The success of the South Africa project demonstrates that effective interventions are possible when humanitarian expertise, government support, private sector innovation, and community participation are combined strategically.

However, the discussion also highlighted significant systemic challenges that require sustained attention and resources. Current platform reporting mechanisms, policy frameworks, and institutional responses are inadequate for protecting vulnerable populations from digital harm.

The path forward requires continued multi-stakeholder collaboration, sustained investment in community-centered approaches, and recognition that digital protection is as essential as physical safety for displaced populations. The innovative pre-bunking strategies and participatory methodologies presented offer promising models for scaling across different contexts while maintaining local relevance.

Most importantly, the discussion reinforced that effective refugee protection in digital environments cannot be achieved through technological solutions alone but requires comprehensive approaches that address social, political, and economic dimensions of displacement and discrimination. The principle that refugees must be meaningfully included in decisions that affect them must guide future efforts to ensure that digital resilience initiatives genuinely serve the communities they aim to protect.

Katie Drew: Hi, good afternoon, everyone. Welcome back from lunch. I hope you had a good break and a great lunch. This is the session on protecting refugees, digital resilience and information integrity. So I hope everyone is on Workshop 2 channel and everyone can hear. There’s some very reassuring nods. So that’s great. Thanks. So hello, everyone. Thank you so much for your time today. I’m really excited to have a great panel with me and hopefully a very interesting panel discussion coming up. So today we’re going to examine information risks through the lens of forced displacement. So my name is Katie. I work for UNHCR, which is the UN Refugee Agency. I work for UNHCR’s digital service and on a work stream called information integrity, which is looking at how we can strengthen information integrity to mitigate against the challenges of information risks online that directly impact the lives of forcibly displaced and stateless people. So this includes refugees, asylum seekers, people who’ve been internally displaced within their own countries and people without a citizenship, so people who are stateless. We also address the impact that information integrity risks have to humanitarian operations and obviously this is a very challenging space. So hopefully today we can actually focus on some of the positives and some of the solutions that we’ve been working on when we look at addressing information risks. So today we are going to look at how we can strengthen digital protection, how we can improve access to reliable information, how we can uphold the freedom of expression and how importantly we can foster social cohesion and inclusion. So our key question is how can we do this collectively as well and I think that this really speaks to the purpose of the IGF. How can we really strengthen multilateral partnerships, how can we really engage with different community members, different groups within societies to address this challenge and hopefully this is a sort of exciting panel where we can talk about some of these solutions as well. But just to get started and I’m going to ask my colleague Ondine online to help us with this process. It’s a little bit of enforced audience participation and there might be some resistance to this after a heavy lunch but please do give us your views and ideas. We’re going to do a little bit of an online mentee. So hopefully you can see coming up on the screen a QR code. This might be a familiar process to you. If not, please go to the mentee.com and enter your code. So if you’re joining online and hello to participants online. If you’re joining online and you can’t you know take a photo of your own phone, please go to mentee.com and enter the code and we should start having coming up a couple of questions. I’ll just wait for everyone to take a photo of the code. Please wave your hands if you’re still taking photos of the code. If not, we’ll move to the first Mentimeter question. There are no wrong answers, don’t worry. Just in your own word or words, can you tell me what you think we mean when we talk about digital resilience for forcibly displaced communities? What does this mean in relation to information integrity? And hopefully we’ll have a lovely word cloud up there when we when we think about digital resilience. We’ll give a few minutes for those online and those off. I can see at the bottom that it says zero out of 29 participants. Okay, thank you. Whoever was the first person to have the courage to hit send. Brilliant. We’ll wait for a few more answers to come through. I see access is coming across quite strongly there. That’s very interesting. Protection, regulation. We’re going to hopefully touch on a number of these topics today. Freedom of expression, safety, safe care. Sorry, it keeps jumping around. Access to information, I think we’ve already said. So I think that’s brilliant. Financial security, safety online, rights and duties. That’s also something that we’ll talk to today. Authenticity. So brilliant. You can see that when we talk about digital resilience, we’re really talking about the ability for forcibly displaced communities to have access to an information ecosystem that is robust. It meets their needs. It allows them to express their concerns, their stories. Tell them, you know, have a voice in a place where they feel that they have access to information securely and safely. And that’s what we’re talking about when we come to digital resilience. Now that sounds great, but we’ll move to the next question on Dean. Obviously, there are some challenges when we talk about digital resilience for forcibly displaced people. And so can we think of some of the, what might be some of the barriers when we look at that sort of safety, security, freedom of expression and access to information ecosystem that we were considering. So we’ll just spend a little time thinking about the barriers. Oh, that’s interesting. So we’ve got vulnerability coming up. Capitalism. I’m not sure we’re going to be able to sort of knock that one on its head today. But xenophobia, that’s definitely something we will be able to touch on. Lack of network. Yeah. Some of the digital divide challenges as well. Fear and censorship and surveillance. I think that’s also coming across quite strongly here. Knowledge. Yeah. Untrusted trust. Trust and safety and access and reliability as well. Okay. So not wanting to focus too heavily on the challenges and hopefully moving quite quickly to sort of the solutions, I wanted to introduce Therese for our opening remarks. So Therese Marie-Obstrom-Pankratov is the head of the Humanitarian Innovation Program at Innovation Norway. And Innovation Norway are our key donor that we’ve been working with on one of the case studies or on the case study that we’re going to present today. So Innovation Norway supports humanitarian organizations to enter into innovative partnerships with the private sector. And so we also have our private sector partner on the panel today, which I’m quite excited to talk about the collaboration that we’ve had in South Africa. Therese is a strong believer in partnerships across sectors being worth the effort. And I think, again, that speaks to the spirit of the IGF. She’s previously worked with the Permanent Mission of Norway, to the UN in Geneva, the Norwegian Refugee Council, Save the Children and UNHCR, the refugee agency. So quite a familiar topic when it comes to some of the challenges that forcibly displaced and stateless persons experience. And Therese, it’d be great to hear from you sort of some of the reasons why you are interested to support multi-stakeholder

Therese Marie Uppstrom Pankratov: partnerships. Thank you. Sure. Great. Thank you. I’m really looking forward to this session. I think already this week, I’ve attended quite a lot of sessions where information integrity has been the topic. And so I think this conversation will fall well within that discourse and help us focusing on one of the key topics I think we need to look at, which is people that are forcibly displaced. I think we all know that vulnerable populations are particularly affected by misdeeds and malinformation. And so this focus is really important. And I think we’ve also established throughout this week that safeguarding information integrity is one of the key challenges of our times. It’s augmented by technological development that has made it easier to develop and spread misinformation. And in humanitarian operations, we tend to talk about information being protection, and it sounds a bit humanitarian language-wise, but when we think about it, it makes a lot of sense in that we know that when we have access to quality information, it helps keep us safe. And when we don’t, it causes a significant risk. So as Katie said, I work for the Humanitarian Innovation Program. It’s a program that is fully financed by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and it is managed by Innovation Norway. And we’re set up to encourage, support, and de-risk innovation partnerships between humanitarian organizations and the private sector that would like to design and develop solutions to humanitarian challenges. And we have an annual call for proposals. So about two years ago, UNHCR responded to that call, and they said that they had identified a lack of solutions in combating misinformation, disinformation and hate speech, targeting or affecting forcibly displaced and stateless people. And so they wanted to design an innovation process and find partners from other sectors to test the use of pre-bunking strategies that could proactively counter false and potentially harmful narratives before they take hold. And safeguarding information integrity in crisis has become one of those areas of work that is referred to as a wicked problem. I think it was illustrated really well now with the word cloud and all the challenges that you listed. So we call it a wicked problem, not because the problem is evil, but because it is really complex and it has a lot of interdependent factors and there is not one clear-cut fix that can help us address it. So when we want to solve key challenges like this, we need innovation and we need partnerships. We cannot go it alone. Solving wicked problems requires a deep understanding of the stakeholders involved. It requires a deep insight into various technologies or other possible solutions. It requires an innovative approach characterized by dialogue with actors from various sectors and expertise. And it requires trust-based partnerships and collaboration along a process shaped by design thinking. It is really complex. And in this case, the partnership was needed between those who have a deep insight into the context and needs of people affected by crisis and that are forcibly displaced, deep insights into social media, artificial intelligence and other technologies that are used to spread misinformation, and deep insight into behavioral sciences that can help us understand how people establish trust in information that they seek or receive. So one actor alone will not be able to master all these skills. And so a good way forward then is to design a multi-sectorial innovation partnership to address the challenge in an appropriate way. And I think traditionally often we’ve thought of innovation as a fairly linear process. So you identify a challenge, you develop a solution, you implement the solution, and the problem is solved. And I think this view of innovation has caused a lot of disappointment because it normally doesn’t look like this. I’ve seen a few in my work on humanitarian innovation, but normally an innovation process is a lot messier than that. They go in loops and circles, they require iterations, multiple testing, redevelopments, and so on. And when it comes to wicked challenges, the solution is also most likely not one shiny new thing. It is often multiple processes, partnerships, and technologies that when they come together help us address the challenge at hand. So this means that in addition to developing various solutions, we also need to develop an ecosystem of partnerships and solutions that can come together. And this is not an easy task. What I think is particularly inspiring about the initiative that we’ll hear more about today is how these various partnerships have come together around a common challenge, bringing their various expertise and asking how can we strengthen the digital resilience of people affected by crisis, keeping people safe and preventing harm. In the panel we’ll hear from government, private sector, and the humanitarian sector, and together their insights create a unique basis for an innovation process that can help us develop solutions. I think the panel discussion today will help us both understand how we can support the digital resilience of people affected by crisis and how we can shape innovation partnerships to solve wicked challenges. So I very much look forward to hearing from the panelists.

