Whitten-Woodring et al. 9 Another man similarly noted that Facebook compensates for incomplete coverage by local media: Local media are still not that free [ . . . ]. They still need to be afraid of government. When the Buddhist-Muslim riot happened [ . . . ] police vehicles were just there, but did nothing, neither to prevent nor to intervene. Muslims got badly hit and even killed when they hid in some marshy places and their homes and their mosque burned down. The next day, [the newspaper] provided some photos, but did not dare publish photos of extreme atrocities. This man also argued that while the papers censor some information, “people in villages are posting what is happening there.” Many other people we interviewed also offered examples of how people use Facebook to circumvent the gatekeepers at traditional outlets. A journalist said, I think what is happening in local areas or specific towns is that [ . . . ] formal news media [ . . . ] don’t go that far [ . . . ] So, Facebook fills that gap well, I think. Thus, for many, Facebook offers an important correction to the official narrative. But, so do international media—also available via Facebook. Many people we interviewed, however, did not appreciate the coverage of the Rohingya crisis by international media organizations, despite acknowledging the limitations of domestic sources. They shared opinions similar to those articulated by this Buddhist monk: I don’t really want to see these things happening to both Rakhine and Bengali. But, I think the local media’s coverage, like that of Eleven and Seven Days, was weak. They are not able to highlight what is really happening in Rakhine and to reflect well the feelings of the Myanmar people . . . I can’t really say what is truth here because it is a political thing. Meanwhile, the international news attack Myanmar all around on this issue. They take the side of Rohingya. We discuss the significance of the animosity toward international media further when we review evidence for confirmation bias and selective exposure. Extreme Speech on Facebook and Opinions of the Rohingya Facebook users also noted that the platform can be used to spread disinformation and extreme speech. A young Rohingya woman said, “I often disagree with posts on Facebook. Some posts are discriminating toward women, some toward minorities, including Muslims and Rohingya.” She added that some posts are not easily identifiable as extreme speech because they “don’t use hate words.” As one Bamar user put it, “Facebook improves, educates, creates awareness about politics among people,” and added that most of that information is helpful, but that the platform has also been used to spread “hateful messages against minority groups.” Another man noted, “When I read hate messages or biased news about Muslims and Rohingya, I feel sorry.” A small number of people said they try to counter hateful messages. A Bamar Buddhist said