The relationship between Belgrade and Pristina is still shaped by an unresolved past: the way events from 1998–1999 are remembered and interpreted is crucial for political trust and ev- eryday coexistence. Specific cases such as the events in the village of Račak (January 1999)— described by some as a massacre of civilians and by others as the outcome of an armed clash and political manipulation—remain points of deep disagreement, both in academic research and in public debates.1 Similarly, the 1999 NATO bombing holds a place of trauma and vio- lation of sovereignty in Serbian memory, while in the Albanian narrative it is often seen as a necessary protection of civilians under repression. These opposing interpretations are not confined to textbooks and archives—they spill into everyday speech and influence how young people perceive themselves, “the others,” and the possibility of cooperation.
Digital networks accelerate and amplify this dynamic. Young people in Serbia and in Koso- vo and Metohija today predominantly learn about the past through TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube, where algorithms encourage the virality of content that elicits a strong emotional response, thereby fueling echo chambers: young people are more likely to see confirmations of their existing beliefs than opposing arguments. 2 The experience of 2020 made this visible during the pandemic: conspiracy theories (from “5G networks spread the virus” to “interna- tional actors are using the crisis to subjugate the region”) spread faster than fact-checks, influencing attitudes and trust in institutions.3 This pattern—the rapid circulation of simplified, emotive, and often inaccurate narratives—maps onto topics from the 1990s as well.
Why is this a policy problem rather than merely a social phenomenon? Because digitally shaped narratives directly influence political behavior and society’s capacity for dialogue. If the online space is left to disinformation and toxic echo chambers, young people become carriers of prolonged divisions: willingness for encounter, joint projects, and trust in institu- tions decreases. Conversely, if investment is made in the digital space through media and digital literacy, moderated cross-border cooperation, and safety protocols for participants, that same space can become a training ground for learning multi-perspectivity, for co-creat- ing content, and for moving from “parallel truths” to work with facts. This policy paper starts precisely from that premise: how to empower young people—here understood as high-school students (15–18), university students (18–24), and young activists/creators (20–29)—to criti- cally distinguish facts from interpretations, and how to turn digital networks from amplifiers of polarization into infrastructure for dialogue and sustainable reconciliation.
