In an age in which social media has become a primary political battleground, a disturbing phenomenon has taken root: the transformation of a political conflict into a commodity. The case of Thai social media influencer Praiwan Wannabut, who has 4.4 million followers on Facebook, serves as a particularly salient and deeply troubling example of this trend.
Recent Facebook posts include one on July 24, the day that fighting broke out between Thai and Cambodian troops along the border, in which he posted a photo of a Swedish Gripen jet fighter, with the caption, “Until Cambodia is defeated and begs to return to negotiation table.” Another post from that day featured a similar photo with the caption, “Can we target 6 bombs on Hun Sen’s house?”, referring to Cambodia’s former prime minister, who has played a prominent role in the recent border dispute. The following day, he posted, “our canons already killed more than 100 Khmer soldiers.”
These recent posts reveal a cynical exploitation of genuine geopolitical tension for personal gain. This phenomenon raises serious questions about the nature of modern nationalism and the ethical decay that occurs when engagement metrics take precedence over human lives.
This issue is particularly pressing given Praiwan’s religious and academic background. Prior to becoming an internet personality, he served for 18 years as a monk, rising to become a celebrated scholar who completed the highest level of Pali studies in Thailand and earned a Master’s degree in both Buddhist studies and law. At one point, he enrolled in a doctorate program in Peace Studies. Ironically, this academic journey, which should have cultivated a deep understanding of non-violence, conflict resolution, and the historical roots of discord, stands in stark contrast to his actions.
The current tension between Thailand and Cambodia is rooted in a history of shifting borders, competing national narratives, and judicial rulings that both sides interpret to their advantage. A true scholar of peace would understand these complexities and use their platform to advocate for diplomacy and reconciliation rather than to amplify calls for confrontation.
Praiwan is sadly not an isolated case. He is but one figure in a broader landscape where influencers, driven by hidden agendas, have turned the ongoing border dispute into a digital battleground. On both sides of the border, social media personalities and content creators have seized on the heightened tensions. Reports have documented how Thai celebrities and online personalities have been pressured to choose between patriotism and neutrality, with some using nationalist rhetoric to gain followers, while others have been criticized for advocating for peace. Concurrently, Cambodian influencers have been accused of spreading fabricated videos and stories aimed at stoking public outrage against Thailand. The monetization of conflict is not the work of a single individual, but a systemic problem where a network of influencers on both sides profits from and perpetuates a cycle of hostility, all under the guise of patriotic duty.
Instead of using his platform to question the military’s role or to advocate for diplomatic solutions, Praiwan chose to align himself with the nationalist narrative, becoming an echo chamber for pro-military sentiment. This shift was a calculated choice to remain within the safe confines of mainstream patriotic discourse, thereby preserving his influence and avoiding the risks that a true critical stance would entail. His newfound militaristic fervor is a testament to the idea that, for some influencers, social justice is a brand to be worn, but which is immediately jettisoned the moment it challenges the fundamental pillars of state power.
The most insidious aspect of this phenomenon is its economic engine. Social media platforms are driven by algorithms that are hard-wired to promote content that elicits strong emotional reactions. Hate, anger, and national pride are among the most potent of these emotions, guaranteeing high engagement rates through likes, shares, and comments. This, in turn, leads to increased ad revenue.
Praiwan’s public bragging about his Facebook income is a chilling demonstration of how social media has created a direct, financial incentive to incite hatred.
For the influencer, war and conflict, far from being matters of human suffering and death, serve as content generators. This system creates a self-perpetuating cycle where the more hateful the content, the more profitable it becomes, all while dehumanizing the “other” and normalizing the idea of violence as a solution. This brand of nationalism, fueled by social media, is particularly dangerous because it is inorganic. It is a manufactured sentiment, a product sold to the public that benefits only a few. This commercialization of patriotism warps the very meaning of national identity, transforming it from a source of shared heritage and pride into a tool for profit.
The dangers of this trend are far-reaching. It corrupts public discourse by replacing thoughtful analysis with emotional rhetoric. It makes a mockery of education and intellectualism by showing that even the most rigorous academic training is no match for the lure of social media profit. Most critically, it erodes the very foundations of democracy and international relations by turning citizens into passive consumers of a conflict they are actively encouraged to participate in from behind a screen.
To combat this, we need a multi-pronged approach. First, there must be a greater push for media literacy education, teaching the public to be skeptical of emotionally charged content and to recognize the difference between genuine information and performative outrage. Second, social media platforms must be held accountable for the content they promote. They need to reform their algorithms to de-prioritize hate and misinformation and be transparent about their monetization policies. Finally, influencers themselves must be called to a higher ethical standard. As public figures with immense reach, they have a responsibility to use their platforms to build bridges, not to burn them down for a paycheck.
The ultimate goal is to create a digital landscape where peace and cooperation are more profitable than conflict and hate, ensuring that the “angels of history” are not silenced by the deafening clang of the cash register.