Katie Drew: Thanks so much, Therese. And so without much further ado, we’re going to move to the panel. I’ll do my best to introduce quite a formidable bunch of speakers today, so I’m very excited. So first I’ll start with my colleague Mbali. Mbali Moshitama is a UNHCR colleague. She is a protection associate. She works for UNHCR’s multi-country office, which covers a number of countries, and she’s based in Pretoria. So in her role, she really supports social cohesion in South Africa. She’s a strong advocate for the rights of refugees and helps to address protection challenges that they face, really ensuring a community-based and community-led approach. And so hopefully Mbali is going to touch on some of the ways in which we really try to bring in the community voice into the project. On her immediate left is Michael Power. So Michael is a public interest lawyer. He’s a managing director and co-founder of ALT Advisory and Power Associates, which is the South African office of Power Law Africa. He serves as the chairperson of the Power Law Africa Alliance. He specializes in litigation, legal advisory, and policy development, including a focus on technology law, information rights, and digital governance. And he works to advance constitutional rights and good governance in the digital age. And then at the end of the table, to his left, we have Liko Boteman. Liko is a senior official within the South African government department of basic education. He holds the position of director of social cohesion and equity in education. And he’s dedicated to advancing inclusive, equitable, and socially cohesive schooling in South Africa. And then to my right, I have Oluwashin Adipoju. Sorry, I had been practicing all day and I knew I wasn’t going to be able to get through that, so my apologies. He is a technology and innovation leader. He currently is serving as a managing partner at Co-Creation Hub. And he oversees Co-Creation’s Hub design lab and supports several of Co-Creation Hub’s work streams, which includes the technology and society work stream. He has a master’s in public policy with a focus on technology policy from Career Development Institute School of Public Policy and Management and is a PhD researcher in creative technologies at Auckland University of Technology. So, to start our conversation today, I’m going to pass to Mbali to provide us with an understanding of some of the information risks and digital protection risks that we’re talking about, specifically in South Africa, as we highlight to begin with that case study. So, would you like to give us an overview of those challenges?

Mbali Mushathama: Yeah, sure. Thank you so much and good afternoon to everyone once again. In my experience working with refugees in South Africa, we have observed over years a rise of misinformation and hate speech, particularly targeted at foreign nationals. And we see a rise in this, especially during towards the election period as well. But we also have to look at the context of South Africa. South Africa is 31 years into its democracy. And during the early stages of its democracy, a number of commitments were made around equality, inclusion and access to resources. While South Africa has made significant strides in achieving this, we also must recognize that there are still significant gaps. And an example of this is the high unemployment rates in the country. I think it’s currently sitting at just over 32%, as well as the limited public resources. And so we find that where there are limited public resources, it can create a sense of competition. And that can also result in a lot of social tensions, which is what we have observed within the host communities where refugees particularly reside. And so foreign nationals, including forcibly displaced persons, are oftentimes used as scapegoats for socioeconomic problems in South Africa. And we have seen a rise in many online groups such as Put South Africa First, as well as Operation Dudula. So Dudula is a vernacular term that basically means to push out or to push away. So these are groups that will use trendy words, trendy phrases to gain momentum and gain traction. And they have used a lot of these online platforms to incite violence and looting in the host communities. Just to also highlight how serious the seriousness of the hate speech that these groups perpetuate, we have Operation Dudula, who was recently taken to court by civil society organizations so that they can be held accountable for some of the actions that they are perpetuating. So we’ve seen a direct correlation of online incitement to violence manifesting itself into the host communities as well. And this, unfortunately, also trickles down to young people. And young people are especially sensitive to this type of rhetoric, because both in the online space as well as in their communities. So you will find that refugee students, for example, have reported cases of xenophobic-motivated bullying as well as targeting in schools. So these are refugee children who are born in South Africa or perhaps fled to South Africa at a very young age. They identify as South Africans even. They speak the language. However, when they get to school, they find that they’re being bullied simply because they’re considered as not from South Africa. and Michael Power. We have a lot of research that has been done on this, but also we have a lot of real-life examples. Thanks, Katie. ≫ Maybe I’ll pass now to Likho to talk a little bit around the social cohesion challenges in schools, and maybe the role of digital information risks in that environment. Thanks, Likho. ≫ Thank you, Micheal.

Likho Bottoman: I do want to start by saying that some of the issues that we find in South Africa relate to the fact that South Africa in itself is a very multicultural and multiracial or even multilingual country on its own. And that on its own is bringing a set of innate challenges to diversity management in the country. And so when you then add foreign nationals into that whole compound of diversity elements in the country, you find then that there are already existing complications, and the anti-foreigner, the anti-racist, the anti-racist and the anti-racist narratives just simply finds themselves at the center of all of those complications. The second thing that we find is that even though as a country we have agreed that we will use schools as centers of life where young minds are being molded and being prepared for an inclusive society, school alone and curriculum alone is not going to solve the problem because curriculum is only delivered in the classroom during school hours. And this child goes back to school where these narratives are perpetuated, I mean, they go back home, rather, where these narratives are perpetuated. But they also then go into cultural and religious spaces in community where it is advocated for very strongly that anti-foreigner narratives are actually religiously correct. And so our curriculum is not able to help us shift the mindset, not just on issues of people of foreign nationality, but even on other issues related to HIV prevention or prevention of early unintended pregnancies and all of those things. And so these issues are not, I mean, this particular issue is not immune to those issues that we find in South Africa. And so we’ve got a greater task as the basic education sector to begin to think about education beyond the classroom and understand ourselves playing a role to educate not just the child in the classroom in front of the teacher, but to educate even the country because we are a basic education department. And that is going to take a while because on the one hand, the creative thinking around positioning education as a public education entity. But on the other hand, there is this thing that says that it’s not your role to guide value systems of the country. It’s not your role to guide belief systems of the country. And so you need to start and end with the core business of education, which is literacy and numeracy and other school subjects. And so we find ourselves in a tug of war quite a lot because now we’ve got to play this role of helping the country move forward but at the same time understanding how far we can go and what our limits are as a sector.

Katie Drew: Thanks, Liko. Maybe I can just follow up on that a little bit with the sort of point around digital resilience. So when we came to you and said, you know, we wanted to work on the concept of sort of strengthening digital resilience, how did you think that that was valuable and how did you think it might support the national action plan? And maybe for the purposes of the audience, just sort of outline that a little bit for us. Thank you.

Likho Bottoman: Well, there had been a belief that in South Africa we’ve got digital divide, we’ve got inequality, this and that. But actually, people have undertaken research about access to technology in our country are coming up with some very interesting data that actually says that even the most rural people have got access to technology and in spaces where we never thought that there is access to technology. And so for a very long time as a government, we didn’t think that we need to address technology-facilitated discrimination of any kind. But what is happening now is that our population is growing ahead of us because they’ve got access to technology, they are already absorbing the misinformation and disinformation. So it is up to us as government to rethink how we see ourselves and how we see our country and begin to maybe intentionally begin to work on disinformation and misinformation that exists in the digital spaces. Because children are already there. South Africans are already there. And if we don’t, by the time we get them, we would have lost them to the misinformation and disinformation.

