The Kuwaiti diwaniya has often been described as a democratic space, where government and opposition members garner support (Tétreault, 2000). A male-only space in its inception, it also provides networking opportunities for economic elites. As an extension of the home, this private space is protected by constitution and law from interference. While the diwaniya has undergone changes over time, mostly in physical appearance (Chay, 2016), it has not adapted much to societal changes. Women, though marginally included in diwaniyas during elections (see Stephenson, 2011), have still not been integrated into the traditional patriarchal institution, mirroring their inability to penetrate the National Assembly despite political enfranchisement in 2005. Also, the implicit invitational aspect of the diwaniya contributes to its exclusion of “others,” often resulting in echo-chambers rather than spaces for true democratic dialogue. Youth are identified in numerous state reports as crucial drivers for political and, primarily, economic change. Though education is named as the space to secure such change, little has been done to reform the education system, which remains highly centralized, didactic, segregated, and, judging by Kuwait’s consistently low international rankings, ineffective (Fishbein et al, 2021). How to engage Kuwaiti youth remains elusive (Lakshminarayanan, 2020). However, cyberspace allows interactions across groups that segregated schools and diwaniyas prohibit, and young people are creating their own spaces and means of engagement. This paper explores three online and hybrid “diwaniyas” created by Kuwaiti youth. Described by the founders as “the evolution of the diwaniya” and “more democratic diwaniya[s],” each retains crucial features of the traditional institution, while throwing off more constraining elements. We conducted semi-structured interviews with the founders (Patton, 2002), as well as critical discourse analysis of the diwaniyas’ online platforms (Bouvier & Machin, 2018); data analysis uncovered three major themes. First is the three diwaniyas’ retention of the “private” designation despite holding in-person meetings in public and being in the most public arena – the internet. The second theme is inclusion. Women feature much more prominently, particularly as invited speakers and audience members; however, their inclusion is still evolving, with founders aware that they need to do more. In addition, there is more bridging of cultural and socio-economic backgrounds, though expatriates are still largely absent. A final element of these diwaniyas is the founders’ recognition of the need to listen. While traditional diwaniyas were venues to be heard – active listening to “others” is a significant shift in these more democratic spaces.