Facebook and the Rohingya genocide deniers

Facebook seems to have played an important role in denying the Rohingya Genocide. This article digs deeper into this phenomenon and tries to answer if and how the Rohingya genocide deniers have used Facebook to spread their narratives and what kind of arguments do they used to support their claims? 

Back to top

The Rohingy Genocide and the post-truth era

We live in a post-truth era. The era “in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” (Oxford Dictionaries, n.d.) Within this climate where there is an enormous indifference to the truth itself, it is very important for (among others) academics to turn their attention to the main sources of misinformation, fake news and propaganda: to social media.

Facebook, Twitter and other similar “new institutions have transformed the nature of communication, putting out vast masses of unedited, undigested, uncontrolled information and, more importantly, misinformation out into the public arena.” (Evans, 2017)So, it comes as no surprise that in August 2018, when the United Nations issued a report alleging that the Myanmar military intentionally carried out genocide against the Rohingya Muslims minority in Rakhine state, they also challenged the role of Facebook in connections to these events (Newton, 2018):

“The role of social media is significant. Facebook has been a useful instrument for those seeking to spread hate, in a context where, for most users, Facebook is the Internet. Although improved in recent months, the response of Facebook has been slow and ineffective.” (Human Rights Council, 2018: p. 14)

This report was the continuation of the accusations of the UN which started in the spring of 2018, “when the chairman of the U.N. Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar told reporters that Facebook had played a 'determining role' in spreading hate speech.” (Newton, 2018) Although Facebook has done a lot ever since to remove a huge amount of profiles and posts, which promote the hate speech and the Rohingya genocide denials, it did not put an end to this practice. Facebook still remains the main platforms for many haters and deniers alike to spread their message, especially through propaganda, fake news and social media bubbles.

Nowadays, just one Facebook post or a Tweet can cast doubt on or even change an entire narrative of events

What is interesting to see in the case of the Rohingya genocide denials on Facebook is actually two separate dynamics that emerged in recent years. On the one hand, we have the denial of individual Facebook users, who operate in a sort of a social media bubble of denial where likeminded people gather to share their own beliefs, opinions and experience.

On the other hand, there is the deliberate denial by Myanmar’s military officials, which is very systematic and organized. In this case Facebook served as a governmental instrument to spread fake news, propaganda, hate and violence in order to justify the actions against the Rohingya Muslims. Even though their arguments and motivation behind the denials might vary, nevertheless both groups see Facebook as their main platform “to put their obnoxious opinions before the public as if they were statements of the truth.” (Evans, 2017)

The aim of this paper is to explore how these Rohingya genocide deniers use Facebook to spread their narratives and what kind of arguments they use to support their claims. In order to analyze this, concepts and theories about post-truth, the production of knowledge and conspiracy theories will be used in combination with literature on genocide denials.

Back to top

The post-truth era and the social media bubble of Rohingya genocide denial

“Today, access to informative content, as well as its immediacy and volume, has no precedents. The impact of digitalization in the world of communications has brought about a revolution in a way that people can produce information themselves.” (Gooch, 2017: p. 14)

This new era ended the state's monopoly over the production and legitimization of knowledge allowing other parties (individuals, marginalized groups, laymen, etc.), who are maybe less legitimate to produce knowledge, to contribute to this practice as well. Especially on the Internet forums and social media platforms knowledge of different orders of visibility is intertwined. (Hanell and Salö, 2017) This environment also allowed marginalized knowledge to migrate from the fringes of society to the mainstream. After all, misinformation, fake news, conspiracy theories and even genocide denials are not new phenomen; however, their impact on individuals and society alike and their visibility changed drastically with the rise of the Internet.

What is so interesting and at the same time alarming about this post-truth era is the interpretation and relevance of the truth. “[P]ersonal beliefs—which for many are irrefutable— have gained strength in the face of logic and facts, and have become established as assumptions shared by society, causing bewilderment in public opinion.” (Llorente, 2017: p. 9) Within this climate, traditional media are losing authority over knowledge production due to the popularity of social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and many more. Nowadays, just one Facebook post or a Tweet can cast doubt on or even change an entire narrative of events, like for example the narrative of a genocide.

And while the old gatekeepers, like traditional media or television, are no longer in the way since online users “are now master and authors of their own informative environment” (Prego, 2017: p. 20), a new problem arose; a bubble of isolation “in which people are exposed only to opinions and information that conform to their existing beliefs.” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.)

In researching Rohingya genocide denial, the best approach proved to be to simply open Facebook and type in the search box the words “Rohingya genocide”. Already with the first search results I landed right in the middle of a social media bubble of Rohingya genocide denials. The more I read, the more this denial bubble expanded. And once you are in this bubble of denial, you can easily be lost in it.