Katie Drew: Great. Thank you. Thanks, Lico. Michael, I’m going to pass to you now, and just for the technicians at the back, I think we’re going to have a couple of slides on. We’ve been talking about this project in South Africa, and I think probably we need to sort of outline a little bit what we mean. So if you could walk us through sort of some of the approaches we’ve been testing together. Thanks, Michael.

Micheal Power: Sure. So thank you, Katie, and to the entire UNHCR team, as well as Innovation Norway for hosting us on this panel. And maybe thank you to the technical team at the back. This is my first ever silent seminar, and you’re doing a wonderful job. So thank you for that. You know, flowing from what Lico said, we’ve been working now with UNHCR for about 18 months, and we were simply asked, how do you change children’s perspectives? This was ultimately the macro question that we were asked within the purview of anti-foreigner sentiment in South African schools. And we really went to the drawing board. For the parents in the room, for those who work with learners, changing a perception is not easy, particularly when someone is in an echo chamber, and those beliefs that are held are being reinforced within their communities, by their parents, potentially by their educators as well. And, you know, as Mbalia said, we have a long history of xenophobia in South Africa for multiple socioeconomic reasons, but the fact that xenophobia is inherent in our community, I don’t think can be dispelled at this stage. So we went to work. And, you know, talking about Internet penetration, I think context is always really important to understanding any situation. And our Internet penetration rates in South Africa, while they are increasing, the biggest challenges we have in schools, for example, a brief explainer video. You explain what the problem is. You warn about certain types of narratives that are occurring in online spaces. You then have a preemptive refutation. You explain why those narratives are incorrect. And then, lastly, you microdose to try explain how you counterbalance that narrative, but the microdose is meant to be just that. It’s not meant to further perpetuate the harm. So you’re really and simply trying to get ahead of the story. You’re trying to get ahead of the narrative in terms of pre-bunking. So when we turned to South African context, we had hoped to start digital. You know, a lot of this program is around digital, but we found in consultations with learners that our Internet penetration rates were too low and access to technology just simply wasn’t viable at that stage. So we got thinking, and we ultimately came up with the concept of a board game, right? So I’m not certain what slide is on the screen, but we can flip the slide. And our game is really called Nzanzi Life. So what it is, for those who have played snakes and ladders before, it’s a very similar type game. But you start the game by taking a character card. You become a character. And throughout the course of this game, we gently microdose to avoid anti-foreigner content. So as this character, you go through life in the game. You have the ups. You have the downs. And you are rewarded for good behavior. You go up the game. You move towards your future. And for problematic behavior, you move backwards. And what we’ve done, and really the difficulty and challenge with pre-bunking, I think the key to debunking is getting the narratives right. If you’re too blunt about the situation, you often lose your audience. It’s about nuance. It’s about subtlety. And it’s really about ensuring that before children are exposed to these types of narratives, they already have some type of information to countermand it. You know, we learned today that Norway has a critical thinking day, where critical thinking is promoted in schools throughout the country. We don’t have that day. And it’s something for our department, most certainly, to think about. But this type of educational material, which is the board guide, coupled with a facilitation guide, is an approach that we’ve looked into to pre-bunking this anti-foreigner sentiment that we’re seeing online. If you go to the last slide, and for us, what has been most telling is, you know, adopting a multi-stakeholder approach, ensuring extensive consultation. The early results of testing of this game have somewhat exceeded our expectations. You know, when we initially started piloting, we thought it would be just another game, something that would be thrown in the cupboard and not used. But when we started rolling it out in our test groups, we really started to see really fantastic results. The most important result is the one at the bottom, and I’ll move back from there. But when it came to the question of perception, and on the question to learners who are surveyed after playing the game and going through a facilitated discussion on anti-foreigner sentiment, for the statement, some people online are trying to influence me by using emotional or shocking messages that spread quickly. After a three-hour engagement with learners, the perception of agree changed from 43% to 86%. I can’t remember personally when my perception was changed by almost 50% in the course of a three-hour conversation. So the combination of gamifying a concept with facilitated learning seems to be a magic ingredient, at least in our context. The traditional notions of pre-bunking, which is watch a 15-second TikTok video or watch this explainer video for a minute, are traditional mechanisms that are being rolled out and still often adopted. We’ve seen a more substantive approach as yielding slightly more significant results. Katie, I hope that gives a bit of an overview as to the pilot project, and I look forward to continuing the conversation.

Katie Drew: Excellent. And of course, if you’ve got any questions, we’ll be able to come to them at the end. Or please do grab Michael, Lico, Bali, and myself to talk a little bit more about this case study. I have one of the old iterations of the game with me, so if you want to see some of the play cards and things like that, I think it would be worth looking into if you would like a little bit more information. I’d like to bring us a little bit back to looking at the engagement that we can have with different stakeholders. And Bali, I mean, Michael mentioned sort of the jigsaw approach, jigsaw Google approach, but could you tell us a little bit more about some of the engagement that we’ve had with the tech platforms on this project?

Mbali Mushathama: Sure, thank you. I think one thing we also need to take into consideration is the fact that – it’s a bit weird when I hear myself. I think another thing we need to take into consideration is the fact that refugees are on these platforms, these various platforms. We can’t run away from that. The one thing we wanted to ensure was that they feel empowered to use these platforms. They feel safe enough to use these platforms as well. But also, since there is an existing narrative, we wanted them to also put out their own stories, their own lived experiences. And so we’ve been closely engaging TikTok, who recently hosted a webinar that was dedicated to just helping us learn more about how the users can stay safe while using the platform as well. So the session focused on equipping participants on tools and knowledge to navigate the platform safely as well as understand how TikTok’s moderation system works. The webinar also served as a platform for open dialogue. So we were afforded the opportunity to directly ask the team, the TikTok team, some of the challenges that we’re seeing on the ground because there are certain trends that we’re seeing that TikTok might not be aware of. There are certain subtle misinformation or hate speech that is being spread in such a way where they’re using coded language. So they might not use a particular word. They might change a word to another language. South Africa has about 11 official languages. So you have about 11 languages to play with to basically perpetuate hate speech. And so the TikTok team was very helpful in offering insights also into their community guidelines, their different reporting mechanisms. And for us, what was really encouraging was just their openness for continued collaboration. We’re also looking at empowering the refugee community on how they can create their own content as well. So how can they then start making content to counteract what is already on the ground? How can they also do this safely whereby they feel like they can express themselves? I saw that in the Mentimeter. I think one of the key things that kept coming up was freedom of expression. How can refugees… They should be afforded the right to a voice, right? They are contributing members of society. They have their own lived experiences. And so for us, really engaging platforms such as TikTok, engaging platforms such as Meta, where we’re able to say we have this marginalized group of people where oftentimes they are left behind. How do we bring them to the table so they can tell their own stories where they can also access safe information in a manner that does not endanger them?

Katie Drew: Thank you, Katie. Thanks, Mbani. And maybe zooming a little bit out of the South Africa context and speaking a little bit more broadly, Oluwosin, I’d love to hear a little bit more around some of these reporting mechanisms that we know that maybe the platforms have if it does come to someone saying that they have been directly a recipient of hate online. Do you feel that maybe displaced communities use these reporting platforms? And what could be some of the barriers that would stand in their way when it comes to reporting?

