Reflections from the 2025 Bread&Net Convening lead by Mona Shtaya.
Building connections to move forward amidst conflict
This year’s regional convening on digital rights in the SWANA region was shaped by a clear appetite for collaboration. In session after session, it became evident that many of our partners—journalists, digital security experts, researchers, and advocates—are seeking to deepen their ties, complement each other’s work, and share knowledge more intentionally.
The conversations didn’t shy away from the urgency of the moment, however. Ongoing escalations and crises across the region framed many of the discussions, especially on the militarization and weaponization of technologies. Sessions focused on AI, surveillance, and information control reminded us that these digital harms are not abstract: they are lived, layered, and evolving fast.
Some of the cases that were raised had to do with the use of AI to make military decisions that ended up worsening already dire situations. Others highlighted its use to spread disinformation, impacting the work of journalists (especially those covering conflict).
Yet despite the grim backdrop, what stood out was not despair, but strategy.
Working within (and against!) systems
Some of the most compelling insights came from partners working in the region, who described how they are navigating complex governmental landscapes to push for better regulation and more inclusive digital policies. These examples offered a much-needed reminder that resistance doesn’t always mean opposition, it can also mean staying in the room, making demands, and pushing the boundaries from within.
That nuance resonated with similar reflections in the SWANA context, where different groups are challenging dominant narratives and claiming space, even amid shrinking civic environments. These efforts aren’t just symbolic: they are shaping the possibilities for rights-based digital futures at both national and regional levels.
Narratives, evidence, and lived experience
As an organization, we contributed to several sessions focused on the intersections between narrative, conflict, and accountability. One session—co-organized with our partners at TIMEP—explored “Who Gets the Final Say?” in contexts of armed conflict. Another, developed in collaboration with Arabi Facts Hub, unpacked how information disorder impacts people in the SWANA region.
We also co-hosted a roundtable on “Gender Justice and the Localization of Digital Protection in SWANA” with JOSA, INSM, and Salamtak Iraq, and offered a practical training session with TIMEP on how to frame advocacy when engaging with policymakers. The workshop highlighted how organisations can enhance their advocacy efforts by mapping policymakers, and design their messaging to shift narratives and influence policies.
Across all these spaces, a recurring theme was the value of building evidence rooted in lived experience, especially when challenging extractive or oversimplified narratives.
We also offered our insights on key challenges and potentials related to AI in the region, in a session entitled: “Reclaiming the Algorithms: Feminist Perspectives on AI in SWANA”. Our intervention focused on the lack of regulation amidst a boom of AI adoption and digitization initiatives by governments and the impact of that on Gender Justice, Economic Equality and the climate.
Beyond Big Tech: alternatives, alternatives, alternatives
We would have liked to see more discussions tackling the region’s over-reliance on big tech infrastructure. While many discussions focused on diagnosing this dependency, a few sessions went further: highlighting real efforts to build and test alternatives. These included open-source tools, federated platforms such as Mastodon, and regionally grounded approaches to digital protection. Importantly, they didn’t romanticize these alternatives; they acknowledged the difficulties, but also the opportunities for agency and resilience.
Complementarity as strategy
Limited resources remain a major concern for civil society across the region. But what emerged clearly is that complementarity isn’t just an ethical stance, but a strategic necessity. Partners emphasized the importance of coordinating roles, avoiding duplication and sharing resources in ways that strengthen the ecosystem as a whole.
The work ahead will require coordination, not competition.
What’s next?
As we return from this convening, we carry a sense of collective possibility. We’ve seen how civil society actors across the region are resisting, rebuilding, and reimagining. And we believe that part of our role is to help amplify those efforts by sharing what we learn, building on others’ experiences, and finding ways to make the invisible visible.