digital literacy, and counter-speech. In the context of Myanmar and its history of unstable and ineffective laws, these methods of countering hate will be better suited than implementing legal regulation of hate speech. Counter speech, they say, demands that we (both citizens and corporations) have the courage to label hate speech and take action against its spread.20 When it appears that no one is countering hate speech individuals may come to accept the validity of that perspective, vulnerable people are at risk of feeling isolated from society. If a young Muslim comes across a message of Islamophobia on Facebook and sees it has been liked and shared, they are at risk of believing this is the view of the majority. Foxman and Wolf’s encouragement to speak out is therefore important to note in understanding how we counter hatred online. Foxman and Wolf uncover how many individuals and groups use online anonymity and freedom of speech to stream hate on the internet, an unregulated mode of communication, and address the dangers of hate speech citing examples throughout. Chapter one ‘Hate Doesn’t Just Hurt – It Kills’ lists some of the most prominent organisations such as the National Socialist Movement, a neo-Nazi group in the US, and Stormfront, a white supremacist website with a significant internet presence. These examples can be compared to the context of Myanmar in understanding how hate organisations establish an online presence significant enough to have an impact on members of the community. They believe this kind of platform for communicating can allow racists, anti-Semites and bigots to collaborate and plot in ways that were not possible before. Methods to Counter Hate Speech: Interventions to Counter Hate Speech is a report by Strachan based on desk research written for the UK Government’s Department for International Development. Strachan’s primary question is: what evidence is there that programming 20 Foxman and Wolf, (2013) p.42. - 15 -