Oluwaseun Adepoju: Thanks, Katie. I think I’ll start by saying 80% of the reporting platforms from the big techs are afterthoughts, after building the technology. For most of the social media platforms, for example, the reporting platforms for hate speech or digital violence were afterthoughts. The pressure was mounted by civil society organizations and technology activists to be able to do that. So it’s always challenging to even create the awareness about some of these tools for people using their platforms. But also, as technology creators, sometimes we tend to create a one-size-fit-all types of technology for people, which is not really helping vulnerable people to be able to use these platforms effectively. And when we talk about… We can have classification of internally displaced people, forcibly displaced people. There are refugees as well. And some of the reporting platforms are not really fitting to the different classifications that we might have as well. And in the work that we do every day, we’ve seen increasingly that these people are not… Some of them are not even aware of some of these reporting platforms. But more importantly is the familiarity, first of all, with what you call hate speech or offensive opinion, first of all. We’ve worked with people that are seriously emotionally battered, that when you even use hate speech on them, they are not even aware, they are not emotionally sensitive to some of these things. And this brings the complexity of even helping and supporting, you know, internally displaced people or refugees. First of all, from the emotional level of classification. Number two is the language and localisation of some of these reporting platforms. And that is why we begin to see organisations creating different app desks offline where people can come to and make reports. And then those platforms escalate to the platforms where some of these things have been perpetrated. And I think it speaks to what you were saying around the fact that foreigners, internally displaced people or refugees coming into a new country, sometimes they don’t even understand the slangs and the languages being used, you know, for hate speech on them. And we’ve also seen in our work fear of retaliation. We’ve seen a lot of people who have experienced hate speech or violence, digital violence, they don’t want to report because of fear of retaliation or the power play in the mix of, you know, those who have used this word against them. And also, a particular situation that we’ve seen is our… And this is a co-created story with some organisations we worked with recently. In a particular IDP camp in Nigeria, the… Should we call them the warders or the people in charge a particular person in charge was making sexual sexually violent comments towards a particular young lady and It comes with intimidation. They don’t want them to speak out. So he took another IDP to Report to law enforcement and the first thing the law enforcement did was to ask if the lady was suggestive in a behavior You know and then that you know Just discourage a lot of young ladies facing this kind of situation to report. So it also comes to the responsibility of those that we have actually, you know appointed as those in charge of the refugees or IDPs in the first place as well. So There’s a wide range of you know I would say challenges facing IDPs and internally displaced people but I think more importantly is the localization of the platforms that for example we addressed a situation where it was a violent Revenge porn. That’s the word right image based digital violence on a particular platform and we had to work with two other organizations to be able to escalate the situation to the platform because these particular person didn’t want to go on the platform to use it because of a lot of historical issues when it comes to We’ve seen people report in the past and nothing was done about it So it shouldn’t be a case of afterthoughts. I think in terms of the development of these platforms now they have to be You know, it has to be with integrity. It must drive trust in people, but also it must be contextual in the way that people use it and The kind of work that we do we have a command center where people can come to you know, and for those Trust to escalate to us and then we escalate to the platforms and those who need psychological support as well. We provide that

Katie Drew: Great thank you. I was gonna ask you as my follow-up question But you already came there in terms of some of the practical steps to improve these these reporting mechanisms So along with sort of the localization, I heard you talk about sort of some of the partnerships that you were working with as well So is there any sort of other, you know, how how can the tech sector help do this better? Is it by engaging, you know local actors?

Oluwaseun Adepoju: I think the big tech need to engage the local actors because the truth is that when there’s breakdown in trust people don’t want to use this platform to report directly and if people have a structure they already trust either in the Community or with other civil society organizations that they are comfortable speaking with I think big tech should be able to come down and work with those organizations to be able to address these issues better there’s a lot of under reporting happening because of this trust issues and also the way in different contexts our law enforcement has also addressed some of these issues with levity, right so there should be a community approach where there’s a Report the offender kind of situation in those community. They could be we organize You know people on whatsapp. We also organize on people can reach out via You know other platforms as well But it truth is that there are more than in every local government You can have at least 25 civil society organizations or local actors who are genuinely interested in addressing some of these issues and they are a great gateway to the big techs to be able to get some of this reporting and We should not also limit this to what is happening on on platforms online there are offline situations as well that can be Escalated via independent platforms outside of social media as well, and I think we should build more platforms outside of social media that Encourages people to come out and speak about these things because for social media. It’s either you resort to Cancelling people or you keep quiet before independent platforms for offline situations, and I think we have more flying situations physical words violent words or actions spoken to Internally displaced people refugees that should be escalated Because when we go the route of digital literacy you might say some of these guys don’t even are not on Facebook Or they are not an X or they are not on any social media But the offline one is even more and what that we do that we see every day

Katie Drew: So we’ve talked about reporting mechanisms and Michael I’m gonna put you on a spot with quite a long question now But looking at if we bring it back to the conversation around sort of digital resilience And how can we create an environment that is supporting the digital resilience of refugees of asylum seekers? how Up to the challenge is the policy and regularly regulation Environment when we look when we look at that question are they sort of protected currently when it comes to policy and regulation

Micheal Power: Thanks Katie, I mean it’s a it’s a complex question and I would yeah I really welcome a conversation with colleagues in the room who who work and have different perspectives on this I mean, you know my view at least from the context we’re in I Think the practice is really the challenge and I’ll start there I mean the practice in supporting vulnerable groups who are subjected to hate speech missing disinformation is wholly inadequate There’s often re-victimization You know, we’ve heard a series of lessons learned and it’s not only the platforms here that are the culprits from policing stations whether it’s a you know, a The practice is simply not to involve people or to re-victimize or re-blame or victim-blame through a series of processes So given that the platforms have increased their dominance over an extended period of time The state response practically has been wholly insufficient and I think that is informed by the regulation So I think it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s Insufficient and I think that is informed by the regulatory landscape Regulating hate speech is difficult, right? We’re seeing as we speak that Twitter is challenging new laws sort of, you know Hiding behind the hate act or New York’s hiding behind the hate act, you know in our jurisdiction South Africa We do have legislation it is somewhat enforced but I think that secondary vulnerability that a refugee has The ability and the enabling space to come forward and report in the first instance is Something that we haven’t got past at this stage so policy At least in the South African perspective There’s no specific policy that that looks to refugees or internally displaced people on these particular questions The broader framework is emergent, but it’s very much whack-a-mole and scattershot, right? We’re dealing with cyber crimes here. We’re dealing with non-consensual image distributions here We’re trying to look into platform power through competition policy There’s nothing harmonized that is really there to create the supportive environment And for me, I think that the state needs to play a far bigger role You know colleagues have references independent mechanisms that are being used for reporting one of the partners on our project media monitoring Africa Runs a platform called the real 4-1-1 Which is an independent platform that you can report to that then pursues complaints with the platform themselves And I think there’s been varying degrees of success But again, it’s a question of scale and it’s that scale that I think the platforms when it comes to content moderation Or the erstwhile concept of fact-checking which is a big problem. We have at the moment Coupled with these independent platforms, which just don’t have the capacity to get through the volume So well from a legal standpoint, at least in the South African context, there are safeguards in place Those safeguards are severely impeded by the willingness of those in power to support People in vulnerable positions to actually pursue their rights through them

Katie Drew: And I’m just going to turn back to you because I know that you also work on in terms of policy and Regulation and sort of governance actions Is there sort of any recommendations that you would make to try and sort of address some of these challenges? I know we spoke a little bit about like sort of the the challenge of reporting under reporting and and and re-victimization But at the sort of policy and governance level, do you see any? You know positive steps that could be could be taken to build that resilience

Oluwaseun Adepoju: recently, we’ve had invitations from a number of international organizations or But also some local actors on how do we effectively make policies around anonymous reporting that is effective? I think there’s a lot of fear Depending on the the the level of violence or how deep the situation is, right? the And I like what you said around Re-victimization and we’ve seen that over and over again You you know, maybe it’s a process started from somebody making rape you know statement to what’s a particular person and They didn’t report it continues the rape eventually happened and then they eventually Reported or somebody even supported them and encouraged them to report and from the launch On the law enforcement side, they started with derogatory comments right from the police station, right? And this person was shamed right from the police station. What do you expect to happen next, right? So most of the cases that we’ve been involved in is around how can we make anonymous reporting so effective, and can we also introduce policies around accountability of vulnerable people that are in charge of accountability for vulnerable people, which I think in most parts of, not just in Africa, most parts of the world, it’s very contextual and subjective as well. We’ve also seen situations where people that are supposed to be in charge of addressing these issues have their own independent way of seeing the situations, because we don’t have a lot of policy framework that helps us address some of these issues. So you judge it based on what you feel, that, well, that is not a rape, or that is not violence. I don’t believe, you know, a lot of personal opinion. So how do we introduce policies that takes lessons from some of these practical issues? Number one, to make anonymous reporting very easy and effective, accountability for people in charge of addressing some of these issues in government and in law enforcement. And number three, the localization of the platforms. We’ve seen, you know, reporting platforms that are just in English language, but somebody only speaks a particular language in a part of Nigeria, how do they report? And then also for EBDESC by independent organizations to also have different mediums of reporting as well. I think policy in these three areas can be a long and fruit to get started. Thank you.

