Joining forces against disinformation: humanitarian, peace and media actors’ perspectives

Summary

This discussion focused on “Joining Forces Against Disinformation: Humanitarian Peace and Media Actors’ Perspectives,” examining how different sectors can collaborate to combat disinformation’s harmful effects on vulnerable populations. Caroline Vuillemin from Fondation Hirondelle moderated the panel, defining disinformation as content purposely produced to destabilize or harm populations, processes, or interests.

Hans-Peter Wyss from Swiss Corporation explained the humanitarian-development-peace nexus as a strategic approach linking interventions across these three areas to achieve sustainable impact. He emphasized that addressing disinformation requires trust, flexibility, and comprehensive coordination among actors, with independent media playing a crucial role beyond just communication channels. Philippe Stoll from the ICRC discussed their Movement Initiative on Harmful Information, explaining why they chose this term over “disinformation” to focus on harm rather than truth determination. The ICRC identified various types of harm including physical, economic, psychological, societal, and trust-related impacts, developing frameworks for detection, assessment, and response.

Donatella Rostagno from Interpeace highlighted how disinformation inflames tensions and erodes community trust in fragile contexts, describing successful projects training youth across the Great Lakes region. She emphasized providing spaces for dialogue and diverse perspectives as essential for conflict transformation. Tammam Aloudat from The New Humanitarian challenged assumptions about disinformation, arguing that silence, inconsistency, and partial information can be equally harmful as active misinformation. He advocated for local journalism and questioned the political neutrality claims of humanitarian organizations.

The discussion revealed consensus on the need for multi-level approaches (local, regional, global) and adequate funding, while highlighting tensions between neutrality claims and political realities in addressing disinformation.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Defining the Triple Nexus Approach**: The discussion explored how humanitarian, development, and peace-building actors can work together in a coordinated way to address disinformation, requiring shared analysis, trust, institutional flexibility, and meaningful involvement of independent media as key actors rather than just communication channels.

– **Reframing “Disinformation” as “Harmful Information”**: The ICRC’s approach focuses on the actual harm caused to populations rather than determining truth/falsehood, identifying physical, economic, psychological, societal, and trust-related impacts that affect both organizations and the communities they serve.

– **Local vs. Global Response Strategies**: Panelists debated the appropriate level for addressing harmful information, concluding that interconnected approaches spanning local, regional, and global levels are necessary, with responses tailored to specific contexts while recognizing cross-border information flows.

– **Media’s Role and Responsibility**: Discussion centered on how media organizations can combat disinformation through local journalism, community engagement, and avoiding parachuted foreign reporting, while acknowledging that silence, inconsistency, and selective reporting can be as harmful as active misinformation.

– **Funding and Sustainability Challenges**: The conversation addressed how to sustainably fund anti-disinformation efforts, with debate over whether this should rely on foundations and charity or be treated as essential public infrastructure deserving government and institutional support.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how humanitarian, peace-building, and media development actors can coordinate their efforts to combat disinformation and its harmful effects on vulnerable populations in fragile contexts, seeking practical approaches for collaboration and resource sharing.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion began with a collaborative, academic tone as panelists shared frameworks and experiences. However, the tone became more confrontational and critical toward the end, particularly when addressing issues of Western bias in defining disinformation, funding priorities, and the effectiveness of current approaches. The final audience intervention was notably hostile, challenging the entire premise and format of the discussion, which the moderator chose not to engage with directly.

Speakers

– **Caroline Vuillemin** – General Director of Fondation Hirondelle, a Swiss media development organization based in Lausanne, Switzerland

– **Hanspeter Wyss** – Thematic advisor for governance at the Swiss Corporation and media focal point for that division

– **Philippe Stoll** – Lead for the Movement Initiative on Harmful Information currently developed by the ICRC

– **Donatella Rostagno** – Has extensive field experience with Interpeace in the Great Lakes region, working on peace building

– **Tammam Aloudat** – CEO of the New Humanitarian, a global media organization dedicated to the coverage of humanitarian crisis, based in Geneva

– **Audience** – Various audience members who asked questions during the Q&A session

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond those in the speakers names list.

# Joining Forces Against Disinformation: Humanitarian Peace and Media Actors’ Perspectives – Discussion Report

## Introduction and Context

This panel discussion, moderated by Caroline Vuillemin, General Director of Fondation Hirondelle (a Swiss media development organization based in Lausanne, Switzerland, working for 30 years in fragile contexts), brought together experts from humanitarian, peace-building, and media development sectors to explore collaborative approaches to combating disinformation’s harmful effects on vulnerable populations. The discussion centered on two fundamental questions: how to prevent disinformation from having harsh consequences on people these organizations serve and further fragmenting societies, and how to unite approaches and efforts currently developed by humanitarian, peace, and media development actors to complement and share resources in tackling disinformation consequences.

## Defining the Challenge: From Disinformation to Harmful Information

Caroline Vuillemin opened by defining disinformation as “content purposely produced to destabilize or harm populations, processes, or interests.” However, this definition was immediately refined by subsequent speakers, revealing different approaches to the challenge.

Philippe Stoll from the ICRC introduced a significant reframing by advocating for the term “harmful information” over “disinformation.” His rationale was multifaceted: “We choose to call it harmful information for several reasons. First, we wanted to make a strong call and link between harm and information… not all disinformation harm and not all misinformation, disinformation are harming, but also sometimes real information harm… there is something which is very political in the word disinformation. And we often say that disinformation of someone might be the truth of someone else.”

Tammam Aloudat from The New Humanitarian offered a different correction, stating that disinformation is “inaccurate or misleading content. It’s not the truth produced to harm someone else.” He further expanded the definition to include institutional omissions: “silence, inconsistency and partial information are as harmful and as intentional as misinformation.”

This definitional discussion established that the challenge extends beyond simply identifying false information to assessing actual harm caused to populations, with harmful information existing both online and offline.

## The Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus Approach

Hanspeter Wyss from Swiss Corporation provided the framework for understanding how different sectors can coordinate their efforts through the humanitarian-development-peace nexus. He explained this as “a strategic approach linking interventions across these three areas to achieve sustainable impact,” based on the OECD DAC recommendation of “development cooperation wherever and whenever possible, but humanitarian only when and as long as necessary.”

Wyss outlined how different actors bring distinct perspectives: humanitarian actors focus on life-threatening situations, peace actors address hate narratives, and development actors work on long-term institutional solutions. He emphasized that successful coordination requires shared analysis, trust, and institutional flexibility, treating independent media as key actors in all phases rather than merely as communication channels.

## ICRC Movement Initiative Framework

Philippe Stoll detailed the ICRC’s systematic approach through their Movement Initiative on Harmful Information, coordinating across “192 components, or 193 if we take into account the IFRC.” They have developed a “detect, assess, respond” framework that allows for flexible, context-appropriate responses.

The initiative addresses harmful information impacts on both organizations (security risks, access limitations, fundraising challenges) and populations (physical harm, economic consequences, psychological effects, societal disruption, and erosion of trust). Stoll emphasized their approach requires “verticality from local volunteer training to global advocacy and engagement with tech industry.” The initiative includes research collaboration with Stanford University on harm typology and emerging challenges such as deep fake detection.