The articles, which try to establish the real facts of the Rohingya genocide and are directly opposing the denial narratives, are immediately criticized and discredited by the deniers to confirm that their own version of events is the only truth. One Facebook user left a similar observation under a Rohingya genocide article, shared by Dhaka Tribune on Facebook (Dhaka Tribune, 2017):

Yet these comments do not discourage deniers. In fact, they only make them even more determined to prove their point. For instance, just a few comments below the same article from Dhaka Tribune (2017), the deniers do show up to express their hate about the Rohingya genocide narrative. Any attempt that might call into question their opinion just bounces of their denial bubble. Thus, the belief of the denier remains unshaken.

In the digital era where information supposed to be available for everybody, these bubbles are actually a huge step backwards, because they are “the perfect breeding ground for spreading fake news—nowadays called post-truth.” (Prego, 2017: p. 21) And since there is no need to fact-check reality on social media, users who receive or share fake news accept it as true, which only reinforces their beliefs. (Ibid)

As the above examples prove, the facts are not important for the Facebook users who deny the Rohingya genocide. Their indifference to the truth creates a new form of knowledge; a knowledge that is based on their opinions, beliefs and very often their experience. Here is a very good example when the user’s experience takes precedents. It was posted under an article on Facebook, which was exposing fake news about the Rohingya Muslims (The Logical Indian, 2018):

It is very hard to argue with people who use their own experience as evidence to produce knowledge. Since they are so convinced that their version of the events is the only truth, any other real fact or evidence brought to them would be just meaningless. After all, as they say: Seeing is believing.

Back to top

Conspiracy theories, scapegoating and white nationalism

What becomes evident while reading the various Facebook threads related to this issue is that many social media users involved in the discussions cannot even distinguish anymore between facts and fiction. Few of the comments can even be categorized as conspiracy theories. The main narrative of these theories is that a special kind of knowledge is known only to the few privileged people, in this case the legitimate people of Myanmar, while the rest of the world is manipulated by international media, which hides the real truth. Here is just an example of such a comment found under a video clip posted on Facebook (Rohingya Today, 2018):

Nowadays many people tend to think that there is a hidden plot carried out by “them” to control “us”

The biggest issue with conspiracy theories nowadays is that they do not necessarily exist only in the fringes of society. Due to rapid technological developments and the rise of the Internet, they have entered the mainstream culture as well, where likeminded people were able to share their ideas with each other much easier. (Barkun, 2016) The higher order of visibility of these theories also makes such knowledge seem more truthful and people who did not believe in it until now can become more convinced of its legitimacy. (Hanell and Salö, 2017)

Therefore, Facebook flagging these denial comments as most relevant or mostly viewed also adds to their credibility.

A very troubling implication of conspiracy theories becoming valid explanations is the fact that nowadays many people tend to think that there is a hidden plot carried out by “them” to control “us”. This will, however, not lead to any social changes, but rather render people politically passive who try to find scapegoats for every social issue. (Barkun, 2016)

“The violence against the scapegoat must […] be seen as 'good violence', in the sense that for the ritual to be effective, the attackers must be honestly convinced of the rightfulness of their accusations and the legitimacy of the violence afflicted on their targets.” (Van Dijk, 2009: p. 7)

In the case of the Rohingya genocide denial, the scapegoats are the Rohingya Muslims. In fact, the deniers believe that violence against the Rohingya Muslims is perfectly justified since they are seen as the root to all the problems in Myanmar’s society.

However, many deniers feel the need to support these arguments even more by posting additional links in their comment threads. One of these links found under the article of Asia Times (Asia Times, 2017) leads to a website, called “Defend Europa”. At first glance this website seems pretty legitimate since it resembles the mainstream news outlets. Yet, upon closer look it becomes clear that it is actually promoting nationalism, racism and hatred, especially towards Muslims. (Defend Europa, n.d.)

The previously mentioned Facebook link actually opens up an article about Rohingya Muslims, which can be described as a case of interpretative denial. (Cohen, 2002: p. 7) It was written by Alex, who claims to be an Italian student and political activist. This article portrays Rohingya Muslims as the real perpetrators rather than the victims of genocide, which is a classic case of scapegoating. The victims are perceived as the real problem; therefore, their expulsion is the only way to peace. Here is just an example of the author's interpretation of the situation in Myanmar:

“The Myanmar government is certainly not the pillar of democracy or enlightenment but what is happening in Myanmar is not some evil ethnic cleansing based on racism but a firm and strong response to the perpetrated violence of a small minority that refuses to live in peace. Clearly, civilians are getting caught in the crisis but the jihadist knew this would happen and Muslims aren’t new to these tactics, using civilians as human shields. The Rohingya are not innocent, the Burmese people are defending themselves, their country, their identity, their religion, their existence.” (Alex, 2017)

