the capacity of speech to inspire violence. Dangerousness can be estimated according to the following five factors: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) a powerful speaker with a high degree of influence over an audience most likely to react an audience with grievances and/or fears that the speaker can cultivate a speech act understood by the audience as a call to violence a social or historical context propitious for violence an influential means of dissemination Coupled with these factors, conditions for conflict are further maximized in information-poor environments with high levels of ambient fear, anxiety and/or uncertainty, and where civil society institutions and the rule of law are weak or nonexistent.115 Impacts and implications In Myanmar, both misinformation in the form of organic rumors and speculation, and deliberate disinformation have played a significant role in amplifying grievances and triggering violence between groups of differing ethnic and religious identities. Anti-Islamic sentiment and intercommunal violence against Islamic identity groups has been the most visible example, and is linked to the country’s deep Buddhist nationalist project. Buddhist nationalists such as the 969 movement and Ma Ba Tha have exploited social media (particularly Facebook) “to stoke fear, normalize hateful views and facilitate actors of violence,” against identity groups (particularly Muslims, or the ethnic Rohingya) who are perceived and promoted as enemies of Buddhism, or of the State.116 117 Research has documented narratives of Islamic people (particularly the Rohingya) as illegal immigrants, Muslim terrorists and rapists, among other fabricated and incendiary messaging, reflecting the hallmarks of Benesch’s Dangerous Speech.118 , Drivers and amplifiers include the explosion in access to smartphones and the internet — largely through reduction in price of mobile SIM cards and increased telecommunications coverage throughout the country, in addition to Facebook’s controversial internet.org initiatives (to provide low-cost basic internet service) and its zero-rating Free Basics package, essentially ensuring that “Facebook is the internet here.”119 There are several instances of hate speech and misinformation implicated in violence in Myanmar. For example, C4ADS documents how virulent rumors and online hate speech triggered the Mandalay riot of July 2014, in which approximately 20 people were injured, and 2 people were killed.120 More recently, the 115 See Oh and Adkins, 13-14; Bugge, 9-11; and Greenhill and Oppenheim, 2. 116 C4ADS, “Sticks and Stones: Hate Speech Narratives and Facilitators in Myanmar” (2016). 117 Fink writes, “The speakers are highly regarded. The society has struggled with mistrust and violence, and Facebook has become the primary medium of communication. By creating and disseminating images of adversaries through the mass media—and in Myanmar’s case, social media—a group can generate widespread support for the idea that such adversaries cannot remain…” Christina Fink, “Dangerous Speech, Anti-Muslim Violence, and Facebook in Myanmar” in “Contentious Narratives: Digital Technology and the Attack on Liberal Democratic Norms” Journal of International Affairs Vol. 71, No. 1.5 (2018). Fink also points out the emotionally resonant language used, the widespread reach of Facebook, and lack of space and resources for critically accessing information (i.e. weak media institutions). 118 C4ADS, 2016. 119 “By 2018, there were an estimated 16 to 30 million Facebook accounts.4 Today, Facebook is the internet for most people in Myanmar, and it has had a transformative effect on their lives. It has provided them with newfound freedom to obtain information, express themselves, and connect with others.” Fink, 26. See also Paladino, 6-8. 120 C4ADS, 11. MERCY CORPS The Weaponization of Social Media: How social media can spark violence and what can be done about it 49