## Peacebuilding and Media Development Perspectives

Donatella Rostagno from Interpeace brought field experience from the Great Lakes region, explaining that “fragile societies start with fractured and manipulated information that can inflame tensions, erode community trust, and spark violence.” She described successful projects training youth across four countries (Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo) on misinformation, enabling cross-border dialogue even when governments could not communicate.

Rostagno highlighted collaboration with local organizations like YAGA, a Burundian youth organization, and partnerships with Fondation Hirondelle in Mali. She emphasized that providing spaces for dialogue and diverse perspectives is essential for conflict transformation, working with stakeholders from armed group leaders to traditional leaders.

Tammam Aloudat challenged several assumptions about media’s role, arguing that media organizations should prioritize journalists from affected communities rather than “parachuted foreign correspondents.” He directly confronted claims of political neutrality: “The choice to act as if media is outside politics is itself political, and avoiding this responsibility opens space for others to fill the void.”

## Funding and Sustainability Challenges

The discussion revealed different perspectives on funding approaches. Aloudat argued that “funding exists abundantly in government budgets but is allocated to military spending rather than information integrity,” advocating for treating information quality as a public good requiring systematic funding rather than charitable foundation support.

He challenged both institutions and individuals to align spending with proclaimed priorities: “It’s either important or not. It’s either a luxury or not… how many of you subscribes for an independent media for five years a month when you go in this beautiful town and spend 25 francs on lunch every day, and yet nearly impossible to get people to subscribe to media.”

Wyss offered a more pragmatic perspective, suggesting that foundations may have more flexibility than governments to support individual media outlets, particularly in politically sensitive contexts.

## Audience Interventions and Challenges

Throughout the discussion, audience members raised challenging questions. One questioned whether disinformation is truly a primary driver of conflict, using the Rwanda genocide as an example: “So can you really think that fake news can explain why people who have been living together for half a century suddenly consider that those they have been living with, or even married, or work together, are terrible people, devilish. I am not sure that with or without Radio Mille Collines, or with or without the Fondation Hirondelle, things would have turned out very differently.”

Another audience member challenged the panel format itself, arguing that it resembled “preaching” rather than genuine discussion and questioning whether institutional approaches truly understand local realities. When Caroline addressed this person as “Boris,” they explicitly corrected: “I am not Boris.”

## Areas of Convergence and Coordination

Despite different approaches, the panel demonstrated consensus on several key points. All speakers agreed that multi-level, coordinated approaches are essential, with no single actor able to address the challenge alone. They concurred on the importance of both online and offline dimensions of harmful information and the need to prioritize local voices in information production and response strategies.

There was also agreement that current funding mechanisms are inadequate for the scale of the challenge, though speakers proposed different solutions. The panel reached consensus on treating media organizations as key partners rather than merely communication channels.

## Practical Collaboration Examples

The discussion highlighted several successful collaboration models. Rostagno described how Interpeace and Fondation Hirondelle worked together in Mali, demonstrating practical coordination between peace and media development actors. The ICRC’s Movement Initiative provides a framework for coordination across humanitarian actors globally, while the nexus approach offers a structure for linking humanitarian, development, and peace interventions.

These examples suggest that while coordination challenges exist, practical collaboration is both possible and beneficial when organizations maintain focus on protecting vulnerable populations while respecting different mandates and approaches.

## Conclusion

This discussion illuminated both the complexity of addressing harmful information in fragile contexts and the potential for coordination across different sectors. While speakers demonstrated sophisticated understanding of technical and operational challenges, they also revealed different approaches to definitions, neutrality, and implementation that require ongoing dialogue.

The strong consensus on the need for multi-level, coordinated approaches provides a foundation for future collaboration. The recognition that harmful information requires responses spanning local community engagement to global advocacy suggests that coordination across sectors is essential for effective action. Moving forward, the challenge will be developing coordination mechanisms that accommodate diverse approaches while maintaining focus on protecting vulnerable populations from the harmful effects of manipulated, misleading, or selectively presented information.

Caroline Vuillemin: Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for being with us and to be on time. As the session ran only for 45 minutes, I suggest we start and have enough time to go through the topic and the questions. So this session is about Joining Forces Against Disinformation, Humanitarian Peace and Media Actors’ Perspectives. We will try to address some of the questions that the media sector, the humanitarian sector and the peace actors have currently, which is how we can prevent disinformation to have harsh consequences on people we want to serve and further fragment societies. I’m Caroline Vuillemin. I’m the General Director of Fondation Hirondelle. We are a Swiss media development organization based in Lausanne, Switzerland, and we’ve been working for the past 30 years in a fragile context to either set up independent media or support local media in providing reliable independent information to population in local languages and in the format they can best access. I want to give a short definition of what we mean by disinformation and why we think it’s one of the disrupting and threatening factors in today’s world. What we mean by disinformation is a piece of content that is purposely produced and broadcast to destabilize or harm population or interest or processes. You may hear about malinformation or defamation, rumors and propaganda. For the sake of this panel, we will talk about disinformation, but we also want to be careful about the context where the lack of reliable information is also creating a vacuum where the rumors and false information can develop. So the aim of the panel is to see if there are ways to unite approaches and efforts currently developed by the humanitarian, the peace and the media development actors, and see if we can complement and share resources to tackle the consequences of disinformation. I have four experts and panelists with me today. Thank you. I will introduce them as I give them the floor and we will start with Hans-Peter Wyss, who is the thematic advisor for governance at the Swiss Corporation and the media focal point for that division. Hans-Peter, please, as the thematic advisor for governance, how does the Swiss cooperation define and implement the triple nexus, which is the view of peace, humanitarian and development actors, and why is it key when dealing with disinformation?

Hanspeter Wyss: Thanks, Caroline, for giving me the floor and welcome everybody. I hope you’re not too tired after the lunch. Yeah, so, Caroline, you told me that I should quickly explain what the nexus is, in fact, so maybe not everybody is familiar. So, the humanitarian development peace nexus is called, is defined, or we define it, probably there are different definitions also, we define it as a strategic way of working, linking one or two lines of intervention. So, the interventions are, as I said, humanitarian aid, development cooperation, peace building, conflict prevention. So, if you link it in a coordinated and complementary way, one or two or three of them, then you work in a nexus way. So, we believe that, like this, you can achieve the highest and most sustainable impact when interventions are also meaningfully connected. That means, how do you connect them meaningfully? You see that the comparative strength of the different actors involved are being used and you apply it at the right time and also for the right duration. And that’s very important also, it’s important to have a joint sound and comprehensible analysis of all the actors involved, that means from the peace angle and from the development cooperation angle and the humanitarian angle. A shared understanding of the risks in the context you’re working, of the vulnerabilities and also of the local realities. That looks like an easy thing to do, but as you know, if there are so different actors involved, it’s not always easy to have a common understanding, but it’s very important to have that and to discuss it and to negotiate it in that sense also that everybody has more or less the same kind of understanding of that. What is also important is that Switzerland, we apply the OECD DAC recommendation, which uses the principle of peace and conflict prevention. You can always do development cooperation wherever and whenever possible, but the humanitarian only when and as long as necessary. So this is a needs-driven and flexible approach, which helps us staying engaged when things are getting worse in the context. So we are doing more humanitarian aid, for example, less development cooperation or not at all development cooperation, but also the other way around. If a context gets better in that sense, then we do less or no humanitarian aid, but much more development cooperation or peace and conflict prevention. So what is important is that the nexus requires really a lot of trust of everybody involved, also institutional flexibility, because every actor in that sense has different