Katie Drew: So Mbani, I’ll just pass back to you, because we’ve heard a little bit around some of the practical case study through Mbazi, Mzanzi Life. We’ve also heard a little bit around sort of the role of potentially of reporting mechanisms and sort of regulatory policy, but you engage directly with refugees themselves. What practical ideas have they given you to sort of strengthen their own digital resilience?

Mbali Mushathama: Thanks Katie. Working with refugees on a daily basis has really shown me how resilient refugees are. I mean, they are, yes, we agree, very traumatized because of the different things that they’ve had to go through from their country of origin, traveling to then find a country of asylum where they can be accepted and safe. And oftentimes I can’t agree more with my colleagues that we try and avoid re-traumatizing them. I don’t want the refugees to keep telling you the story over and over and over again, because that’s their lived experiences and no one wants to recount a trauma event. However, one thing I have come to recognize and appreciate is that they want safe spaces to tell their stories. They want safe spaces to have an open dialogue. They want safe spaces to report any activities or any incidents that they feel they may have been violated. Someone may have violated their human rights. And so for me, I think what I’ve heard over and over again is that it’s great that we meet in these platforms to discuss these issues, but more than ever, we cannot make decisions for them and about them without them. And so they want to be included in these conversations when policies are being drafted. They want to be brought in, because unless you’re a refugee and you have that lived experience, we can’t really dictate what works and what doesn’t work. So for me, I think in my conversations with refugees, the number one thing is create a safe space where we can bring in our ideas, where we can bring in, because they’ve got a lot to share. They have a lot to say. I think to also echo my colleague, accessing reliable information in a language that they understand. So many times we’ve seen there’s a number of communication policy changes that are communicated and refugees oftentimes don’t understand. And so they find themselves on the wrong side of the law, sometimes simply because they genuinely just did not understand what was being communicated to them. And so I think for me also, how can they access reliable information in a language that they understand? Lastly, I think ongoing digital literacy that is context specific and uses real life examples from their own community. The context of South Africa is very different from the context of Nigeria, very different from the context of Ghana. How can they protect themselves in the context of South Africa? How do they stay safe in their host communities in the context of South Africa? So these are some of the few examples I would give. Thanks, Katie.

Katie Drew: Thanks, Mali. Maybe we just pass to one final question back to Liko, if we can. Liko, we’ve heard a little bit about sort of some of the challenges, maybe different ways of working in partnership, some of the approaches that you’ve seen, and I know you’ve played the game as well. If you were to sort of give advice or guidance to maybe government counterparts, both in South Africa, but also in other countries, thinking about is this something that we could adopt to try and think of a way of building digital resilience? What advice would you give or what practical caution would you maybe advise?

Likho Bottoman: I think I would rather say that when it comes to making use of digital platforms versus a game like the board game that we have on Zanzibar, we need to understand that when we say yes to a fully digital approach, what we are saying no to. And when we say yes to digital platforms, we’re actually saying no to the ability for us to reach those that Michael is talking about who still don’t have access to digital platforms. Therefore, if you want to drive a pre-banking agenda, you need to use a combination approach. The one is not replacing the other, but they should be complementary to one another. That’s the first thing. The second thing that I want to say is that probably the conversation about protecting the rights of refugees is not a conversation that should be had by a country where they are, because there are other international influences that need to be taken into consideration. We need to have a global conversation as a global community about it. The third and the last thing that I want to say is that, yes, the fourth industrial revolution has brought on us the pressure to get onto technological and digital platforms, but we also have the responsibility to ensure that when we push children into those spaces where they need to now access information about misinformation and disinformation and pre-banking and so forth, we also then have another responsibility which is a hidden responsibility to protect them when they are online. Thanks, Liko.

Katie Drew: Thank you so much. I’d love to say thanks to the panellists. We have a few moments now to ask some questions and first of all I’m going to, whilst people are, I think this is the microphone that people come to ask questions, don’t be shy, there’s one there. First of all, whilst people are hopefully making their way to the microphone, I’m going to ask Ondine online, were there any questions coming in the chat? Thanks, Ondine. I can say no questions so far, so participants online, feel free to add your question and I’ll read them out for you. Yeah, thanks, Ondine. We’ll come back to you. Thanks for your question.

Audience: Hello, my name is Olivia and I’m coming from the London story and we work in the context of India. It’s a little bit different, so I don’t know if you can answer my questions, but also I would like to hear your experience on that. We document cases where we work a lot on refugee protection, et cetera, and India is not a party to the refugee convention and there are a lot of different groups of refugees which are also treated differently, et cetera, and especially in terms of the hate speech online. We document that refugees in India are systematically targeted by disinformation and they’re being labelled as terrorists, criminals, illegal infiltrators, et cetera, and these narratives are often pushed both by the government and by the media. by the state actors, and also by non-state actors. And they’re being accused of different things, that they want to grab lands, etc., all sorts of things. And this also results into arbitrary detention, expulsion, all sorts of violence, and also communal violence. So I would like to ask if UNHCR, if you have experience and knowledge, if UNHCR has taken specific steps to target this disinformation online by state and non-state actors in India? And more broadly, how does UNHCR respond when harmful narratives are either generated or tolerated by state actors? And also, I would like to know what you do in the context where the state did not ratify the convention, and UNHCR has a limited mandate, like in India. Thank you.

Katie Drew: Do we have some more questions to come through, Andine, if there’s any on the screen? No, nothing. Any further questions? I heard an um. Yeah, yeah, please do ask questions afterwards. Thank you, thank you for your questions. So I mean, personally, I’ve been working on the South Africa project, so obviously I’m not able to speak to or comment on the India case study, the India example, on this occasion. I would say that a lot, when it comes down to working in countries where maybe we don’t have such an enabling environment as South Africa, for example, a lot does come from the importance of being seen to be a trusted entity, and being seen to be able to have access and engagement. And I think that this comes from how can we really make sure that we are able to operate and have access to information available on channels around what services are available. A lot of what we’ve been doing on a global level as well is around really trying to make sure that people understand what is a refugee, how do we really try and tell these narratives around solidarity. But I think the sort of examples that you were saying strike to some of the work that we needed to do in South Africa around identifying what are these narratives, and actually what is the sort of behaviour science behind this? What is the fear that people are being exploited? What fear is being exploited here? And so, for example, I think, Michael, I’ll pass back to you, but some of the narratives we identified in South Africa are really deep-seated, and I’m sure in many other contexts there are hooks or narratives that it’s very easy for people to manipulate, because that’s where the fear is. And I think that my advice would be really to bring it back to a behavioural science approach and identify what are these grand narratives, and what fears, and what levers are people pulling, and to highlight, not to run after the hang on, hang on, the debunking piece, but actually look at how can you try and allow people to recognise that maybe their fear is being manipulated? And this is why pre-bunking has that warning, that warning sort of piece at the very beginning. The moment you say to someone, warning, psychologically, and it’s been tested in a number of different languages, not just English, psychologically someone is more receptive to the next piece of information. So, warning, your fear might be being manipulated, and then you can start to have a conversation that maybe opens up, you know, now we can start to address the issue that in this context refugees are always, you know, aligned with criminalisation. I don’t know whether you want to build a little bit more on that point.

Micheal Power: Yeah, I mean, I don’t want to speak to a context I don’t know enough about invariably, but I mean, you know, when looking at these challenges, and, you know, we’re seeing it, we’re seeing it in the US, where there’s often political alignment with a lack of safeguards, should we say, on the platforms. And then, I think you need to look for mechanisms within the state that may be supportive, right? So, if there’s executive support for what’s going on, for example, in the Indian context I know the competition authority has recently given a relatively landmark ruling against Android television, for example, and you may need to look at somewhat radical strategies to test these types of questions. You know, in the South African context, our competition authority is working on this. You’ve got people in the Department of Education who value the need for this, but then you do have other state departments which simply are not interested in these regulatory questions. So it’s really about trying to find those loose-knit partners at the right time, particularly where there’s a recalcitrant state. I think pre-bunking plays a really important role, as does civil society, but to the specifics I can’t speak to, but that broader alignment between potentially strategic litigation, policy reform, and activism.

