Following the armed clashes between Thailand and Cambodia, online platforms have emerged as a new battleground for Thais. This new phenomenon is now significantly shaping public sentiment towards the war and the neighbouring country, with the traditional institution, the military, sometimes orchestrating activities behind the curtain.

On 22 December, the Nelson Mandela Center, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, in collaboration with the University’s Faculty of Law , and the Auschwitz Institute, held a seminar on “Peace, Conflict, and Human Rights in the Context of International Law.” The seminar looked at the Thai-Cambodian clashes from an interdisciplinary perspective.

One of the panels featured a discussion on the role of Thai media and the war on social media during the clashes. The speakers included Prof Dr Phansasiri Kularb from Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Communication Arts, Supalak Ganjanakhundee, a researcher and former news editor, Kavi Chongkittavorn, veteran reporter and Senior Fellow of the Institute of Security and International Studies, Chulalongkorn University, and Dr Nirun Pitakwatchara, physician and former National Human Rights Commissioner.

Social media, a new form of warfare

In recent months, social media warfare from the Thai side related to the Thai-Cambodian conflict has been intense. Dr Phansasiri observed that the first group to initiate online communication and encourage the public to use several hashtags was the military. Apart from the hashtags, certain narratives were promoted, such as the history and the claims from the military that Cambodia initiated the war. All of the narratives and hashtags were aimed at countering Cambodian netizens.

As tensions escalated into armed clashes, the rhetoric grew increasingly aggressive, culminating in calls to “destroy Cambodia completely.” As a result, the overall direction of online sentiment in Thailand shifted away from peaceful approaches.

This could be perceived as another form of warfare. While soldiers on the frontline were engaged in armed confrontation, netizens were fighting rhetorical battles on social media platforms. This was facilitated by the development of information technology enabling members of the general public to interact directly with one another.

Social media platforms also tend to corral users into echo chambers, exposing them primarily to content that aligns with their views and perceptions of the conflict. Users are more likely to encounter only perspectives that reinforce their own bias, rather than balanced information.

Most importantly, information technology helps narrow the gap between the military and the general public by allowing real time information sharing. The public feels closer to the actual warfare, which leads to the unconscious acceptance of the military’s narrative, even though ordinary people were not physically present on the frontlines.

Anyone can be a content creator, with algorithms amplifying visibility among groups that share similar perspectives. In Thailand, a clear example is a Facebook page “Kongthap bok than krasae” (The army keeps up with trends), which describes itself as presenting military-related stories. Despite the anonymity of its administrators, the page has been so popular that mainstream media outlets cite its information in their news coverage.

However, major concerns have been raised. Even as both countries enter a ceasefire deal, distrust persists. Dr Phansasiri noted that the content generated during these periods will remain as “digital residue” on online platforms, ready to be reused at any time. In the long term, this poses serious challenges to peacebuilding efforts.

Apart from the general public, the mainstream media also became involved in online warfare by adopting the military’s hashtags, even for unrelated content. The professor observed that nowadays the media operates as a business driven by engagement. The use of hashtags and the coverage of hot issues may be motivated by commercial incentives. At the same time, the motivation inadvertently contributes to the legitimacy of the war itself.

Online warfare also embeds the military’s way of thinking into people’s everyday lives. In this context, citizens have dual roles in the online war. On the one hand they become civilian soldiers, while remaining consumers of information about the war and national security produced by the military.

With Dr Phansasiri pointed out three key observations regarding this phenomenon. First, the military has been able to significantly reduce the costs of its traditional information operations. It can now carry out these operations openly, without facing scrutiny as in the past. In addition, the military has gained support through influencers and self-identified patriots who were delighted to amplify their narratives.

Second, the government is able to legitimize military action without the need to provide an explanation or seek broad public approval as in the past. This is evident during the conflict where the budget for military operations was easily approved.

Finally, media outlets, motivated by commercial incentives, have turned the Thai-Cambodian conflict into a commodity to incite public emotions and serve as entertainment rather than reinforce public understanding. As a result, only alternative perspectives circulated online.

Kavi observed that the Thai media has exercised freedom with limited responsibility when it comes to covering the Thai–Cambodian conflict. Coverage often featured provocative questioning, personal views, and emotive language aimed at boosting engagement, with limited fact-checking during the information war.

He emphasized that self-regulation has become crucial for Thai media, and that editors in newsrooms, particularly in the mainstream media, bear greater responsibility. Producers also play a key role in deciding who appears on news programmes, and should ensure that news coverage does not feature only selected perspectives, but a diverse set of information from different stakeholders.

Manufactured conflict

Meanwhile, Supalak asserted that the current conflict has been manufactured by the Thai military, and has shaped narratives on border security and perceived threats from Thailand’s neighbouring countries. The military has also been able to control information through a close network of reporters or even unofficial military pages where it could completely set the tone and determine the narrative. Supalak emphasized that this did not come about naturally, but was deliberately constructed.

Even though the Thai government also shaped public narratives through the media, in some cases, the media itself created them independently. The Thai media often select from interviews only what they are looking for, regardless of whether it is in line with what the interviewees intended.

In some cases, the severity of the violence was downplayed through euphemistic language, such as using the word “serving eggs” instead of “bombing” in news reports.

The media has become a battleground of discourse. Several reports claimed that the Thai military regained “several square kilometres of territory” during the fighting with Cambodia. But the actual area was merely 2.9 square kilometres, with hundreds of billions of baht spent. Media coverage further amplified this narrative by claiming that the regained territory comprised 80–90% of what was desired.

These news reports show how imaginary territorial losses are constructed and repeatedly reproduced in public discourse.

Meanwhile, Nirun placed the issue in the broader context, saying that the underlying issue is that the media has been used as a political weapon. When it comes to issues related to nationalism, whether the Thai-Cambodian conflict or any conflict with other neighbouring countries, the media is a ready to use tool.

Nirun noted that structural issues, particularly related to state power, need to be reformed. The recent conflicts were merely political theatre that helped legitimize the military, a long-standing actor in information operations.

Despite these challenges, Nirun expressed optimism that democratic mechanisms, though flawed, still offer space for political change in Thailand.