Approaches and so on. So you need a kind of flexibility to exact other approaches also. So it is important that you leave your silent approach, that you really think comprehensively and globally. Now I just want to go what does it mean to disinformation. If you work in a fragile context, normally disinformation is a bigger problem than in a normal Context. We are all aware that no single actor can handle them, so we really need a nexus approach to receive different kinds of information on the situation on misinformation but also for example, humanitarian actors they have information which are meybe life threatening situations, like if there is missinformation or hate speahce this can jeopardize lifes. Others who are working with development cooperation they have other kinds of information. Also, how are the solutions different. Humanitarian actors they see as i said that lives are being saved because of the situation, to prevent that situation. Those working on peace and conflict prevention they are seeing that, because of the hate narrative, maybe this conflict does not get worse. The development actors they have a more long teram perspective, they are working with institutions and long-term solutions. All have to work together. It’s important that all work together and exchange also. And most importantly, and I know probably I’m running out of time now, I just want to say it’s a really important role that the independent media have in this situation. So it’s very important to involve the independent media in all this dialogue between the three actors, as I’ve said, not only as communication channels, but really as key actors to involve them in all the different phases of problem analysis and then also in addressing it. So I stop here. Thank you.

Caroline Vuillemin: Thank you. And thank you for highlighting the role of media, which is in line with the C9 line of the WSIS and the WSIS plus 20 really want to work more and emphasise the role of media. And this is why this panel is also taking place. So you mentioned trust, flexibility, a nexus of approaches and actors. Philippe Stoll, you are the lead for the Movement Initiative on Harmful Information currently developed by the ICRC. Could you please explain what this initiative is and what is the understanding of the situation by the ICRC? And why did you choose to talk about harmful information versus disinformation? And if any, what are the coordination among the humanitarian actors taking place facing this threat?

Philippe Stoll: Thank you, Caroline, and thank you for the invitation. If you allow me, I will keep the answer for the first question at the end. So I keep a little bit of suspects and people awake. Now, let me explain the way the ICRC and somehow by also Ricochet, the movement was thinking. First, we wanted to be sure that when we speak about a topic, we come from the right perspective. As a humanitarian organisation, it’s not up to us to say what is true, what is not true. It’s up to us to. bring the uniting consequences and the uniting dimension of such a phenomenon. So one of the work we have done is try to understand the typology of harm. So we can segment it in two parts. First, how much it impacts organizations such as us, what are the risks related to security, to stress, to access, even potentially fundraising, which is an issue also that we should not shy away when we come and speak about harmful information. But more importantly, on our side, and I guess that more or less everyone knows that the work of the ICRC is based on the work of protecting civilians, and we wanted to understand how much this phenomenon is impacting population. And it was quite an interesting work that was done by colleagues together with an academic institution, Stanford University, to really do a strong typology and categorization of the type of harm. So definitely the physical dimension, which is the most obvious one when you have hate speech and people are suddenly attacking a community because of a false rumor or something like that. But we have also noticed that there is a strong economic dimension to that. When people lose the access to market or lose access to the potential use of the money they are getting or they can’t get money because of their origin or their ethnic origins. There is also something that I’ve mentioned just before, but the psychological dimension is immense. And we know very well that this is something which is difficult to quantify. It’s not just numbers of casualties of physical or people who are injured and getting to a hospital. The psychological dimension is something which is for us quite important. The fact that people are in distress and they don’t know what to do and they are lost in a situation where they are already facing quite a lot of vulnerabilities. There are two other dimensions which are more meta, which is the societal one, which is how much the social cohesion, for example, in a society is getting impacted by that. And the last one, which is more the question of the relations to trust, as a point you have mentioned before. So what we see also is that it’s not new. No one is saying it, but it’s also something we should remember that it’s also offline and online. The offline dimension is something that because of the shininess of social… and the social media and the fact that we have figures and facts, we go only for that. But the offline one is very important for us and we saw in the movement, for example, the rumors during the Ebola crisis where some of the volunteers of the local Red Crosses were attacked or killed just because of rumors. So we choose to call it harmful information for several reasons. First, we wanted to make a strong call and link between harm and information because of the typology of harm we found and we wanted to remember people that it’s not about a technical debate about is it true, not true, whatever. It’s not up to us again, as I said, but we wanted to show that it is harming. But also we wanted to be sure that not all disinformation harm and not all misinformation, disinformation are harming, but also sometimes real information harm. And we face sometimes situations in places of conflict where an information that is true is just simply not understood, which is sometimes our mistake, or sometimes there is a manipulation, but this is harming us or harming population. And last but not least, there is something which is very political in the word disinformation. And we often say that disinformation of someone might be the truth of someone else and you know very well the ICRC being pretty cautious when it comes to politics. We don’t want to jump in this muddy water and therefore that’s why we want to take a little bit of distance with it. In terms of what we do, so the typology of harm study is public and this is something we hope it can bring to the global debate and also to help to think in terms of harm and not only about what is true or not true. We have published recently also a framework for addressing harmful information in armed conflict, which is something that was developed with several organizations, not only us, but the whole human rights sector and some of human rights organization. And well, it’s a framework that we think is something that could be applied beyond conflict, by the way. We are also trying to bring this debate in global fora here, but also at the UN protection of civil week, for example, etc. And also we want to look and be sure that IHL is something that remains at the heart when we speak about the impact of harmful information in armed conflict. I’m not going to go in details, I can answer it later, but there are several elements that speak about that. And last but not least, there is this dimension of we want as a movement to be sure that we address it collectively, and here there are several elements of training, of ensuring we are well coordinated. But there is a lot of dimension related to research, which is important. And you know very well that money is getting scarce. So if we get together, we can do some research together with some academic institution. Right now we think of deep fake detection, we want to think how chatbots, for example, are getting the information and how much they digest information, etc, etc. So these are the things we want to get together as a movement, but be assured that this is going to be public and this is going to be shared by the wider community beyond, I hope, the humanitarian sector.

Caroline Vuillemin: And so if I understand you well, this is what that initiative you’re leading is meant to do. It’s the coordination, the training and the consolidation of resources.

Philippe Stoll: Correct. And you know very well, it’s 192 components, or 19-3 if we take into account the IFRC. So the cultural dimension, the typology of harm is different from the context to another, and that’s why I think it’s a fascinating initiative because we learn a lot, and I hope we can bring solutions. And this is again a very humble statement on our side, but we hope that this can help also the broader sector to find solutions.

Caroline Vuillemin: Thank you. I want to turn now to the peace actors and to you, Donatella. You have extensive field experience with inter-peace in the Great Lakes region particularly. What is at stake for the peace actors when we talk about disinformation and are there any actions taken by the peace building actors such as inter-peace to diminish the impact of disinformation?