Katie Drew: I’m just letting the online colleagues know that that was a comment from the floor, but it wasn’t in the microphone, so I could see Andine was looking at me like as if she’d lost connection, so apologies, online participants. Thank you. Were there any further… There’s one more question, and then we can maybe move to Therese to closing remarks. No rush, no rush. There’s a question in the chat also, Katie. Okay. Andine, do you want to read your question in the chat, and then we’ll come to the question on the mic? So, that’s a question from Beric Serbisa, so I’m bringing it out. How do we ensure that digital resilience initiatives for refugees and IDPs in Africa do not overshadow their urgent needs, like access to food, water, and shelter? What many displaced communities still lack in basic necessities is investing in digital tools of luxury or necessity, and how can we do both without trade-offs? Great question, and then we’ll come to the question on the mic, and then I can… Should I ask? Yes, please.

Audience: Yeah. Hi, everyone. A very informative discussion. So I personally worked for one of the big tech company before, and before that I worked in NGO in China for educational assistance for refugee children, and I actually found out in addition to disinformation, misinformation, which is inaccurate information, there are some of the information with refugees that maybe is true. For example, maybe some negative news, maybe some crime or violence happened because of, you know, it could happen to everyone, but then some information would easily get spread because of, I guess, algorithm, or also maybe people’s human has cognitive bias, just you reinforce the negative image. So I think these… It’s neither misinformation, disinformation, also not really like hate speech, it’s just the fact that spread may be faster than the opposite way. So I’m just curious, because for me, I think that’s make actually also huge damage in terms of public’s perception of this vulnerable group. So I’m just curious about if you people on the stage have worked or think about approach that could address this issue.

Katie Drew: Great. Thanks. I think we have one last question, and then we can come back to the panel. Thanks.

Audience: Hi. My name is Pumzele, and I do a lot of work around disinformation in South Africa. And I’ve worked on a couple of projects around foreign influence operations. And this has been kind of xenophobia in South Africa has been a big concern of mine for a very long time. So I’m glad to see that this kind of work is taking place. But what does it look like in future, in the next couple of months? Is there something going to continue? Because right now, I think it’s kind of not as busy as it can be, especially on the online space, but heading to a local government election, it’s going to start. And the thing is that it doesn’t, with this, it doesn’t remain online, like with other kind of disinformation campaigns. This spreads offline and results in, you know, of violence and death. So what does it look like going forward? Thanks.

Katie Drew: Okay, so I’m going to very quickly give the panellists one minute to answer each of the questions. Somebody, can I come to you for prioritisation? Micheal, what does this look like next? What are the next steps? And then, do you want to take the piece around sort of, you know, how to, you know, amplification and the algorithms that maybe run away with some of the sort of bad content as opposed to, you know, less positive content. So, one, two, three, and then we’ll pass to Therese. Thank you. Sorry, can you please remind me the prioritization? Prioritization. Why are we focusing on digital protection when we also have to make sure basic needs are met when it comes to refugee protection? Yeah. No, thank you very much. I think

Mbali Mushathama: for me, a lot are, well, in the context of South Africa, we are fortunate in that our legislation is very progressive in that refugees are afforded the right to work, they have the right to education regardless of their documentation status, they have access to basic services, healthcare, social grants as well, and so I think the number one problem that we’re seeing in South Africa is really just xenophobia, whereby as much as there’s access, there are limited resources, as I previously said, and because of this, we have a lot of the host communities saying, we don’t have jobs because foreigners are here and they’re taking our jobs. Our children don’t have spaces in school because foreigners are here taking all the spaces of our children in schools, and so for us, the main priority is not necessarily access to basic services for refugees in South Africa, but rather how do we ensure that in the country of asylum, they are protected in various ways. We have a huge problem with documentation, access to documentation. A lot of times, refugees will try and get themselves documented to access such services and legalize their stay in the country. However, there’s a lot of systematic issues within our Ministry of Home Affairs, so this also further perpetuates the narrative that we have a lot of foreigners that are undocumented that don’t care to get documented within the country. Therefore, this further incites violence, so I think for us, this is why this is a priority for us in South Africa because xenophobia is truly, I think, even as Pumzile has said, a really huge problem. Michael, one minute. Yeah, sure. What next?

Micheal Power: So, Pumzile, thank you. I mean, there’s a few things going on. Just speaking briefly to our project, we’re now moving into our second phase, which we hope to conclude by August. The second phase is the last round of testing, and then we’re actually going to start printing and distributing this game coupled with sort of digital facilitation guides and potentially a digital game. We’re still testing to see if we can pull it off in time. So, I think from the social pre-bunking approach, we’re hoping to move this relatively quickly. I think just for interest’s sake, in the South African context, there’s two broader developments. I mean, our Competition Commission, in its provisional findings and some of its recent reporting, is likely to recommend that there must be an amendment to ECTA to create a degree of platform liability for the amplification of hate speech. Now, a lot of people are not supportive of that amendment, but this is quite contested in the South African space, and that’s likely to be on the agenda. And then I know our National Human Rights Institute is looking into some of these questions as well, and they’ll probably be making sort of announcements in due course. But there’s a lot afoot, you know, both social, regulatory. So, we are trying to move cognizant of the deep concerns, but equally, you know, with deference to Lico, I think rolling this out in South African schools is also a process, but I think we’re live to the urgency of it, undoubtedly. Thank you.

Katie Drew: I realize that we are being told that we’re really strictly out of time. So, Therese, I’m sorry, we’re just going to sort of skip over the last question, but maybe we can find you after to discuss the points around sort of what do we do about sort of the algorithms that augment, you know, narratives that sort of spin out and drown out positive content. So, I’ll ask you to stay behind, Odersan. Therese, sorry, I think you probably have minus minutes, but it would be great to hear sort of a wrap-up summary. I think we’ve got a couple of minutes to hear from you. Thank you.

Therese Marie Uppstrom Pankratov: Okay, great. Thank you so much for an enlightening and inspiring conversation. It’s really great to see the trust-based relationship that has been created amongst you as partners, and I think that’s really key and essential to have an innovation process with impact. So, we’ve, it’s also equally inspiring and great to hear the fundamental understanding of the need that you’re designing the innovation process around, the deep insight into the challenges around information integrity in the context of displacement. So, we’ve heard about the rise in online misinformation and hate speech, and the wide range of challenges faced by people that are forcibly displaced, and you’ve all emphasized the importance of community-based approaches and multi-stakeholder engagement. We’ve heard about the participatory process that you’ve had in South Africa with the youth, how you’ve listened to them and iterated your solutions, and the importance of localization of digital platforms, and we’ve also heard about the potential pre-bunking, which was new to most of the participants, so that’s really encouraging to hear. Now, I said in the beginning that an innovation process to solve wicked challenges rarely leads to a shiny new thing, and I think what we’ve heard about today is exactly this, multiple partnerships and multiple smaller solutions that come together and create impact, but we have also heard about a game, and shiny new things are always fun, and the significant impact that that game seems to have already now. So, I look forward to seeing how that is being further rolled out. We’ve also heard about the need for safe spaces for people that are forcibly displaced to have their voices heard and share their stories, and I hope that’s something that we take with us as we move forward. I hope you all leave inspired to engage in this process moving forward, and that we’ll see all of you and have a future opportunity to collaborate. So, thank you.

