LENS Essay Series “Targeting TikTok: Adapting Distinction to the Age of Social Media”
In the latest addition to the LENS Essay Series, just-graduated Duke Law 3L Chandler Cole challenges the status quo in her article, Targeting TikTok: Adapting Distinction to the Age of Social Media.
Essentially, she asks: is the law of armed conflict’s treatment of enemy propaganda and disinformation operations in need of re-evaluation given the emergence of powerful and ubiquitous social media platforms used to distribute the material?
As discussed in an earlier post, most countries find dispositive the conclusions of Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). In discussing an attack on the Serbian Radio and Television Station (RTS) during 1999’s Operation Allied Force, the prosecutor asserted that:
Disrupting government propaganda may help to undermine the morale of the population and the armed forces, but justifying an attack on a civilian facility on such grounds alone may not meet the “effective contribution to military action” and “definite military advantage” criteria required by the Additional Protocols (see paras. 35-36, above)…While stopping such propaganda may serve to demoralize the Yugoslav population and undermine the government’s political support, it is unlikely that either of these purposes would offer the “concrete and direct” military advantage necessary to make them a legitimate military objective.
However, in the nearly three decades since the ICTY prosecutor’s assertions we have seen the stunning emergence of advanced communications technology — and especially social media — which has super-empowered not just nation-states, but also non-state actors and even individuals who may be aligned with an enemy belligerent.
Several books, such as LikeWar: The Weaponization of Social Media, and War in a 140 Characters: How Social Media is Re-Shaping Conflict in the 21st Century, detail the pivotal impact that social media can have on contemporary conflicts. As Chandler so aptly puts it, social media “algorithms can shift the tide of conflict.”
In my view, controlling the narrative of today’s conflicts (and social media can be key to doing that) can be more decisive than actual battlefield results. Indeed, it is not just counterfactual to think that today’s social media “weapon” cannot offer “concrete and direct” military advantages, but also dangerously naive.
The traditional law of war position about propaganda and disinformation has been made hopelessly outdated by the transformational technology that makes social media possible. The question is, what to do about it without unnecessarily jeopardizing noncombatants (to include authentic news entities).
This is where Chandler’s truly brilliant essay comes in. She describes today’s social media reach, unpacks the current law, and proposes a sensible (and doable) solution that takes into account the various equities involved in this complicated issue.
You really need to read this one and, again, you can find it here.
Abstract
Here’s the abstract of her Essay:
This Essay explores how modern military information operations—particularly those conducted via social media platforms like TikTok—challenge traditional rules under international humanitarian law (IHL). Drawing on recent conflicts, it argues that the current legal standard for targeting propaganda, which hinges on “incitement,” fails to capture the real-world operational impact of narrative warfare. Instead, the Essay proposes adopting “instigation”—a doctrine also grounded in international criminal law—as the more appropriate threshold. This approach would better align with IHL’s foundational principles of distinction and military necessity, enabling states to lawfully respond to weaponized information campaigns that directly influence battlefield outcomes. It would also better suit traditional targeting frameworks, which require that targets have a direct effect on military operations. In an era where algorithms can shift the tide of conflict, updating the coherence and application of IHL frameworks in this way is not only doctrinally sound but strategically essential.
About the Author
Chandler Cole graduated with her Juris Doctor from Duke University School of Law in 2025. At Duke, she was the Senior Notes Editor for Volume 74 of the Duke Law Journal and was involved in the University’s veteran initiatives. Before law school, Chandler carried on several generations of military service as an Army Engineer officer, leading route clearance missions in Syria and serving as the first female executive officer of the US Army Sapper Leader Course. Soon Chandler will begin her legal career clerking on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, followed by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Remember what we like to say on Lawfire®: gather the facts, examine the law, evaluate the arguments – and then decide for yourself!
