Social Media’s Role in Heightening Global Conflicts in Post-WWII Era

Social media’s dark side: How misinformation fuels global conflict

The promise of social media as a democratizing force for information has increasingly been overshadowed by its contribution to global discord. What began as tools for connection have morphed into weapons of division, according to experts tracking the relationship between digital platforms and worldwide conflict.

“Right now, we have more conflicts than ever since the end of World War II,” says Steve Killelea, the Australian entrepreneur behind the Global Peace Index (GPI), whose latest annual assessment includes a dedicated analysis of information technology’s role in contemporary warfare.

Research into social media’s harmful effects continues to yield troubling conclusions. Platform executives consistently promote contentious material because it drives user engagement and advertising revenue. Studies confirm that falsehoods propagate more rapidly than truth, and by the time facts emerge, considerable damage has already occurred.

A recent study published in Science Advances adds another concerning dimension to this picture. “Competition among news sources over public opinion can incentivize them to resort to misinformation,” explains lead researcher Arash Amini from the University of Texas. “The findings reveal a tendency to spread hyper-partisan fake news to increase audience participation.”

Amini describes a destructive cycle where attention-seeking business models force media outlets to compete using increasingly provocative language and storytelling techniques. This competition sometimes leads to outright fabrication to boost engagement. However, his team cautions that while sharing misinformation might yield short-term audience growth, it ultimately undermines credibility and creates lasting disadvantages.

The Global Peace Index researchers have extensively documented social media’s influence on international conflicts, particularly regarding radicalization and terrorism. This year’s report emphasizes these platforms’ contribution to polarization and discord, noting a fundamental paradox: “We have better communications and more social networks and media than ever before, but we also have low-quality inflammatory or partisan content that deepens social divisions.”

Killelea elaborates on this contradiction: “On the one hand, people can access accurate information like never before, and most do. But on the other hand, when you look at social media platforms, you see a tendency toward polarization.” He attributes this partly to algorithms that serve users content similar to what previously captured their attention, creating increasingly extreme content to generate emotional responses and extend user sessions.

The problem is compounded by users’ natural inclination to seek information that reinforces their existing beliefs, even when that information is biased or inaccurate.

Neither the Texas researchers nor Killelea singles out specific platforms as the primary culprits. “We cannot explicitly label news sources that strategically use disinformation as malicious, as their decision-making may have emerged through repeated interactions, making information distortion a natural outcome for hyper-partisan media,” the Texas team explains.

Both groups suggest potential containment strategies, with Killelea advocating for “better regulation of information on the internet.” He expresses skepticism about platforms’ willingness to self-regulate without enforceable legal frameworks that simultaneously protect freedom of expression.

Education represents another vital solution. “Better education is needed to differentiate the accurate from the inaccurate,” Killelea states, while Amini adds, “Our results highlight the effectiveness of educational initiatives aimed at improving media literacy and reducing susceptibility.”

Despite current trends, Killelea maintains optimism that regulations, user education, and increased platform responsibility will eventually emerge. However, he acknowledges, “There will always be nefarious actors.”

Killelea supports restricting social media access for children under 12 – noting that Australia currently prohibits users under 16 from having accounts. He emphasizes that freedom of expression should never extend to “extreme violence” or “child pornography,” and believes addressing these issues could contribute to global peace that currently stands at its most unstable point in 78 years.

The GPI has documented annual increases in militarization and conflicts that generate “massive suffering.” Rather than engaging in difficult-to-win conflicts, Killelea advocates for a more effective approach: “invest in peace.”