Katie Drew: Therese, thank you for summing up. I always think that that’s always like one of the hardest tasks of the panel, so I think that was excellent. I’d like to say a huge thank you to Lico, Michael, Mbali, Olushan, and Therese for their participation today, and thank you everyone for attending. It was great, and sorry we didn’t have time. Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder partnerships are essential for addressing complex information integrity challenges

Speakers

– Katie Drew
– Therese Marie Uppstrom Pankratov
– Micheal Power

Arguments

Digital resilience means creating robust information ecosystems that allow displaced communities secure access to information and freedom of expression

Solving ‘wicked problems’ like information integrity requires partnerships across sectors with different expertise in context, technology, and behavioral sciences

The Mzanzi Life board game achieved 43% perception change in three hours by combining gamification with facilitated learning

Summary

All speakers agree that complex challenges like information integrity for displaced communities cannot be solved by single actors alone and require collaborative approaches bringing together different sectors and expertise

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Community participation and inclusion of displaced people in decision-making is crucial

Speakers

– Katie Drew
– Mbali Mushathama
– Oluwaseun Adepoju

Arguments

Decisions cannot be made for refugees without including them in policy conversations and solution development

Refugees want safe spaces to tell their stories and access reliable information in languages they understand

Community-based approaches and local civil society organizations serve as trusted intermediaries for reporting and support

Summary

There is strong consensus that displaced communities must be directly involved in developing solutions that affect them, with emphasis on creating safe spaces for their voices and using trusted local intermediaries

Topics

Human rights | Development | Sociocultural

Current reporting mechanisms and policy frameworks are inadequate for protecting vulnerable populations

Speakers

– Micheal Power
– Oluwaseun Adepoju

Arguments

Current practice in supporting vulnerable groups subjected to hate speech is wholly inadequate, often leading to re-victimization

Tech platforms’ reporting mechanisms are often afterthoughts that lack localization and awareness among vulnerable populations

Many displaced people are unaware of hate speech classification or fear retaliation when reporting incidents

Summary

Both speakers agree that existing systems for protecting vulnerable populations from digital harm are fundamentally flawed, leading to re-victimization and under-reporting

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Localization and context-specific approaches are necessary for effective interventions

Speakers

– Mbali Mushathama
– Oluwaseun Adepoju
– Likho Bottoman

Arguments

Digital literacy must be context-specific and use real-life examples from the community

Big tech companies need to engage local actors and civil society organizations to build trust and improve reporting

Combination approaches using both digital and non-digital methods are necessary to reach all populations

Summary

All three speakers emphasize that one-size-fits-all solutions don’t work and that interventions must be tailored to local contexts, languages, and cultural specificities

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Human rights

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers understand xenophobia in South Africa as a complex issue rooted in the country’s diverse social fabric, with online hate speech directly translating into offline violence, particularly affecting children in educational settings

Speakers

– Mbali Mushathama
– Likho Bottoman

Arguments

Online incitement directly correlates with physical violence in host communities, affecting refugee children in schools through xenophobic bullying

South Africa’s multicultural complexity creates innate diversity management challenges that anti-foreigner narratives exploit

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights | Development

Both speakers advocate for sophisticated, iterative approaches to addressing misinformation that move beyond simple linear solutions to embrace complex, multi-step methodologies

Speakers

– Therese Marie Uppstrom Pankratov
– Micheal Power

Arguments

Innovation processes are messy and require iterations, multiple testing, and redevelopments rather than linear solutions

Pre-bunking involves warning about narratives, explaining problems, providing preemptive refutation, and microdosing counternarratives before harmful content takes hold

Topics

Sociocultural | Development | Cybersecurity

Both speakers see platform engagement as essential but emphasize the need for meaningful collaboration that goes beyond surface-level consultation to include capacity building and trust-building with communities

Speakers

– Mbali Mushathama
– Oluwaseun Adepoju

Arguments

Engagement with platforms like TikTok helps understand moderation systems and provides opportunities for refugees to create counter-narratives

Big tech companies need to engage local actors and civil society organizations to build trust and improve reporting

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

The effectiveness of non-digital solutions in addressing digital problems

Speakers

– Micheal Power
– Likho Bottoman

Arguments

The Mzanzi Life board game achieved 43% perception change in three hours by combining gamification with facilitated learning

Combination approaches using both digital and non-digital methods are necessary to reach all populations

Explanation

Despite the focus on digital resilience, there was unexpected consensus that analog solutions (like board games) can be highly effective in addressing digital information problems, challenging assumptions about the need for purely digital solutions to digital challenges

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Infrastructure

The global nature of refugee protection requiring international rather than national solutions

Speakers

– Likho Bottoman
– Audience

Arguments

Protecting refugee rights requires global conversation rather than just action by host countries due to international influences

UNHCR’s response to state-generated or tolerated harmful narratives needs clarification, especially in countries with limited mandate

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus from both a government representative and civil society that refugee protection challenges transcend national boundaries and require coordinated international responses, even when discussing local implementation

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus around the need for multi-stakeholder partnerships, community participation, localized approaches, and recognition that current systems are inadequate. There was also unexpected agreement on the value of non-digital solutions and the global nature of refugee protection challenges.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for policy and practice. The agreement suggests a mature understanding of the complexity of information integrity challenges for displaced populations and points toward collaborative, community-centered, and contextually-sensitive approaches as the way forward. The consensus also indicates readiness for innovative solutions that combine multiple methodologies and stakeholder engagement.

Different viewpoints

Prioritization of digital resilience versus basic needs for displaced populations

Speakers

– Audience
– Mbali Mushathama

Arguments

Digital resilience initiatives should not overshadow urgent basic needs like food, water, and shelter for displaced communities

Different contexts require different approaches – South Africa’s progressive legislation allows focus on xenophobia rather than basic service access

Summary

An audience member questioned whether digital resilience should be prioritized when basic needs aren’t met, while Mbali argued that in South Africa’s context, progressive legislation already provides basic services, making xenophobia the primary challenge rather than basic needs access

Topics

Development | Human rights | Economic

Unexpected differences

Scope of information integrity challenges beyond misinformation

Speakers

– Audience
– Panel speakers

Arguments

True but negative information about refugees spreads faster due to algorithms and cognitive bias, causing significant damage to public perception

Various arguments about misinformation and disinformation

Explanation

An audience member raised an unexpected point that the panel hadn’t directly addressed – the problem of factually accurate but negative information being algorithmically amplified, which creates different challenges than traditional misinformation/disinformation. This highlighted a gap in the panel’s focus on false information versus the broader challenge of information ecosystem manipulation

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The panel showed remarkable consensus on most issues, with speakers largely agreeing on problems and complementing each other’s perspectives rather than disagreeing. The main areas of difference were around prioritization (digital vs basic needs) and implementation approaches (digital vs non-digital methods)

Disagreement level

Very low level of disagreement among panelists, which suggests strong alignment on the fundamental challenges and approaches to digital resilience for displaced populations. The few disagreements were more about context-specific priorities and tactical approaches rather than fundamental philosophical differences. This high level of consensus may indicate either genuine alignment in the field or potential groupthink, and could benefit from more diverse perspectives in future discussions

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers understand xenophobia in South Africa as a complex issue rooted in the country’s diverse social fabric, with online hate speech directly translating into offline violence, particularly affecting children in educational settings

Speakers

– Mbali Mushathama
– Likho Bottoman

Arguments

Online incitement directly correlates with physical violence in host communities, affecting refugee children in schools through xenophobic bullying

South Africa’s multicultural complexity creates innate diversity management challenges that anti-foreigner narratives exploit

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights | Development

Both speakers advocate for sophisticated, iterative approaches to addressing misinformation that move beyond simple linear solutions to embrace complex, multi-step methodologies

Speakers

– Therese Marie Uppstrom Pankratov
– Micheal Power

Arguments

Innovation processes are messy and require iterations, multiple testing, and redevelopments rather than linear solutions

Pre-bunking involves warning about narratives, explaining problems, providing preemptive refutation, and microdosing counternarratives before harmful content takes hold

Topics

Sociocultural | Development | Cybersecurity

Both speakers see platform engagement as essential but emphasize the need for meaningful collaboration that goes beyond surface-level consultation to include capacity building and trust-building with communities

Speakers

– Mbali Mushathama
– Oluwaseun Adepoju

Arguments

Engagement with platforms like TikTok helps understand moderation systems and provides opportunities for refugees to create counter-narratives

Big tech companies need to engage local actors and civil society organizations to build trust and improve reporting

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

Digital resilience for displaced communities requires multi-stakeholder partnerships combining humanitarian organizations, private sector, government, and civil society to address complex ‘wicked problems’

Pre-bunking strategies that proactively counter false narratives before they take hold are more effective than reactive debunking, with the Mzanzi Life board game demonstrating 43% perception change in three hours

Information integrity challenges for refugees extend beyond digital spaces to offline violence, requiring both digital and non-digital intervention approaches

Tech platform reporting mechanisms are inadequate for vulnerable populations due to lack of localization, awareness, trust issues, and fear of retaliation

Refugees must be included in policy conversations and solution development rather than having decisions made about them without their participation

Context-specific approaches are essential – South Africa’s focus on xenophobia differs from other contexts where basic service access may be the priority

Education and digital literacy interventions must extend beyond classrooms to counter narratives perpetuated in homes and communities

Resolutions and action items

The Mzanzi Life board game project is moving into second phase testing to conclude by August 2024, followed by printing and distribution with digital facilitation guides

