Christina Fink Rakhine State security operations as ethnic cleansing. Yet most residents of Myanmar are not sympathetic.32 Through state media and Buddhist-nationalist Facebook pages, they only saw the accounts of displaced and traumatized Buddhists and Hindus who were justifiably terrified of the Rohingya militants. Thus, many citizens voiced support on Facebook for the counterinsurgency operations. Facebook’s Breach of Ethics What has been Facebook’s response to the use of its platform to spread dangerous speech? In short, too little too late. Facebook’s Community Standards use the term hate speech rather than dangerous speech. They define hate speech as “content that directly attacks people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, [or] religious affiliation,” among other things.33 They state that hate speech is not allowed, “because it creates an environment of intimidation and exclusion and in some cases may promote real-world violence.”34 Much of the anti-Muslim rhetoric posted on Facebook in Myanmar from 2012 onward clearly met these criteria but remained on Facebook. The company should have been on high alert given the volatile context in Myanmar and the high profile of some of those posting. In June 2017, Facebook announced that it would take hate speech in Myanmar and elsewhere much more seriously, asserting that it recognized the importance of understanding local contexts and would increase the number of content reviewers.35 Yet, even in September 2017, Facebook did not immediately react when chain messages circulated on Facebook Messenger—an instant messaging application associated with Facebook—warning Buddhists to arm themselves in preparation for Muslim attacks and vice versa. Local rights- and IT-oriented civilsociety organizations alerted Facebook but four days elapsed between the appearance of the messages and their removal.36 Facebook’s own monitoring mechanisms had apparently not caught the messages and responded slowly even after being notified. At the same time, Facebook may be applying uneven policies in Myanmar. Ultranationalists such as Wirathu were able to propagate hate speech on their Facebook pages with little consequence, but Rohingya bloggers have claimed that Facebook has been quick to suspend or close their accounts for posting graphic photographs documenting the military’s human-rights abuses and voicing criticism of the military.37 As of mid-2018, Facebook did not have a content-monitoring office in Myanmar; its Burmese language content reviewers lived abroad.38 In an April 2018 open letter, concerned civil-society groups called for the company to be much more transparent regarding its monitoring mechanisms, policies, and actions.39 In June 2018, Facebook blacklisted two ultranationalist monks and the largest Buddhist 48