12 M. SCHISSLER Figure 2. Circa 2016–17. example, the organization Graphika analyzed content posted by pages and groups that Meta had removed due to “coordinated inauthentic behavior.” The section of the report on “disinformation and dangerous speech” includes a post attacking a BBC journal­ ist, with photographs of him and a caption calling him a “traitor” for his reporting about the Rohingya (Figure 4). A particularly powerful illustration comes from the report Hate Speech Ignited, jointly published by twenty-two Myanmar civil society organizations and prepared in partner­ ship with the Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School. Ignited stands apart from other research because it did not begin by first defining its parameters for research, such as by offering a definition of “hate speech,” and then gathering a corpus to match. Instead, the research for Ignited involved a series of collaborative discussions among thirty-five activists who “have been or are at risk of being targeted by ultranation­ alist groups as a result of their work and/or their identity as ethnic and religious literacy,” Internews, Media and Conflict in Myanmar: September 30-November 24, 2013, 2013, 25; or failures on the part of Meta, IIFFMM, 341–2; Steve Stecklow, “Why Facebook Is Losing the War on Hate Speech in Myanmar,” Reuters, 15 August 2018. Some reports did include examples that were identified for their effects on the in-group, but these were linked to generalized impacts such as “hate speech fatigue,” Brad Ridout et al., Mobile Myanmar: The Impact of Social Media on Young People in Conflict-Affected Regions of Myanmar (Yangon: Save the Children Myanmar and the University of Sydney, 2019), 15; or consequences for groups said to warrant special protection, such as journalists, human rights defenders, activists, or political parties, Eaint Thiri Thu, “Covering Rakhine: Journal­ ism, Conflict and Identity,” in Myanmar Media in Transition, 229–38; Léa Ronzaud et al., “Myanmar Inauthentic Behav­ ior Takedown,” Takedowns (New York: Graphika, October 2020), 32; Center for Advanced Defense Studies (C4ADS), Sticks and Stones: Hate Speech Narratives and Facilitators in Myanmar (2016), 8; PEN Myanmar, Hate Speech: A Study of Print, Movies, Songs and Social Media in Myanmar (Yangon, 2015), 12–13, 22; or rights to freedom of expression or association, BSR, Human Rights Impact Assessment: Facebook in Myanmar, 24 October 2018; IIFFMM, 339. In a few cases, research identified nationalist groups using Facebook to dominate the public sphere in Myanmar, yet still cen­ tered their analysis on “hate speech” about the victim out-group, Progressive Voice et al., Hate Speech Ignited: Under­ standing Hate Speech in Myanmar, October 2020, passim; Victoire Rio, The Role of Social Media in Fomenting Violence: Myanmar (Tokyo: Toda Peace Institute, 2020), 12; C4ADS, Sticks and Stones, 27–9, 38.