Donatella Rostagno: Thank you very much for the floor and for inviting inter-peace at this exchange. So yes, the question is why is it, why it matters to peace builders, the issue of disinformation and misinformation? It matters because fragile societies and fragile contexts start with fractured information, manipulated information, I think it has already been said. And this disinformation can have a role of inflaming tensions, of eroding trusting within communities, spark violence. And for, you know, for peace building organization, when we speak about conflict, we speak about violent conflict. Conflict as such, as we know, is part of society, but violent conflict is what we want to transform. And so, you know, media, journalism, information contributes to shape narratives and in this context can play a very important role. Another point why it’s important is because information and freedom of speech, freedom of speech is also part of the question of information, of course. It’s of course human rights, but it’s also part of an essential part of democracy and a democratic context in which people who have access to freedom of expression also have, and also have access to non-managed pollutive information and unbiased information, have the opportunity to hold leaders accountable to, you know, what they do, and especially in contexts like the Great Lakes, now I will come also to the Great Lakes, of course. But so to make it short, because I know we don’t have very much time, we understand peace as a process to transform conflict. And in this way, we consider that this is not possible to do without an access to independent information to prove the information to information that is supported by, you know, proof and research and independent research. So the Great Lakes Legion is one of the regions in which Interpeace works. Actually, I would like to start from Mali because Mali… Recording stopped. Recording in progress. Okay, it’s okay. Mali is, for example, a country in which Interpeace has worked in collaboration, in cooperation with IRONDEL, Fondation IRONDEL. And it was a very interesting project in which Interpeace and Fondation IRONDEL have worked on setting up a radio station. And this radio station has given the possibility to people in Mali to express their own vision of what peace in their context means. And this is very important, because you were saying, or some of the other speakers, is that what is true for someone, it might be not true for someone else. And this is true. But in a context, in a context In the context of conflict, it is important that people have not only the possibility to express their vision of what peace and stability means in their context, or for them personally, but also to understand and to listen what it means for other communities. In places like the DRC, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, Mali, this is extremely important. And the example of the Great Lakes Legion for us is a very strong example, because in the Great Lakes region, we are delivering training on this information, misinformation to young people. And these young people have been selected, a cohort of young people selected from four countries in the region, Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. And the reason why we work on this information and misinformation is because the requests came from the young people themselves. Just one minute. Okay. And so, I mean, it came from young participants themselves, so that was a very important sign and a very strong sign that working on access to information and just information is a very important issue for young people. And so, and it is a training to young people delivered by one Burundian organization called YAGA, which is a youth organization in Burundi working exactly on the issue of spreading information in Burundi that is, you know, controlled and not controlled, but based on independent proof and research. And this is, in a region like the Great Lakes, has had an incredible impact in the way youth, young people from all these different countries dialogue and speak to each other. And as you know, the Great Lakes region is a very high level conflict region, a violent conflict region, so the fact of having young people from all these different countries speaking to each other, at the same time when their governments don’t manage to actually speak to each other, that’s a very important success for us. Thank you.

Caroline Vuillemin: Thank you. So I hear from your experience that you are working already with media organizations to train, to make the youth more involved. I want to turn to Tammam Aloudat. You’re the CEO of the New Humanitarian, a global media dedicated to the coverage of humanitarian crisis. You’re based in Geneva. What can the media do, such as the New Humanitarian, against this information and what role can it play to coordinate more actions and efforts with the other actors?

Tammam Aloudat: Thank you. Thank you for having me here. And just to have a starting point, the New Humanitarian has a purpose not only of sharing news, but of actually having a positive impact on the people affected by humanitarian crisis. And from here, I’ll go back to the definition. You mentioned, Kevin, that it’s content purposely produced or published to intentionally harm. I just want to add, it is inaccurate or misleading content. It’s not the truth produced to harm someone else. It’s not misinformation. So we’re clear. And there are a few assumptions that we deal with, that misinformation has malintention behind it always. and it’s not always true that it exists in a bubble separate from the politics, that it’s only the other who creates it. And if you hear, for example, the European Commission’s discourse on misinformation, it’s almost exclusively about Russia. I mean, the US and European governments have been producing misinformation about Palestine for the past two years consistently and coherently, and they don’t consider themselves as producers of misinformation. And then, you know, we can be selective about what we call misinformation. The others produce misinformation, we produce freedom of speech. And this is the inheritance of the dehumanizing of the other, because they cannot do right and we cannot do wrong. The final thing is that misinformation and disinformation is only an active act, an intentional production of information that is meant to harm. And I want to say, in my experience, silence, inconsistency and partial information are as harmful and as intentional as misinformation. So we cannot accept that, you know, our singular assumption is that misinformation is, you know, bought farms in Russia and not, you know, panel rooms and ministries in Europe or North America. So where does that put us? First, there are a couple of things. I mean, from a humanitarian perspective, misinformation is at all levels. Information that justifies genocide is misinformation and disinformation. The fact that our government said doesn’t really make it any better. Information that undermine, and it’s not only like we cannot pick a piece of information, a single article, it is a discourse that is constructed over decades that creates the possibility of dehumanizing other people through misinformation. Who are the actors? The media, the media that sits and uses like The humanitarian actors. I mean, I’m sorry, but you know, it’s not up to us to say if it’s true or not. No, it’s not up to us. It’s up to us. It’s just happens to we choose the threshold. Fifteen volunteers were killed in Gaza and buried under rubble. You didn’t say, we don’t know if it’s true or not. You’ve published a statement saying the ICRC, they were killed. What you chose to not assert is who killed them. That’s a choice. You said what you believe is true. You didn’t say what you believe is politically dangerous for you. So just so we don’t make unexamined statements. And that affects us. Because if we say what people believe is different from what we believe, the structure, the institutions that sit in Geneva and think that the world starts and ends in Geneva, know things that are entirely different from the people we serve. And if our truth matters more than theirs, then we really have a problem. So what can we do? What we are trying to do is we bring only journalists from places that are affected from the communities that are affected. I’m not interested in foreign journalists being parachuted. They had it all 50 years ago. We don’t need them anymore. We take the agency of people seriously. We don’t just pick the voices that suit our narratives and put them there. And, you know, the typology of harm is explicitly important. And it is variable. And it is up to people to decide what harm is inflected on them. And finally. I mean, I understand that we have been given the narrative of political speech is separate from humanitarian speech or peace speech or so on. I mean, I would quote Orwell when he talked about the shameful use of English, you know, politics and the English language. He says everything is political. The choice to act as if we are outside politics is political, is opening the space for others to take the place that is void. Today, we have misinformation about Ukraine, about Gaza, we have disinformation, we have silence about Islam, we have silence about DRC, we have silence about the Rohingyas. The last time you’ve read an article in the New York Times or the Guardian about Somalia would probably be, I doubt anyone would remember that. So we need to pick up a level beyond us just trying to scrutinize bits of stuff and separate it from the context. Disinformation doesn’t happen in space, in vacuum, it happens when we allow politics to degrade to this level that it is now. Thank you.