Continued engagement with tech platforms like TikTok and Meta to improve reporting mechanisms and empower refugee communities to create counter-narratives

Development of anonymous reporting policies and accountability measures for those responsible for protecting vulnerable populations

Implementation of combination approaches using both digital and non-digital methods to reach all population segments

Establishment of safe spaces for refugees to share stories and participate in policy development conversations

Unresolved issues

How to address algorithmic amplification of negative but factually accurate information about refugees that reinforces harmful stereotypes

Balancing digital resilience initiatives with urgent basic needs like food, water, and shelter in resource-constrained environments

Addressing state-sponsored or state-tolerated disinformation campaigns against refugees, particularly in countries that haven’t ratified refugee conventions

Scaling independent reporting mechanisms and civil society interventions to match the volume of online hate speech and misinformation

Preparing for increased xenophobic content during upcoming local government elections in South Africa

Harmonizing scattered regulatory approaches across different government departments and jurisdictions

Suggested compromises

Using combination approaches that complement rather than replace each other – digital platforms alongside offline interventions like board games

Engaging local civil society organizations as trusted intermediaries between vulnerable populations and tech platforms for reporting

Finding supportive mechanisms within resistant state structures, such as working with competition authorities or human rights institutions when executive support is lacking

Developing context-specific solutions that address local priorities while maintaining global coordination on refugee protection principles

Safeguarding information integrity is one of the key challenges of our times… in humanitarian operations, we tend to talk about information being protection… when we have access to quality information, it helps keep us safe. And when we don’t, it causes a significant risk.

Speaker

Therese Marie Uppstrom Pankratov

Reason

This reframes information integrity from an abstract concept to a concrete protection mechanism, establishing the life-or-death stakes of misinformation for vulnerable populations. It provides the foundational framework that justifies why digital resilience is as critical as physical safety.

Impact

This comment established the conceptual foundation for the entire discussion, shifting the conversation from viewing digital protection as secondary to recognizing it as fundamental to refugee safety. It influenced how subsequent speakers framed their contributions around protection rather than just technology access.

80% of the reporting platforms from the big techs are afterthoughts, after building the technology… The pressure was mounted by civil society organizations and technology activists to be able to do that. So it’s always challenging to even create the awareness about some of these tools for people using their platforms.

Speaker

Oluwaseun Adepoju

Reason

This exposes a fundamental flaw in how technology platforms approach vulnerable user protection, revealing that safety mechanisms are reactive rather than built-in by design. It challenges the assumption that existing reporting tools are adequate or accessible.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from focusing on how to better use existing reporting mechanisms to questioning their fundamental design and effectiveness. It led to deeper exploration of trust issues, localization needs, and the necessity for community-based alternatives to platform-provided solutions.

We cannot make decisions for them and about them without them… unless you’re a refugee and you have that lived experience, we can’t really dictate what works and what doesn’t work.

Speaker

Mbali Mushathama

Reason

This challenges the traditional top-down approach to refugee assistance and asserts the principle of meaningful participation. It highlights how well-intentioned interventions can fail without authentic community involvement.

Impact

This comment reinforced the participatory approach throughout the discussion and validated the community-centered methodology used in their South Africa project. It influenced how other panelists discussed their work, emphasizing consultation and co-creation rather than external solutions.

When we say yes to a fully digital approach, what we are saying no to… when we say yes to digital platforms, we’re actually saying no to the ability for us to reach those that Michael is talking about who still don’t have access to digital platforms.

Speaker

Likho Bottoman

Reason

This introduces critical thinking about digital exclusion and the unintended consequences of digital-first solutions. It challenges the assumption that digital solutions are inherently better and highlights the need for hybrid approaches.

Impact

This comment prompted reflection on the board game approach as complementary rather than inferior to digital solutions. It influenced the discussion toward recognizing that effective interventions require multiple modalities to ensure inclusive reach.

There’s a wide range of challenges… more importantly is the localization of the platforms… we had to work with two other organizations to be able to escalate the situation to the platform because these particular person didn’t want to go on the platform to use it because of a lot of historical issues when it comes to… people report in the past and nothing was done about it.

Speaker

Oluwaseun Adepoju

Reason

This reveals the breakdown of trust between vulnerable communities and formal reporting systems, showing how past failures create barriers to future help-seeking. It demonstrates the need for intermediary organizations and alternative pathways.

Impact

This comment deepened the conversation about why direct platform reporting fails and led to discussion of community-based intermediary solutions. It influenced the panel’s recommendations toward building trusted local partnerships rather than relying solely on platform improvements.

The practice in supporting vulnerable groups who are subjected to hate speech missing disinformation is wholly inadequate. There’s often re-victimization… from policing stations… The practice is simply not to involve people or to re-victimize or victim-blame through a series of processes.

Speaker

Michael Power

Reason

This exposes systemic failures across multiple institutions (not just platforms) and introduces the concept of re-victimization as a barrier to reporting. It shows how the entire ecosystem of protection can become harmful rather than helpful.

Impact

This comment expanded the scope of the problem beyond platform design to institutional culture and practice. It influenced the discussion toward recognizing that technological solutions must be accompanied by broader systemic changes in how institutions respond to vulnerable populations.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by challenging assumptions about digital solutions and institutional responses to refugee protection. They moved the conversation from a narrow focus on technology tools to a broader understanding of systemic barriers, power dynamics, and the critical importance of community participation. The comments created a progression from identifying the stakes (information as protection) to exposing systemic failures (afterthought design, re-victimization) to asserting principles (nothing about us without us) and practical considerations (digital exclusion, trust breakdown). This created a more nuanced and realistic framework for understanding digital resilience that acknowledged both technological and social dimensions of the challenge. The discussion evolved from presenting solutions to critically examining why existing approaches fail and what fundamental changes are needed in how we design and implement protection mechanisms for vulnerable populations.

How can we effectively make policies around anonymous reporting that is effective?

Speaker

Oluwaseun Adepoju

Explanation

This addresses the critical need for vulnerable populations to report incidents without fear of retaliation, which is a major barrier to addressing digital violence and hate speech

How can we introduce policies that take lessons from practical issues to make anonymous reporting very easy and effective?

Speaker

Oluwaseun Adepoju

Explanation

This builds on the need for evidence-based policy development that addresses real-world challenges faced by displaced communities

How can we introduce accountability for people in charge of addressing these issues in government and in law enforcement?

Speaker

Oluwaseun Adepoju

Explanation

This addresses the problem of re-victimization and subjective handling of cases by authorities who should be protecting vulnerable populations

How do we ensure that digital resilience initiatives for refugees and IDPs in Africa do not overshadow their urgent needs, like access to food, water, and shelter?

Speaker

Beric Serbisa (online participant)

Explanation

This raises the important question of prioritization and resource allocation when addressing both basic needs and digital protection for displaced populations

How can we address the issue of true but negative information about refugees that spreads faster due to algorithms and cognitive bias?

Speaker

Audience member (former big tech employee)

Explanation

This identifies a gap in current approaches that focus on misinformation/disinformation but don’t address how factual negative content can be amplified to damage perceptions of vulnerable groups

What does the future look like for xenophobia monitoring and intervention, especially heading into local government elections in South Africa?

Speaker

Pumzele (audience member)

Explanation

This addresses the urgent need for sustained monitoring and intervention as political cycles can amplify xenophobic narratives that lead to offline violence

How does UNHCR respond when harmful narratives are either generated or tolerated by state actors?

Speaker

Olivia (London-based participant)

Explanation

This highlights the complex challenge of addressing misinformation when it comes from or is supported by government entities, particularly in contexts where UNHCR has limited mandate

What specific steps can be taken to target disinformation online by state and non-state actors in contexts like India where the state hasn’t ratified refugee conventions?

Speaker

Olivia (London-based participant)

Explanation

This addresses the operational challenges of protecting refugees in non-signatory countries where legal frameworks and government cooperation may be limited

How can we build more platforms outside of social media that encourage people to speak about offline situations of violence and discrimination?

Speaker

Oluwaseun Adepoju

Explanation

This recognizes that much violence against displaced persons happens offline and current reporting mechanisms are inadequate for addressing these situations

How can we create a global conversation as a global community about protecting the rights of refugees rather than leaving it to individual host countries?

Speaker

Likho Bottoman

Explanation

This suggests the need for international coordination and shared responsibility in addressing refugee protection challenges that transcend national boundaries