Whitten-Woodring et al. 15 most common feedback we received was that the Rohingya were intruders. Only a very small fraction of the people we spoke with saw them as victims. Many said the situation was complicated and showed little sympathy for the Rohingya. This is interesting because Facebook users were exposed to a greater variety of perspectives than nonusers. Non-users relied more on state media and the radio to get information. Yet, both groups communicated similarly hostile narratives justifying the violence the Rohingya experienced. This may indicate that hostility toward the Rohingya is communicated everywhere: in state media, in face-to-face communication, and on Facebook. Although we did not find large differences between users and non-users, we believe that Facebook played a role in the Rohingya crisis. Before Facebook became widely available, people in Myanmar relied on person-to-person communication, often in teashops, to get their uncensored information (Oak and Brooten 2019). The availability of online communication did not close down the teashops or prevent people from talking to each other offline. Therefore, it is plausible that the vitriol against the Rohingya expressed on Facebook quickly makes its way from Facebook into offline communications, a phenomenon observed in the United States (Druckman et al. 2018). People who are receptive to extreme speech share what they read or see on Facebook via face-toface communication. There already is evidence that our offline milieus are politically more polarized than our online environments (Gentzkow and Shapiro 2011). Conclusion Broadly speaking, our findings are consistent with previous research. Hutchison et al. (2016) show that the combination of social intolerance and media freedom is associated with increased likelihood of civil conflict. Our data reveal that people who use Facebook are likely to be exposed to more extreme messages (both pro and antiRohingya). Consequently, Facebook has the potential to contribute to further polarization in Myanmar. The effect of increased polarization may result in increased violence toward marginalized groups like the Rohingya due to several factors: As our literature review has shown, various groups are struggling to gain political influence in Myanmar as it transitions toward democracy, including a group of nationalist monks who have been quite hostile toward the Rohingya. Furthermore, the Rohingya have a history of marginalization and lack access to the full protections that citizenship would offer. Moreover, because Myanmar is not a fully developed democracy, the country lacks the kind of institutions that would protect vulnerable minorities, including a media establishment that can effectively act as a check on the government. When considering the social and political conditions under which Facebook was unleashed in Myanmar, it seems that Facebook was negligent. At the very least Facebook prioritized the expansion of its network without appearing to consider the consequences of doing so. While it is clear that Facebook did not cause the social cleavages that became so salient on the platform, it may have abetted their violent clashes. Yet, Facebook has also given the people of Myanmar unprecedent access to information and diverse perspectives. In other words, Facebook may truly be “medicine if you know how to use it, and poison if you don’t.”