JOURNAL OF GENOCIDE RESEARCH 23 including in formal and informal print publications, songs and sermons delivered live and via recordings, and changes to the built environment such as through billboards and other signage. Recognizing the significance of content that served the function of in-group policing, whether its primary object of reference was the in-group or the out-group, underlines the importance of studying the effects of encountering content as it accumulates over time and across channels. This would require seeking to understand not individual posts but their aggregates, such as the frequency of encounter with particular practices on Facebook and elsewhere. How often did a given user encounter displays of in-group policing, for example, whether targeting them or others? Once? Twice? Once a month, once a week – daily? Answers to such questions would help clarify the extent to which such practices saturated users’ experience of Facebook and their effects.92 Significant research already indicates that gendered harassment was pervasive on Facebook, for example, particularly for young women. If in-group policing similarly saturated the Face­ book worlds of Myanmar users, in general or for those in specific social positions, frequency of encounter could mutate into the expectation of probability: the lived certainty that sig­ nalling solidarity with the Rohingya would be met with swift response. Such an experience of certainty would underline Facebook’s significance as a means for not just intimidating individuals but projecting the size and uniformity of a community aligned in their exclu­ sion of the Rohingya, and in favour of their destruction. Recognizing the significance of in-group policing on Facebook also has clear conse­ quences for ongoing efforts to secure restitution for Rohingya victims. Advocates in the US, UK, and Ireland have filed three cases against Meta seeking more than $150 billion as remedy for its contributions to genocide,93 echoing efforts to secure reparations for Holocaust victims from private corporations such as railways.94 Thus far, these lawsuits have argued that Meta’s design and management of Facebook contributed to the pro­ liferation of hate speech and misinformation that, in turn, helped cause violence against Rohingya.95 Advocacy organizations have also effectively demonstrated how the algorithms that Meta designed to automate decisions about what content to promote, as well as the option to purchase additional promotion, increased the reach of “hate speech” and other content about the Rohingya.96 This article suggests that advo­ cates should also extend their analyses to the problem of in-group policing. How did content promotion algorithms or other features of Facebook’s design contribute to the 92 93 94 95 96 These questions contrast to a focus on the effects of individual speakers or utterances, whether made in person, on Facebook, or over other channels. They suggest that, in addition to the relative authority and influence of a given speaker, the aggregate display lends materiality, as Fujii put it, to the community that had previously only been ima­ gined (2021, 2). This bears a strong resemblance to Williams’ theorization of ideology as the saturation of experience. Raymond Williams, Marxism and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 110. Catherine Sanz, “Rohingya refugees move to have claims against Meta heard in Irish court,” Business Post, 24 August 2023; Dan Milmo, “Rohingya Sue Facebook for £150bn over Myanmar Genocide,” The Guardian, 6 December 2021. Sarah Federman, Last Train to Auschwitz: The French National Railways and the Journey to Accountability (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Pres, 2021). Edelson PC & Fields PLLC, “Jane Doe v Meta Platforms,” Class Action Complaint (Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo, December 2021); Victim Advocates International, “Rohingya Refugees Sup­ ported by Victim Advocates International vs. Facebook,” Complaint submitted against Meta Platforms (Dublin: Ireland National OECD Contact Point, December 2021). Amnesty International, The Social Atrocity: Meta and the Right to Remedy for the Rohingya (London, 2022); Global Witness, “Facebook Approves Adverts Containing Hate Speech Inciting Violence and Genocide against the Rohingya,” 20 March 2022; Global Witness, “Algorithm of Harm: Facebook Amplified Myanmar Military Propaganda Following Coup,” 23 June 2021; Rio, The Role of Social Media in Fomenting Violence.