Caroline Vuillemin: Thank you, Tammam. We have about 15 minutes to open the floor for questions. The lady back there. You can, no, no, please get to the mic. Open it, open it, please.

Audience: Very interesting discussion, but I was very interested in the notion of or the role of polarization here in the production of misinformation. So sometimes it feels like we hold misinformation to be the driver of conflict rather than the other way around. It’s also conflict through social media and otherwise we produce misinformation itself. So I’m interested here in hearing more. What can we do, particularly from the peace building field, to amend polarization in the first place as the root cause of the production of misinformation?

Donatella Rostagno: I think one of the answers, probably there are many answers, one of the answers I can think of now is that we work with all the different stakeholders, all the different layers in a society. We have experience, for example, working with leaders of armed groups in the DRC, so getting leaders of armed groups in the DRC all together around the table discussing agendas and discussing why are they actively an active armed group in the DRC. And this allows them to voice their agendas, let’s say, but at the same time, when then you put together also traditional leaders in the same areas and then you discuss with them and you provide a space of exchanges, exchanging views of what they believe is stability and peace in their context, then you put all of this together and you work into transforming conflict in that way. As I was saying, I think it’s really important that you provide spaces for information, you provide spaces for dialogue, and you provide spaces for analyzing what is happening. But this analysis also has to be based on, I wouldn’t say a common vision, because I think different people have maybe a common vision. a common analysis, although analysis can lead to a different understanding, we understand that, but at least a common basis for analysis in which you provide a space where people can express that. This would be one probably of the ways you would do that. And for example, giving space to young people and when young people who are constantly online, for example, connected in terms of information. And it’s very interesting because you can discuss with them about perceptions, how you perceive yourself and how you perceive the others. And in the experience we have, working on perceptions as well has been a very, very important thing. And media have a very, a huge responsibility on spreading perceptions as well. And this is also something, how do you counter fight that? This is also a way to do it.

Caroline Vuillemin: Thank you. I will come to you later, Boris. Any other question? Yes, sir.

Audience: Just a simple reference question. The speaker who was talking about the topology of harms. The speaker who was talking about topology of harms indicated that they have an answer booklet called Addressing Harmful Information. Is there a more precise reference to that booklet and how we can get it?

Philippe Stoll: Yes, I can share it with you. It’s online. It’s called Addressing Harmful Information in Conflict Situation Framework for a United Organization, something like that. And we can definitely share it with you after. There is, if I may, the work that was done with different organizations. And again, it’s labeled ICRC, but it’s really a collective work where we try to to find a way to, for me, it’s more coping rather than addressing, but trying to find a structure in looking at this phenomenon. And we come with a triptych, which is detect, assess, respond. And this is based on the culture. It’s based on the signals, the pathway of information. By understanding that, you can have a better analysis. The analysis is something that is done based on the type of harm, potential harm. You won’t react the same way if it’s a security risk for population or if it’s something which might have a basic false information. I don’t have examples, but you see that you don’t react the same way. And the way of responding is also something we call 360. It’s online, offline, it’s direct, indirect. It’s this kind of situations where we wanted to be sure that we try to be as comprehensive as possible. It’s not a pure recipe, but we try to find something which helps us to think in a more structured way. We have been facing this kind of situation for quite many years, and we wanted to be a bit more thoughtful when we face this phenomenon. And when I say we, it’s people who are affected by armed conflict. Thank you.

Audience: So, to what extent must we localize responses to harmful information? At what point should it be at the global level? At what point should it be at the local level? And how do we make that distinguishment? And then I have a second part question of the question, which is more uncomfortable, which is how do we fund this? Philanthropy can be great for funding, say, seed models for For local journalist. The quesion is how to fund journalism.

Caroline Vuillemin: Thank you. Maybe for each panelist, local, global, regional level to address, what do you think Hanspeter?

Hanspeter Wyss: foundations I think that that will be possible and I think also I mean politically we have talked about it also I mean it’s it’s sometimes let’s say let’s put it like that a little bit tricky also for governments to to support individual media outlets but maybe for foundations they they have more kind of possibilities to do that.

Caroline Vuillemin: Thank you. Tammam on the issue of answers at the local or global level what do you think?

Tammam Aloudat: I think all of them obviously and it depends on the context when Rakhine states before the expulsion of the Rohingyas that it was Facebook in Rakhine that was actually the source of this information and that has caused violence against the people who are affected. In DRC it is a regional issue it is between Rwanda, Burundi and Eastern DRC you can you can address it you know in a village all you want it’s not going to affect what Rwanda is doing supporting M23 and when it comes to Palestine I mean it’s in Europe not it’s locally in Europe where the electorate are letting their politicians lie about genocide quite openly so it’s not one or the other and I think this like putting it in that way puts them attention there is a connection of information and there are connections of disinformation and they need to be understood and addressed as it matters because here we’re not talking just about perceptions we’re talking about information that is actually either causing people to die or prolonging the possibility of them dying it’s not a luxury to have good information and to talk about funding I just want to say I mean it’s not a problem of money there’s plenty of money the U.S. has just increased its budget to over a trillion dollars the their budget now assigns to us to ICE $120 billion, which is double what they gave in international aid before that they cut. Germany is going to put half a trillion in deficit to buy arms. And money is abundant. It’s just not being spent on this. And there is an irony in us saying, you know, real information, good information is critical to our lives. It’s important. It’s a public good. But you should go find a foundation to fund it. Because it’s a charity. It’s either important or not. It’s either a luxury or not. And that goes for governments, for funders, but also for individuals. I mean, how many of you subscribes for an independent media for five years a month when you go in this beautiful town and spend 25 francs on lunch every day, and yet nearly impossible to get people to subscribe to media. So keep it independent. We need to decide whether information is important or not. If it’s important, put money into it. If it’s not important, then just let it go away. Thanks.

Donatella Rostagno: On the local, regional, international level, I agree with what has been said. And I would say it’s an interconnectedness of all these different levels. In my experience, when you speak to people at the very local level, the mere fact that they know that that kind of information can reach through different challenges, the regional level, the national level, and the international level is a kind of protection sometimes as well. And is a kind of, I would say, even motivation to continue to do, you know, just and correct information at local level, because then it is also diffused at many other different levels. So I would say definitely an interconnectedness of all of these levels. On the funding, I agree with what has been said. I think, within the peace, we work a lot on the concept that peace building is not that peace. And peace building is not done by peace builders alone. It’s done by everyone in the society. It’s a concept of peace responsiveness that our colleagues are working on. And it’s basically based on the fact that whether it’s the private sector, the government, and the peace builders together with the development sector, we work all together for peace. It’s not only the peace builders that build peace. Otherwise, it wouldn’t work. So, even in funding, I would say it’s the same thing. If you have governments, you have multilateral institutions, and then you have the private sector and foundations. But I agree that the money is there. It’s just the way politically it is decided to put the money somewhere else than in peace.

Caroline Vuillemin: Thank you. Philippe, to answer, and then we will have the last question and close the panel.

