After the last seven years of reform, initiated by the Thein Sein government, the traditional society of Myanmar has transformed into a more digitally-augmented, networked society. Skipping basic-feature phones, Myanmar’s population went straight to using smartphones. With these advanced phones, most mobile-equipped residents have extended their communication boundaries and altered their networks with the help of social media, and especially Facebook. Myanmar has roughly 20 million Facebook users—approximately 40 per cent of its population.

As Facebook penetration increases, news consumption practices also change. Social media, and especially Facebook, has become a main source of information for Myanmar’s netizens. Facebook has become a place for people in Myanmar to share ideas, customs, culture and anger; it is also a place where individuals can mobilize users, inflaming hate speech or furthering problems of dehumanization. As is well-known, Facebook admitted that it failed to prevent the incitement of “offline violence” in Myanmar on its platform in the recent 62-page independent report from the non-profit organisation Business for Social Responsibility.

However, Facebook is not only a place for citizens to share their anger, but also to call for justice across borders, as in the case of the Koh Tao murder trial in Thailand, where smartphones and social media offered people in Myanmar the chance to take action. In 2015, Myanmar migrant workers Zaw Lin and Win Zaw Htun were sentenced to death for the murder of British backpackers Hannah Witheridge and David Miller. Not only Myanmar but also Thai residents criticised the verdict because of the controversial investigation process. Many social media users in Myanmar followed the case closely on the Thai Facebook page CSI LA, which was highly critical of the proceedings. The anger reached its highest point as some users posted the signboard of restaurants in Myanmar with signboards saying “the shop prohibits selling food to Thai tourists until Win and Zaw released.” Later, users organized a demonstration in front of the Thai embassy in Yangon. Currently, the case is under appeal.

Moreover, social media has increased the political participation of the greater population. Recently, dentist Soe Thu Ra Zaw posted about a series of experiences at a compulsory training session for mid-level civil servants at the northern branch of the Central Institute of the Civil Service. He criticized the rules and regulations of the trainings, anti-Muslim speech, and the distribution of propaganda. His posts went viral and were widely shared on Facebook and discussed online. As a result, Soe Thu Ra Zaw was placed under investigation by a team of top health officials. The public stood together with him and against the investigation. In the end, the minister of health promised that they would not take action against Soe Thu Ra Zaw.

This article acknowledges the devastating impact of social media in Myanmar, but argues that social media can also be a bridge for connectivity or constructive interaction, depending on the intention of the user. In the case I describe here, the connections are between the Shan and the larger Thai community, with whom they share ideas, culture and self-representation, which can contribute to the development of their society. Moreover, the article will explore how social media creates a space for self-representation and cultural competence for silenced and oppressed residents, with the help of modern social technologies such as Facebook and YouTube. This allows them to express (and contest) their dehumanization under the dominant social relations, and to build mutual understanding.

These two societies (Shan and Thai) engaged with one another in the past through Thai soap operas. Jirattikorn’s 2008 article, for example, examines “the roles of transnational media in the lives of Shan communities in Burma with a focus on their consumption of Thai satellite television, the main window to the outside world available to them.” However, as Schroeder has recently argued, “theories that were suited for traditional communication are no longer suited to digital media.” We can see how even as traditional media still dominates, the emergence of new technologies creates more channels for Shans (the consumers of Thai television) to become self-producers. This allows them to engage with larger audiences living in Thailand, similar to how Castells has suggested that the internet is diminishing the “traditional distinctions between producers and users [former viewers and audiences]” in his 2009 book, Communication Power.