Employing PR strategists and creatives: Elite strategists use marketing techniques to align campaign objectives with consistent messaging through “branding” and employ locally informed creative writers, who “weaponize popular vernaculars to maximize the reach of social media posts.”22 Leveraging digital influencers: Anonymous influencers and key opinion leaders (celebrities, pundits, etc.) commanding between 50,000 and 2 million followers) capitalize on popular culture trends and disseminate manufactured narratives through Twitter (via trending rankings) and Facebook.23 Amplifying through community-level fake operators: Sub-contracted workers amplify messaging and localize narratives using pre-drafted, script-based messaging, predetermined schedules for media blasting and click strategies. Engaging grassroots intermediaries: Fan page moderators, unpaid volunteers and members of political organizations drive real grassroots engagement with disinformation by manufacturing “illusions of engagement”. Impacts and implications Despite efforts by Rappler and others to shore up free speech and provide counter-narratives to the proDuterte propaganda machine, Duterte continues to use misinformation and coordinated disinformation campaigns to obfuscate controversial policies and practices, such as the war on drugs. The Philippines is now teeming with fake news, and other political agents are adopting, adapting and scaling up the digital disinformation model, which thrives on an unregulated digital advertising industry, exploits the mechanisms of social media to control narratives, and harms not only journalists and political opponents but also local workers used as active agents of disinformation. Case Study 3: Digital Hate Speech — Intercommunal Violence in Myanmar Social media platforms can act to amplify hateful, dangerous speech in fragile contexts, where rumors, misinformation and disinformation can play a role in inciting intercommunal, electoral or other forms of violence. Extra-factual sources of information contribute to this problem and are often amplified by social media. Digital hate speech has driven anti-Muslim sentiment in Myanmar and been directly implicated in fomenting intercommunal violence. Weaponization via digital hate speech While hate or dangerous speech has traditionally been propagated by traditional media such as radio or television or through in-person gatherings, the rapid proliferation of mobile phones and internet connectivity and the inherent technological and psychological features of social media platforms magnify these risks.24 In today’s digital environment, every individual has the capacity and agency to develop, disseminate and 22 Ong and Cabañes, 45. 23 Ibid, 34. 24 Svetoka, 5-6; Brandon Paladino, “Democracy Disconnected: Social Media’s Caustic Influence on Southeast Asia’s Fragile Republics” (Brookings Institute: 2018), 7-8; Eran Fraenkel, “A Critical Analysis of Digital Communications and Conflict Dynamics in Vulnerable Societies” (Internews: 2014), 2, 10-11; Nils Weidmann, “Communication, Technology, and Political Conflict: Introduction” Journal of Peace Research (2015)264; Deen Freelon, “Personalized Information Environments and Their Potential Consequences for Disinformation” in Understanding and Addressing the Disinformation Ecosystem (Annenberg School of Communication: 2017), 38, 60; Norman Vasu, et al, “Fake News: National Security in the Post-Truth Era” (RSIS: 2018),10-11; Gregory Asmolov, “The Disconnective Power of Disinformation Campaigns,” “Contentious Narratives: Digital Technology and the Attack on Liberal Democratic Norms” Journal of International Affairs Vol. 71, No. 1.5 (2018), 32) MERCY CORPS The Weaponization of Social Media: How social media can spark violence and what can be done about it 11