Eric Wiebelhaus-Brahm & Arnaud Kurze: Can Hashtags Help Prevent Mass Atrocities?
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2026/02/07
Arnaud Kurze is an Associate Professor of Justice Studies at Montclair State University whose research examines mass atrocity prevention, conflict, and the politics of digital public infrastructures. He studies how online participation shapes visibility, evidence, and accountability in crises. He also contributes to applied projects, including work connected to United Nations initiatives.
Eric Wiebelhaus-Brahm is a Professor of Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention at Binghamton University and affiliated with the Institute for Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention (I-GMAP). His scholarship explores prevention policy, transitional justice, and how institutions respond to warning signs. He studies digital and political dynamics shaping atrocity-risk environments.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen asked how hashtags move from online visibility to real-world protection in atrocity prevention. Arnaud Kurze argued hashtags can reduce participation costs, amplify local voices, and leave digital traces that complicate later denial, while warning that awareness alone does not solve crises. Eric Wiebelhaus-Brahm emphasized hashtags complement, not replace, on-the-ground activism. The scholars described mention analyzing over 5,000 posts across Canada and Syria, noting data cleaning, shifting platform access rules, anonymization requirements, and limits on reproducibility. They rejected direct causality claims, highlighting context, attention fatigue, and the risk that “attention” can be misdirected.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: A central issue with social media is that we live in a social media age. Social media drives popular discourse, even if it does not always drive professional discourse. In that context, what can a hashtag actually do in atrocity prevention? What is the chain of causation or correlation from posts to protection? How does this function in your modeling and evidence?
Arnaud Kurze: Hashtags are often dismissed as symbolic gestures, but they can have practical effects. They can help make violence more visible, lower the cost of participation, and create digital traces that may complicate later denial. Awareness alone is not sufficient, but it can shape subsequent media coverage and broader international attention, which may affect diplomatic and policy responses over time.
Eric Wiebelhaus-Brahm: To follow up, hashtags are not a substitute for on-the-ground activism, but they can complement it.
Jacosben: In your research, you analyzed more than 5,000 social media posts tied to hashtag campaigns in Syria and Canada, including #SafeSyria and #TruthAndReconciliation. How did you sample the posts, and how did you validate the interpretations? That seems critical, since the loudest voices do not always prevail.
Kurze: Although “more than 5,000” is substantial, it came from a larger initial pool, and the dataset required cleaning before analysis. The study uses the two cases, Canada and Syria, to compare how hashtag campaigns functioned in different crisis contexts, including the problem of attention fatigue over time.
Wiebelhaus-Brahm: Another issue is that platforms’ rules for data access and research change over time. In this project, you used Twitter, now X, as a key source, but comparisons across platforms are difficult when access policies shift. That complicates data cleaning, reproducibility, and confidence in findings.
Kurze: Certainly. There are two key aspects. First, researchers must use anonymized data. Second, as you noted, Scott, some of the loudest voices on these platforms can create feedback loops that amplify particular trends, either within the same platform or across platforms. We were careful in how we framed our results, including when conducting correlation analysis to examine whether online activity preceded or followed specific events, such as bombings or commemorations.
We were explicit in avoiding claims of direct causality—for example, that a specific post led directly to a specific policy outcome. This returns to what Eric emphasized earlier: social media tools are not a panacea and should not replace engagement on the ground. Offline activity remains crucial. From a policy perspective, this means that stakeholders—lawmakers, policymakers, and foreign officials working in atrocity prevention—need to understand that digital activism is not merely informal or accidental.
It functions as an infrastructure. At the same time, these digital infrastructures can serve as repositories of evidence. In cases such as war crimes, this becomes especially relevant. I am currently working on a United Nations project examining these digital public infrastructures, particularly in relation to victims and what it means to create trustworthy systems that affected populations feel safe using. In many regions, political transitions or regime change can alter laws governing platform use and data access. As a result, the digital ecosystem must remain aligned with conditions on the ground. That alignment is one of our key takeaways. Tools alone are insufficient; they must be paired with thoughtful design and genuine willingness among stakeholders to look beyond individual posts.
Jacobsen: Why have contemporary platforms, by which I mean their current forms and leadership, largely abandoned monitoring?
Wiebelhaus-Brahm: I see two related reasons. First, effective monitoring is difficult. Content appears in many languages, and moderation at scale is technically and organizationally demanding. Second, political pressure on companies to engage in such monitoring, particularly in the United States and some other countries, has declined. When monitoring is costly, time-consuming, and prone to error, companies face criticism whenever they fail. If external pressure diminishes, the incentives to maintain robust monitoring systems also decline.
Kurze: Without drawing direct historical parallels, one interesting point that warrants further analysis is that eighteenth- and nineteenth-century America had a media landscape dominated by partisan outlets, particularly print media controlled by powerful stakeholders. Those platforms were often openly biased.
In some respects, we are seeing a return to similar dynamics, with influential stakeholders in politics and the technology sector shaping contemporary platforms in comparable ways. That trend is concerning. At the same time, viewed more optimistically, there is also potential for greater democratization of the media landscape, including the development of platforms that are more accessible and inclusive for a broader range of users. Still, these parallel trends require close monitoring.
Jacobsen: What are the major failure points of hashtag activism in atrocity contexts?
Kurze: The most significant failure is the assumption that spikes in awareness automatically translate into the capacity to solve the problem. Awareness-building is essential, but it only contributes to alleviating harm when the surrounding context and on-the-ground conditions allow for action. Our comparative case study of Canada and Syria illustrates this clearly. Canada operated within a post-conflict context, while Syria remained in the midst of active conflict. As a result, it was more realistic to observe progress related to collective memory and accountability in Canada, even if imperfect. In Syria, activism fatigue emerged more strongly, and on-the-ground action was far more constrained by the severity and persistence of the conflict.
Wiebelhaus-Brahm: I would add that attention itself should not be equated with positive attention. This point also emerged in earlier work I published with colleagues on social media engagement around atrocities in Syria. During certain periods, public discussion focused less on the atrocities themselves and more on secondary effects of the conflict, particularly concerns affecting Europe and other wealthy regions. The attention was present, but it was not necessarily directed toward prevention or accountability.
Jacobsen: Thank you both for your time and expertise.
Kurze: Thank you, Scott. Stay safe, and safe travels.
Jacobsen: Thank you. I appreciate it.
Wiebelhaus-Brahm: Thank you. Goodbye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 