The Dangerous Amplification of Hatred: How Social Media Fuels Social Division and Political Instability
Social media has rapidly transformed how information is disseminated, bridging vast distances and enabling unprecedented access to global news and political discourse. However, as much as it has...
Social media has rapidly transformed how information is disseminated, bridging vast distances and enabling unprecedented access to global news and political discourse. However, as much as it has revolutionized communication, social media’s unchecked power has proven to destabilise societies worldwide. The “power” of platforms like Facebook, X(Twitter) and TikTok in exacerbating violence and political polarization has been starkly evident in recent years. The exposure to social media in information-hungry, heterogeneous, and underdeveloped societies is relatively more vulnerable than the rest of the world. In South Asia, the example of Myanmar is important in this context, where Facebook perpetuated hate speech to increase viewership but with dire socio-political consequences. Exploring the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar is important as recently a similar dynamic is probably unfolding in Pakistan, another South Asian country, with political forces using digital platforms to drive deepening societal rifts. The common thread in these cases is the amplification of harmful narratives and misinformation facilitated by algorithms designed to maximize user engagement without regard for the social consequences.
The Rohingya crisis in Myanmar provides one of the clearest examples of how social media can catalyze violent outcomes. When Myanmar began transitioning from military rule in 2010, hopes were high for a more democratic future. The Rohingya, a Muslim minority in a predominantly Buddhist country, had long faced persecution, but the end of military control raised hopes for greater equality. Facebook, an integral platform for Myanmar’s internet use, was initially seen as a tool for positive change. However, as Facebook’s user base exploded to around 20 million by mid-2018, the platform began to serve as a breeding ground for hate. Without editorial control or moderation, Facebook allowed the rapid spread of inflammatory content that stoked ethnic tensions, particularly between Buddhists and Muslims.
The situation worsened when Facebook’s algorithms, designed to maximize user engagement by promoting content that generated strong emotional reactions, began to amplify hateful speech. Posts accusing the Rohingya of being illegal migrants or terrorists circulated widely. These posts painted the Rohingya as a threat to the Buddhist majority, framing them as outsiders seeking to displace native Burmese. The algorithmic prioritization of such content led to a dramatic increase in engagement on the platform, with Facebook’s total viewership growing from 100 million to 1 billion hours of engagement. This digital engagement, however, came at a great cost. The unchecked spread of hate and incitement culminated in violent clashes, with more than 750,000 Rohingya fleeing to Bangladesh and thousands killed. The United Nations labelled these acts as ethnic cleansing, a chilling testament to the consequences of allowing social media to function without appropriate safeguards.
Facebook’s failure to moderate the content, particularly in Burmese, further fueled the flames of hatred. In 2018, it was revealed that Facebook lacked the infrastructure to effectively handle the deluge of hate speech in Myanmar’s local language, allowing nationalist groups and military officials to propagate dangerous propaganda with impunity. This failure to curb harmful content played a critical role in the violence that ensued, exposing the risks of social media when it operates in fragile political environments without robust regulation or accountability.
While the situation in Myanmar was marked by ethnic violence, Pakistan’s political landscape is currently grappling with its own form of digital polarization. The rise of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), led by former Prime Minister Imran Khan, has seen the party strategically use social media to engage with the public and bypass traditional media gatekeepers. However, much like in Myanmar, this unregulated use of social media has fostered significant political division. PTI’s social media campaigns often include content that undermines state institutions, particularly the military and the judiciary, accusing them of interference in political matters and undermining democracy. The party’s social media presence has become a vehicle for spreading misinformation, fueling mistrust in state institutions, and escalating political tensions.
PTI’s use of social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook aligns with the concept of Post-truth—the process by which certain narratives are internalized as self-evident truths. In this case, PTI has constructed a narrative framing the military as an obstacle to democratic progress while positioning itself as a champion of the people. Repeated exposure to this narrative has led to a “us versus them” mentality among PTI’s supporters, further deepening political polarization. The consequences of this digital polarization are evident in the online harassment of journalists, political opponents, and anyone who challenges the party’s narrative. This climate of hostility, reminiscent of the environment in Myanmar, undermines social cohesion and poses serious risks to Pakistan’s political stability.
The role of social media in amplifying these divides in both Myanmar and Pakistan is not incidental but a direct consequence of platform design. Both cases highlight the dangers of algorithms prioritising engagement over accuracy or responsible content moderation. In Myanmar, this led to the spread of hate speech against the Rohingya; in Pakistan, it has deepened political divides. In both instances, the lack of adequate regulation and content moderation allowed harmful narratives to flourish unchecked. Facebook, in particular, failed to manage content in both regions, whether due to linguistic and cultural barriers in Myanmar or the unchecked proliferation of political disinformation in Pakistan.
The comparison between Myanmar’s ethnic violence and Pakistan’s political polarization underscores the universal dangers of unregulated social media. While the scale of impact may differ—Myanmar’s crisis led to violence and displacement, while Pakistan’s has primarily resulted in political instability—the underlying dynamics are strikingly similar. In both cases, social media has become a tool for fostering division, exploiting existing societal fractures, and erosion of trust in key institutions.
Several measures are necessary to address these challenges. Social media platforms must invest in localized content moderation, employing moderators fluent in local languages and familiar with cultural contexts to effectively identify harmful content. Algorithm transparency is another crucial step. Social media companies must disclose how their algorithms work and take steps to ensure that they do not prioritize divisive or harmful content. In addition, promoting digital literacy is essential to help users critically evaluate online content and resist falling prey to misinformation. Lastly, there must be stronger regulation of political campaigns on social media to prevent the spread of disinformation and foster a more constructive and civil digital discourse.
The lessons from the Rohingya crisis and Pakistan’s political polarization are clear: social media has the potential to both unite and divide societies. While it can be a powerful tool for political engagement and information sharing, its misuse can have catastrophic consequences. The responsibility lies not only with social media platforms but also with governments, civil society, and users to ensure that digital spaces promote, rather than destroy, social cohesion. Only by addressing these issues head-on can we mitigate the risks and harness the positive potential of social media for building a more inclusive and stable society.
Author
