4 M. THE-THITSAR racial hatred, mobilize the public, and justify combat operations and communal violence.17 Most studies about Facebook reveal the platform’s role in fostering increased racial tension through spreading hate speech.18 However, limited attention has been paid to the significance and implications of Facebook language policies for speakers of minority languages. Myanmar’s sudden military coup in February 2021, which saw the ouster and arrest of elected NLD leaders and a new junta seizing power, has upended the social media landscape in the country. In the time since, the military has imposed internet shutdowns while engaged in a running crackdown on protesters that has seen more than 700 people killed in the time since.19 Members of the public have responded on Facebook and social media platforms by changing their profiles to obscure their identity and blocking fellow users with opposing views. The coup has also escalated and intensified communication among protesters, including ethnic minorities, who have managed to circumvent the military’s attempts to control and restrict internet access by using Facebook to organize anti-coup protests, and to share information on the atrocities committed by the military.20 Language policy in ethnically diverse countries Language serves as ‘the repository of a group’s collective identity,’21 particularly in multiethnic countries where ethnic identity is highly politicized and polarized. Language and religious identities are ‘the most common and most powerful ethnic markers, [which] determines who is and who is not a member of the group, and what the boundaries of the group are.’22 The thriving of a particular language means the survival of culture, identity and dignity for that group.23 Traditionally, both the cultural and utility value of language are shaped by states through their language policies. States tend to adopt and prioritize languages spoken by the majority group at the expense of minorities, which sometimes results in ethnic violence, separatism and civil wars.24 Most of the world’s long-lasting conflicts are rooted in government policies that adopt homogenous and exclusionary cultural and social policies in the name of the nation or state building,25 based on an idea of forging single citizenry despite ethnic or cultural diversity.’26 Many governments adopt different language policies that have long-term impacts on inter-ethnic relations in these countries. For instance, Indonesia has more than 700 spoken languages,27 but the government avoided potential conflicts by adopting Bahasa Indonesia or Riau Malay, a language not belonging to any major ethnic or racial group of Indonesia, but a standardized form of a particular dialect of the Malay language, as a national language.28 However, Indonesia officially recognized major languages, such as Javanese and Sundanese, which were respectively spoken by 42–48% and 15% of the population,29 as official languages of regions or islands where they constitute a majority. In some post-colonial countries like India, Sri Lanka and South Africa, English is adopted as an official language in government courts and state legislatures to minimize conflicts among ethno-linguistic groups, especially in areas where no native language has a large enough reach to justifiably be used as a principal means of communication. Languages spoken by a majority group within a country are nonetheless most often recognized as the national or state language, giving socio-economic and political