Philippe Stoll: I don’t have much to say on the budget part. But with regards to the question, for me, there is a verticality in terms of local versus global or together. One of the objectives of the initiative that I’m leading is to train volunteers who are at the local level. But at the same time, to have initiatives which are political, that goes at the global level. It means doing advocacy. It means being in a multilateral forum to speak about it, to talk to the tech industry also, because they are also part of both the solution and the problem. And this is something we need to have, something which is totally comprehensive. We cannot distinguish one from the other. And I want to add another dimension, which is related definitely to the multidisciplinarity of the issues. Together, we try to bring the tech people from the organization. We tried to bring legal protection, the training ect. Because for a long time it was a communication problem, and I think it is not a communication problem, it’s bigger than that, so finding the common ground that is definitely helping to address all the levels from the global to the local level.

Caroline Vuillemin: Thank you. And the last question, Boris.

Audience: I am not Boris, you know that too much familiarity with the speech, notability is a great threat to press freedom. What is the worst possible fake news for a journalist freelance like me? You see, most of you have called this a discussion. Personally, I feel I have attended half a dozen of preaches. So this might be the worst possible fake news because, you know, we suffer preaching and lecturing morning, afternoon, night, round the year from the UN, from university, from the quality papers, etc. So for me, this is not a discussion. And I consider calling this a discussion is a terrible lie. But that brings me to a paradox. If the formal pretenses of those who know everything are unchallenged, and we have behaved like very, very obedient, quiet pupils, we can question the efficiency of the right-wing populist genocidian fake news. Because Radio Mille Collines explained that the Tutsi were the source of all evils. But what real part did the news play in that? Who knew the Tutsi better than anyone else on earth? These are the Hutus. They have been living together for for centuries, and sometimes they have been intermarried and killed each other, even when married. So can you really think that fake news can explain why people who have been living together for half a century suddenly consider that those they have been living with, or even married, or work together, are terrible people, devilish. I am not sure that with or without Radio Mille Collines, or with or without the Fondation Hirondelle, things would have turned out very differently. And by the way, if I am not mistaken, Fondation Hirondelle can no longer work in Rwanda, which would be worth a round table as well.

Caroline Vuillemin: Thank you. So there doesn’t call any answer, since it wasn’t a question. I wanna thank everybody for your participation. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Thank you for your participation. And we have to leave the room now, but we are available for comments or bilateral questions outside. We have to leave the room now. Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-level response approach is necessary

Speakers

– Philippe Stoll
– Tammam Aloudat
– Donatella Rostagno

Arguments

The approach requires verticality from local volunteer training to global advocacy and engagement with tech industry

Context determines the appropriate level of response, whether village-level, regional, or international depending on the source and scope of harmful information

Responses must be interconnected across local, regional, and international levels, with local actors gaining protection and motivation from multi-level reach

Summary

All three speakers agree that addressing harmful information requires coordinated action across multiple levels – from local community interventions to global advocacy – with the specific level of response determined by the context and source of the harmful information.

Topics

Development | Human rights | Sociocultural

Collaborative and coordinated approaches are essential

Speakers

– Hanspeter Wyss
– Philippe Stoll
– Donatella Rostagno

Arguments

The humanitarian-development-peace nexus requires coordinated intervention linking humanitarian aid, development cooperation, and peacebuilding with shared analysis and trust among actors

The ICRC Movement Initiative focuses on coordination, training, resource consolidation, and research sharing among 192 Red Cross components

Working with all stakeholders across society levels – from armed group leaders to traditional leaders – provides spaces for dialogue and conflict transformation

Summary

All speakers emphasize that no single actor can effectively address harmful information alone, requiring coordinated efforts across different sectors, organizations, and stakeholder groups with shared analysis and trust-building.

Topics

Development | Human rights | Sociocultural

Media should be treated as key partners, not just communication channels

Speakers

– Hanspeter Wyss
– Tammam Aloudat

Arguments

Independent media must be involved as key actors in all phases of problem analysis and response, not just as communication channels

Media should prioritize journalists from affected communities rather than parachuted foreign correspondents, taking people’s agency seriously

Summary

Both speakers agree that media organizations should be recognized as essential partners in addressing disinformation, with media having agency and expertise that goes beyond simply disseminating information from other actors.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Funding is available but misallocated

Speakers

– Tammam Aloudat
– Donatella Rostagno

Arguments

Funding exists abundantly in government budgets but is allocated to military spending rather than information integrity

Responses must be interconnected across local, regional, and international levels, with local actors gaining protection and motivation from multi-level reach

Summary

Both speakers agree that the problem is not lack of funding but rather political decisions about resource allocation, with vast amounts spent on military while relatively little goes to information integrity and peacebuilding.

Topics

Economic | Development

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers focus on the harmful effects of problematic information rather than just its truth value, though they use different terminology and emphasize different aspects of the phenomenon.

Speakers

– Caroline Vuillemin
– Philippe Stoll
– Tammam Aloudat

Arguments

Disinformation is purposely produced content to destabilize or harm populations, interests, or processes

The term ‘harmful information’ is preferred over ‘disinformation’ because it focuses on harm rather than truth determination, includes offline dimensions, and avoids political implications

Misinformation includes inaccurate or misleading content with malintention, but silence, inconsistency, and partial information can be equally harmful and intentional

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers emphasize that harmful information is not just a digital phenomenon but includes offline dimensions and is particularly dangerous in fragile contexts where it can escalate to violence.

Speakers

– Philippe Stoll
– Donatella Rostagno

Arguments

The phenomenon exists both online and offline, with offline dimensions being equally important as demonstrated during the Ebola crisis

Fragile societies start with fractured and manipulated information that can inflame tensions, erode community trust, and spark violence

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers view access to quality information as fundamentally linked to democratic accountability and political processes, rejecting the notion that information work can be apolitical.

Speakers

– Donatella Rostagno
– Tammam Aloudat

Arguments

Access to independent information is essential for democratic processes and holding leaders accountable, particularly in fragile contexts

The choice to act as if media is outside politics is itself political, and avoiding this responsibility opens space for others to fill the void

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

Critique of traditional expert-driven approaches

Speakers

– Tammam Aloudat
– Audience

Arguments

Media should prioritize journalists from affected communities rather than parachuted foreign correspondents, taking people’s agency seriously

Formal institutions and experts may be disconnected from the realities of affected communities, with institutional ‘truth’ potentially conflicting with local experiences

Explanation

Unexpectedly, both a panelist and audience member challenged traditional expert-driven approaches, arguing for greater emphasis on local voices and questioning whether institutional perspectives truly understand community realities. This represents a significant critique of conventional humanitarian and media practices.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Information as public good requiring systematic funding

Speakers

– Tammam Aloudat
– Hanspeter Wyss

Arguments

Information quality should be treated as a public good requiring systematic funding rather than charitable foundation support

Foundations may have more flexibility than governments to support individual media outlets

Explanation

While approaching from different angles, both speakers agree that current funding mechanisms for quality information are inadequate, though they propose different solutions – Tammam advocating for treating it as public infrastructure while Hanspeter suggesting foundation funding as a practical alternative.

Topics

Economic | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on the need for multi-level, coordinated approaches to addressing harmful information, with agreement on treating media as key partners rather than just channels. There was also alignment on the importance of local voices and the inadequacy of current funding mechanisms.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on structural approaches and principles, with some divergence on terminology and specific implementation strategies. The consensus suggests a mature understanding of the complexity of the challenge and the need for comprehensive, collaborative solutions that go beyond traditional sectoral boundaries.

