  WhatsApp groups have become a hotbed for the propagation of harmful content
including misinformation, hate speech, polarizing content, and rumors,
especially in Global South countries. Given the platform's end-to-end
encryption, moderation responsibilities lie on group admins and members, who
rarely contest such content. Another approach is fact-checking, which is
unscalable, and can only contest factual content (e.g., misinformation) but not
subjective content (e.g., hate speech). Drawing on recent literature, we
explore deliberation -- open and inclusive discussion -- as an alternative. We
investigate the role of a conversational agent in facilitating deliberation on
harmful content in WhatsApp groups. We conducted semi-structured interviews
with 21 Indian WhatsApp users, employing a design probe to showcase an example
agent. Participants expressed the need for anonymity and recommended AI
assistance to reduce the effort required in deliberation. They appreciated the
agent's neutrality but pointed out the futility of deliberation in echo chamber
groups. Our findings highlight design tensions for such an agent, including
privacy versus group dynamics and freedom of speech in private spaces. We
discuss the efficacy of deliberation using deliberative theory as a lens,
compare deliberation with moderation and fact-checking, and provide design
recommendations for future such systems. Ultimately, this work advances CSCW by
offering insights into designing deliberative systems for combating harmful
content in private group chats on social media.