Interestingly the author does not deny that the genocide happened but interprets the facts rather differently. “[It] is not some evil ethnic cleansing based on racism” (Alex, 2017), but what happed is something totally different. In fact, the arguments that he uses to explain the motives behind the Myanmarese government’s actions against Rohingyas can be also understood as rationalizing the events. (Cohen, 2002: pp. 7-8) In his opinion, the “firm and strong response” of the government is after all just a logical reaction to the violent minority which “refuses to live in peace”. (Alex, 2017) The fact that civilians were killed does not carry any moral implications for the author. This is a very common defense mechanism used by implicatory deniers. (Cohen, 2002: p. 8)

“The spread of anti-Rohingya misinformation across Facebook was not merely organic, but the result of systematic and covert exploitation by the military”

The above-mentioned article is written in an academic style and the arguments the author uses can sound pretty convincing, especially to people who do not care about historical facts or the genocide evidence gathered by various organizations such as the UN, ICC or the mainstream media. Yet what is even more concerning is that the arguments used in this article reflect a widespread negative attitude towards Muslim people in general. These attitudes are very similar to the ideas of white nationalists. This ideology has many passionate followers on social media.

A lot of them are convinced that all Muslims are a threat. Therefore, any atrocities committed against Muslims are perceived by these people as justified and necessary to preserve the white supremacy. (Maly, 2019) This ideology is also very similar to conspiracy theories. As it was already pointed out, conspiracy believers think that there is a group of people with a hidden agenda who run the world. In the case of white nationalists, Muslims are seen as the enemy who is trying to take over the world and ruin the ethnic purity of white people. (Ibid)

Since the white nationalists’ ideology plays nicely into the whole conspiracy theory about Muslims being the real threat, it serves as yet another idea which helps reinforce and confirm the beliefs of the online deniers of the Rohingya genocide. Thus, their denial bubble remains intact, while the truth and objective facts become irrelevant.

Back to top

The secret Facebook propaganda of the military

Besides the fact that any kind of online misinformation or fake news posted by individuals poses a serious threat to the truth about the Rohingya genocide, what makes this narrative even more troubling is that “the spread of anti-Rohingya misinformation across Facebook was not merely organic, but the result of systematic and covert exploitation by the military.” (Douek, 2018) According to a reporting done by The New York Times in October 2018, Myanmar’s military has systematically used Facebook for years as an instrument to carry out the genocide of Rohingyas and at the same time to cover it up. Considering the fact that Myanmar is a country where Facebook is the synonym for the Internet, this carefully organized narrative managed to embed itself into the everyday lives of its’ citizens. (Mozur, 2018)

Based on the data gathered by The New York Times (Mozur, 2018), the military’s Facebook campaign was a highly secretive operation which employed more than a hundred military officials and staff members who worked in shifts to create “troll accounts and news and celebrity pages on Facebook and then flooded them with incendiary comments and posts timed for peak viewership.” (Ibid) Additional attention was dedicated to criticize and discredit all kinds of Facebook posts or information that might object to the official military narrative about the Rohingya genocide. (Ibid)

Although many of these fake profiles, blogs and pages were removed by Facebook following the report by the UN, which alleged the indirect involvement of Facebook in the events (Newton, 2018), nevertheless “the breadth and details of the propaganda campaign — which was hidden behind fake names and sham accounts — went undetected.” (Mozur, 2018)

One of the main techniques used in the Facebook campaign of the military involved setting up and carefully maintaining fake profiles and blogs of Burmese entertainers, celebrities and prominent state figures. One such a profile belonged to a fake beauty blogger who had a tendency to frequently propagate information of military nature. Many of these profiles and blogs managed to attract more than a million followers. Those Facebook pages soon became the epicenter of fake news and misinformation. (Mozur, 2017) “Troll accounts run by the military helped spread the content, shout down critics and fuel arguments between commenters to rile people up. Often, they posted sham photos of corpses that they said were evidence of Rohingya-perpetrated massacres.” (Ibid)

Myanmar’s military managed to weaponize social media in order to commit mass atrocities and cover it up by exploiting their own people for it

According to Hanell and Salö, certain types of practices and of knowledge are perceived more credible and legitimate than others due to the social power structures, which stratify knowledge into orders of visibility. What is considered to be more credible and legitimate becomes more visible than others. The knowledge that is produced and considered credible therefore is embedded in the power structure of a society, which can carry the interests of people, groups or individuals that created it. Thus, certain people are considered to have more power to talk about certain topics than others do.