Different viewpoints

Definition and scope of harmful information/disinformation

Speakers

– Caroline Vuillemin
– Philippe Stoll
– Tammam Aloudat

Arguments

Disinformation is purposely produced content to destabilize or harm populations, interests, or processes

The term “harmful information” is preferred over “disinformation” because it focuses on harm rather than truth determination, includes offline dimensions, and avoids political implications

Misinformation includes inaccurate or misleading content with malintention, but silence, inconsistency, and partial information can be equally harmful and intentional

Summary

Caroline provides a straightforward definition of disinformation as purposely harmful content. Philippe argues for “harmful information” to avoid political implications and focus on harm rather than truth determination. Tammam expands the definition to include passive forms like silence and selective reporting, challenging the focus on active misinformation while ignoring institutional omissions.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Role of media and neutrality in addressing harmful information

Speakers

– Philippe Stoll
– Tammam Aloudat

Arguments

The term “harmful information” is preferred over “disinformation” because it focuses on harm rather than truth determination, includes offline dimensions, and avoids political implications

The choice to act as if media is outside politics is itself political, and avoiding this responsibility opens space for others to fill the void

Summary

Philippe advocates for humanitarian organizations to avoid determining truth and maintain political neutrality, focusing only on harm assessment. Tammam directly challenges this approach, arguing that claiming neutrality is itself a political stance and that avoiding political engagement creates dangerous voids that can be filled by malicious actors.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Approach to journalism and media representation

Speakers

– Hanspeter Wyss
– Tammam Aloudat

Arguments

Independent media must be involved as key actors in all phases of problem analysis and response, not just as communication channels

Media should prioritize journalists from affected communities rather than parachuted foreign correspondents, taking people’s agency seriously

Summary

Hanspeter focuses on involving independent media as key actors in institutional processes and problem analysis. Tammam advocates for a more radical restructuring that prioritizes local journalists from affected communities over foreign correspondents, emphasizing community agency over institutional involvement.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Fundamental effectiveness of information interventions in conflict prevention

Speakers

– Audience
– Donatella Rostagno
– Philippe Stoll

Arguments

The effectiveness of information interventions in preventing conflict may be limited when communities have deep historical knowledge of each other

Training young people on misinformation across conflict regions enables cross-border dialogue even when governments cannot communicate

Harmful information impacts organizations through security risks, access limitations, and fundraising challenges, while affecting populations through physical, economic, psychological, societal, and trust-related harm

Explanation

An audience member fundamentally challenged the panel’s premise by questioning whether disinformation is truly a primary driver of conflict, using the Rwanda genocide as an example where communities with centuries of shared history still engaged in violence despite intimate knowledge of each other. This unexpected challenge to the basic assumption underlying the entire discussion revealed a deeper disagreement about the causal relationship between information and conflict.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Institutional expertise versus grassroots knowledge

Speakers

– Audience
– Caroline Vuillemin
– Philippe Stoll
– Hanspeter Wyss

Arguments

Formal institutions and experts may be disconnected from the realities of affected communities, with institutional “truth” potentially conflicting with local experiences

The humanitarian-development-peace nexus requires coordinated intervention linking humanitarian aid, development cooperation, and peacebuilding with shared analysis and trust among actors

A framework for addressing harmful information in armed conflict has been developed collaboratively with multiple organizations

Explanation

An audience member unexpectedly challenged the entire expert panel format, arguing that institutional approaches and expert perspectives may be fundamentally disconnected from the lived experiences of affected communities. This criticism of the panel’s legitimacy and approach was unexpected in a professional forum and highlighted tensions between institutional knowledge and grassroots understanding.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement centered on definitional approaches to harmful information, the role of neutrality versus political engagement, and fundamental questions about the effectiveness of information interventions in conflict prevention.

Disagreement level

Moderate to significant disagreement with important implications. While speakers generally agreed on the importance of addressing harmful information, they differed substantially on approaches, definitions, and underlying assumptions. The disagreements reveal fundamental tensions between institutional neutrality and political engagement, between expert-driven and community-led approaches, and between technical solutions and systemic change. These disagreements suggest that coordination efforts may face significant challenges in developing unified approaches, as the different actors operate from fundamentally different philosophical and practical frameworks.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers focus on the harmful effects of problematic information rather than just its truth value, though they use different terminology and emphasize different aspects of the phenomenon.

Speakers

– Caroline Vuillemin
– Philippe Stoll
– Tammam Aloudat

Arguments

Disinformation is purposely produced content to destabilize or harm populations, interests, or processes

The term ‘harmful information’ is preferred over ‘disinformation’ because it focuses on harm rather than truth determination, includes offline dimensions, and avoids political implications

Misinformation includes inaccurate or misleading content with malintention, but silence, inconsistency, and partial information can be equally harmful and intentional

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers emphasize that harmful information is not just a digital phenomenon but includes offline dimensions and is particularly dangerous in fragile contexts where it can escalate to violence.

Speakers

– Philippe Stoll
– Donatella Rostagno

Arguments

The phenomenon exists both online and offline, with offline dimensions being equally important as demonstrated during the Ebola crisis

Fragile societies start with fractured and manipulated information that can inflame tensions, erode community trust, and spark violence

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers view access to quality information as fundamentally linked to democratic accountability and political processes, rejecting the notion that information work can be apolitical.

Speakers

– Donatella Rostagno
– Tammam Aloudat

Arguments

Access to independent information is essential for democratic processes and holding leaders accountable, particularly in fragile contexts

The choice to act as if media is outside politics is itself political, and avoiding this responsibility opens space for others to fill the void

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

A coordinated nexus approach linking humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding actors is essential for effectively addressing disinformation, requiring shared analysis, trust, and institutional flexibility

The term ‘harmful information’ is more appropriate than ‘disinformation’ as it focuses on actual harm to populations rather than truth determination, encompasses both online and offline dimensions, and avoids political implications

Harmful information creates multiple types of harm including physical, economic, psychological, societal, and trust-related impacts on vulnerable populations

Independent media must be treated as key actors in all phases of problem analysis and response, not merely as communication channels

Local journalists from affected communities should be prioritized over foreign correspondents to ensure authentic representation and agency of affected populations

Responses to harmful information must be interconnected across local, regional, and international levels, with the appropriate level determined by context and source of the information

Adequate funding exists globally but is misallocated toward military spending rather than information integrity, suggesting information quality should be treated as a public good requiring systematic funding

Training and capacity building for local actors, particularly youth, can enable cross-border dialogue and conflict transformation even when governments cannot communicate

Resolutions and action items

The ICRC Movement Initiative will continue coordinating training, resource consolidation, and research sharing among 192 Red Cross components

A publicly available framework for addressing harmful information in armed conflict will be shared with the broader humanitarian community

Continued research collaboration with academic institutions on deep fake detection and chatbot information processing

Ongoing training programs for youth across conflict regions on misinformation and disinformation

Advocacy efforts in multilateral forums and engagement with the tech industry as part of comprehensive response strategies

