This series is an interesting view into Meta's internal policies - but historically it lacks a great of context and doesn't explain the roots of the conflict that led to the mass exodus of Rohingya people from Myanmar - in fact the author is almost entirely silent on a key issue that exacerbated the situation: Saudi-Pakistani efforts to run a regime change operation based in the Rohingya region. See Reuters, 2016:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya/myanmars...

> "“Though not confirmed, there are indications he went to Pakistan and possibly elsewhere, and that he received practical training in modern guerrilla warfare,” the group said. It noted that Ata Ullah was one of 20 Rohingya from Saudi Arabia leading the group’s operations in Rakhine State. Separately, a committee of 20 senior Rohingya emigres oversees the group, which has headquarters in Mecca, the ICG said."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ataullah_abu_Ammar_Jununi

That certainly doesn't justify the response of the Myanmar government, but it helps explain it to some degree - imagine the US political response if, say, US border facilities were attacked by an Iran-based group that killed a dozen US border guards.

Entirely neglecting this background is just bad journalism, and also distorts the role of Meta. It's highly unlikely, given this information, that a rigorous censorship strategy on Meta would have changed the outcome much if at all. A more rational conclusion is that the Myanmar government viewed the Rohingya people as a potential base for Saudi/Pakistani-backed terror groups to launch attacks within Myanmar, and that was the root cause of the expulsion, and that social media-based propaganda efforts were not that important in understanding what happened.

I'm also in favor of free speech over censorship - it's very easy to demonstrate in an open conversation that mindless hatred of others based on their ethnic/religious/racial background is simply the product of ignorance and immaturity.