In this case not all types of knowledge are equally accessible or visible to everyone. For instance, marginalized groups who do not participate in the power structures are also unable to participate in the production and legitimization of knowledge. According to this, only the public authorities, the state, people with certain type of power or experts in some fields are able to claim knowledge over a certain topic and to introduce their knowledge as credible and universal. The rise of the Internet however, allowed people to access all kinds of information and at the same time enabled them to produce, negotiate and apply knowledge to concrete situations. (Hanell and Salö, 2017)

However, in the case of Myanmar, the Internet was actually exploited by the military to systematically manipulate the content on social media and spread fake news and misinformation for years. The knowledge that is produced by these practices carries the interests of the military officials. Therefore, they hold a huge power over the production and distribution of the official narrative about the Rohingya genocide.

Due to the massive resources at hand and its unique power position in the production of knowledge, the Myanmarese military managed to carry out the ethnic cleansing of Rohingyas and at the same time, to sustain a structured online denial about its actions. This kind of deliberate, intentional denial on an organized level is built into the official rhetoric of the state. (Cohen, 2002: p. 10) “The social conditions that give rise to atrocities merge into the official techniques for denying these realities – not just to observes, but even to the perpetrators themselves.” (Ibid)

According to The New York Times article (Mozur, 2017), one of the most dangerous parts of the campaign was carried out in 2017, which in a way coincides with the mass exodus of the Rohingya Muslims from Rakhine state. During this online campaign rumors were spread on two fronts: to Buddhist and Muslim groups. At first, private messages were sent out from fake profiles to the Buddhist followers alleging that the Muslims are planning an attack on them. And second, fake news about Buddhist anti-Muslim protests were distributed to the Muslim Facebook communities. (Ibid) “The purpose of the campaign, which set the country on edge, was to generate widespread feelings of vulnerability and fear that could be salved only by the military’s protection.” (Ibid)

What is the most shocking thing about all of this is that Myanmar’s military managed to weaponize social media in order to commit mass atrocities and cover it up by exploiting their own people for it. They achieved this by playing on the people’s emotions. Because “[i]f there are ideas, stories, reports that cause impact and arouse emotions, people will react.” (Weissman, 2017: p. 47) This once again proves that the post-truth era, where emotions have precedents over facts, poses a serious threat not just to the truth itself but to democracy as well.

Back to top

References

Alex. (2017). The lies behind the innocence of Rohingya Muslims. 

Asia Times. (2017). The true origins of Myanmar’s Rohingya. 

Barkun, M. (2016). Conspiracy theories as stigmatized knowledge. Diogenes: pp. 1-7.

Cohen, S. (2002). States of denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering. Cambridge: Polity.

Defend Europa. (n.d.). About us. 

Dhaka Tribune. (2017). Malaysia PM claims he was able to convince Trump on Rohingya crisis. 

Douek, E. (2018). Facebook’s role in the genocide in Myanmar: New reporting complicates the narrative. 

Evans, J. R. (2017). “Denial”: How to deal with a conspiracy theory in the era of ‘post-truth’. 

Gooch, E. (2017). In Pursuit of the Truth. UNO. The post-truth era: Reality vs. perception. 17: pp. 14-15.

Hanell, L. and L. Salö (2017). Nine months of entextualizations. Discourse and knowledge in an online discussion forum thread for expecting parents. In Kerfoot, Caroline and Kenneth Hyltenstam (eds.) Entangled discourses. South-North orders of visibility. London: Routledge: pp. 154-170.

Human Rights Council. (2018). Report of the independent international fact-finding mission on Myanmar (Report No. A/HRC/39/64). 

Llorente. A. J. (2017). The post-truth era: Reality vs. perception. UNO. The post-truth era: Reality vs. perception. 17: p. 9.

Maly, I. (2019). White terrorism, white genocide and metapolitics 2.0. 

Medrán, A. (2017). In the kingdom of post-truth, irrelevance is the punishment. UNO. The post-truth era: Reality vs. perception. 17: pp. 33-35.

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Filter bubble. 

Mozur, P. (2018). A genocide incited on Facebook, with posts from Myanmar’s military. 

Newton, C. (2018). It took a genocide for Facebook to ban a country’s military leadership. 

Oxford Dictionaries, (n.d.). Post-truth. 

Pina, C. (2017). True Friends: Legal Limits of Fake News. UNO. The post-truth era: Reality vs. perception. 17: pp. 41-43.

Prego. V. (2017). Informative bubbles. UNO. The post-truth era: Reality vs. perception. 17: pp. 20-21.

Rohingya Today. (2018). Rohingyas need international protection. 

Scott, J. W. (1991). The evidence of experience. Critical inquiry. 17 (4): pp. 773-797.

The Logical Indian. (2018). Fact check: Gory video of Rohingya Muslims slaughtering hindus & selling their bodies is fake. 

Van Dijk, J. (2009). Free the victim: A critique of the Western conception of victimhood. International review of victimology. 16 (1): pp. 1-33.

Weissman, I. (2017). Truth, transparency and storytelling versus truth. UNO. The post-truth era: Reality vs. perception. 17: pp. 46-47.

Back to top