Unresolved issues

How to effectively fund sustainable, independent journalism and information integrity initiatives beyond charitable foundation support

The challenge of balancing local versus global responses and determining optimal intervention levels for different contexts

How to address the fundamental issue that institutional ‘truth’ may conflict with local community experiences and knowledge

The question of whether information interventions can effectively prevent conflict when communities have deep historical knowledge and grievances

How to address the political nature of information work while maintaining humanitarian neutrality

The effectiveness of media interventions in contexts where underlying social tensions and polarization are the root causes rather than information itself

How to scale successful local initiatives like the Mali radio station project to other fragile contexts

Suggested compromises

Using the term ‘harmful information’ instead of ‘disinformation’ to avoid political implications while focusing on actual harm

Combining government, multilateral, private sector, and foundation funding rather than relying on any single source

Implementing a ‘detect, assess, respond’ framework that allows for flexible, context-appropriate responses rather than one-size-fits-all solutions

Treating peacebuilding as a collective responsibility involving all sectors of society rather than just peace organizations

Balancing online and offline approaches to address the full spectrum of harmful information dissemination

Incorporating both direct and indirect response strategies in a ‘360-degree’ approach to harmful information

We choose to call it harmful information for several reasons. First, we wanted to make a strong call and link between harm and information… not all disinformation harm and not all misinformation, disinformation are harming, but also sometimes real information harm… there is something which is very political in the word disinformation. And we often say that disinformation of someone might be the truth of someone else

Speaker

Philippe Stoll

Reason

This reframes the entire discussion by moving away from debates about truth/falsehood to focus on actual harm caused. It acknowledges the political nature of labeling information as ‘disinformation’ and introduces the crucial insight that even true information can cause harm depending on context.

Impact

This comment fundamentally shifted the panel’s approach from a binary true/false framework to a more nuanced harm-based analysis. It provided intellectual foundation for other speakers to build upon and influenced how subsequent questions were framed around impact rather than veracity.

I mean, the US and European governments have been producing misinformation about Palestine for the past two years consistently and coherently, and they don’t consider themselves as producers of misinformation… The others produce misinformation, we produce freedom of speech. And this is the inheritance of the dehumanizing of the other… silence, inconsistency and partial information are as harmful and as intentional as misinformation

Speaker

Tammam Aloudat

Reason

This comment directly challenges the panel’s assumptions about who produces disinformation and what constitutes it. It introduces power dynamics and institutional bias into the discussion, arguing that silence and omission can be as harmful as active misinformation.

Impact

This was a turning point that brought uncomfortable political realities into what had been a more technical discussion. It forced other panelists to confront their own potential biases and expanded the definition of harmful information beyond active fabrication to include institutional silence and selective reporting.

I’m sorry, but you know, it’s not up to us to say if it’s true or not. No, it’s not up to us. It’s just happens to we choose the threshold. Fifteen volunteers were killed in Gaza and buried under rubble. You didn’t say, we don’t know if it’s true or not… What you chose to not assert is who killed them. That’s a choice.

Speaker

Tammam Aloudat

Reason

This directly confronts Philippe Stoll’s earlier claim about humanitarian organizations not determining truth, using a specific example to show how organizations do make truth claims but selectively avoid politically sensitive aspects. It exposes the contradiction between claimed neutrality and actual editorial choices.

Impact

This created visible tension in the discussion and forced a more honest examination of how humanitarian and media organizations actually operate. It challenged the comfortable narrative of neutrality and pushed the conversation toward acknowledging the political dimensions of information work.

So can you really think that fake news can explain why people who have been living together for half a century suddenly consider that those they have been living with, or even married, or work together, are terrible people, devilish. I am not sure that with or without Radio Mille Collines, or with or without the Fondation Hirondelle, things would have turned out very differently.

Speaker

Audience member (Boris)

Reason

This provocative challenge questions the fundamental premise of the entire panel – whether disinformation is actually as causally important in conflicts as the experts claim. It suggests that deeper social and political factors may be more determinative than information manipulation.

Impact

This comment came at the very end but represented the most fundamental challenge to the panel’s core assumptions. It questioned whether the entire enterprise of combating disinformation might be overstating its own importance, though it came too late for substantive response from panelists.

It’s either important or not. It’s either a luxury or not… how many of you subscribes for an independent media for five years a month when you go in this beautiful town and spend 25 francs on lunch every day, and yet nearly impossible to get people to subscribe to media… We need to decide whether information is important or not. If it’s important, put money into it.

Speaker

Tammam Aloudat

Reason

This cuts through abstract discussions about funding to highlight the contradiction between stated values and actual behavior. It challenges both institutions and individuals to align their spending with their proclaimed priorities about information quality.

Impact

This comment grounded the theoretical discussion in practical reality and personal responsibility. It shifted the funding conversation from technical solutions to fundamental questions about societal priorities and individual commitment to supporting quality journalism.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a conventional panel about combating disinformation into a more critical examination of power, bias, and fundamental assumptions. Philippe Stoll’s reframing around ‘harmful information’ provided intellectual sophistication, while Tammam Aloudat’s interventions introduced necessary political realism and challenged comfortable narratives about neutrality. The final audience challenge questioned the entire premise. Together, these comments elevated the discussion from technical solutions to deeper questions about truth, power, and the actual drivers of conflict, though they also created tension that wasn’t fully resolved within the session’s constraints.

How can we prevent disinformation from having harsh consequences on people we want to serve and further fragmenting societies?

Speaker

Caroline Vuillemin

Explanation

This is the central question of the panel that requires ongoing exploration and coordination between humanitarian, peace, and media actors

How can we unite approaches and efforts currently developed by humanitarian, peace and media development actors to complement and share resources to tackle disinformation consequences?

Speaker

Caroline Vuillemin

Explanation

This addresses the need for coordinated strategies across different sectors working on disinformation

How much do chatbots digest information and how are they getting information?

Speaker

Philippe Stoll

Explanation

This is an area of research the ICRC movement wants to explore regarding AI and information processing

How can deep fake detection be improved?

Speaker

Philippe Stoll

Explanation

This is mentioned as a research priority for the humanitarian movement to better identify manipulated content

What can we do, particularly from the peace building field, to address polarization as the root cause of misinformation production?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

This question explores whether polarization drives misinformation rather than the other way around, requiring deeper analysis of root causes

To what extent must we localize responses to harmful information versus addressing it at global level, and how do we make that distinction?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

This addresses the need to understand appropriate levels of intervention for different types of disinformation

How do we fund independent journalism and media responses to disinformation sustainably?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

This addresses the critical funding challenges for maintaining independent media as a counter to disinformation

What is the actual effectiveness of media interventions in preventing violence, as illustrated by the Rwanda genocide example?

Speaker

Audience member (Boris)

Explanation

This challenges assumptions about media’s role in conflict and questions whether media interventions can actually prevent violence when deeper social divisions exist

Why can Fondation Hirondelle no longer work in Rwanda and what does this reveal about media development challenges?

Speaker

Audience member (Boris)

Explanation

This suggests a need to examine the practical challenges and limitations faced by media development organizations in post-conflict contexts