A new report from MigraPress paints a troubling picture of how migrants are discussed in Morocco’s digital public square. The third edition of the MigraPress Barometer examined 814 Facebook posts and found that nearly six in ten anti-migrant publications contained false information, distorted claims, or misleading content. Even more striking, almost half of the analyzed posts expressed explicit hatred or stigmatization. These are not just abstract statistics; they reflect a climate in which real people—men, women, and children who have left their homes in search of safety, work, or dignity—are being misrepresented, dehumanized, and cast as threats. The report’s authors reviewed 810 posts specifically for misinformation and found that 59.6% of them were built on falsehoods. That means a majority of the anti-migrant narratives circulating on Facebook in Morocco are not grounded in reality. Instead, they are shaped by fear, prejudice, and manipulation. When lies are repeated often enough, they begin to look like truth, and for migrants already navigating uncertain lives, the consequences can be devastating. This is not merely a debate about immigration policy; it is a matter of human dignity, public safety, and social trust.
The report also breaks down the nature and intensity of hostility found in these posts. Of the 814 posts in the corpus, 558 were classified as hostile, with 238 showing high-intensity hostility, 197 showing moderate hostility, and 120 showing low-intensity hostility. In other words, more than three-quarters of hostile posts carried moderate or high levels of negativity, and 42.7% of hostile posts were classified as high intensity. The most common forms of hostility were stigmatization and explicit hate speech, which together appeared in 385 publications, or 47.3% of the total. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a dominant pattern in the online conversation about migrants. The study also found troubling connections between hostility and misinformation. Nearly 79% of publications classified as conspiratorial contained fake news, while 67% of stigmatizing posts and 66.5% of explicitly hateful content were also false or misleading. Even posts that appeared informative were not safe: 39% of them contained false or misleading information. This shows that misinformation is not a footnote to hatred; it is often the gasoline that fuels it. The report also flagged nine publications that contained direct violence or incitement. Nine may seem small in a database of more than eight hundred posts, but in the digital age, it takes only one viral call to violence to trigger real-world harm.
Security and criminality dominate the themes used to frame migrants in Morocco’s Facebook posts, appearing in 45.2% of the entire corpus. This is a powerful and dangerous narrative choice. When migrants are repeatedly associated with crime, violence, and disorder, the public begins to see them not as people in need of protection but as problems to be solved. The second most common theme was culture, identity, and religion, representing 15.4% of posts, followed closely by national sovereignty at 14.5%. Economic and employment concerns accounted for 11.2%, while health and epidemics made up 7.5%. Perhaps most alarming is the role of national sovereignty. The report found that 94.1% of publications discussing national sovereignty fell into hostile categories. The concept of sovereignty, which might otherwise be a legitimate topic of public debate, was frequently weaponized to justify exclusion, discrimination, expulsion, and tighter border controls. Migrants were portrayed as invaders or threats to the nation’s cultural and demographic identity. This rhetorical strategy is effective because it taps into deep anxieties about identity and belonging. By framing migration as a battle over national survival, these posts make hostility seem rational, even patriotic. But behind this framing are people with names, stories, and hopes. Reducing them to threats does more than hurt their reputations; it normalizes cruelty and closes the door to empathy.
The report is also clear about who is being targeted. Migrants and people of African origin were the main subjects of the hostile posts, appearing in 70.8% of the corpus. This category included broad references to sub-Saharan migrants as well as specific nationalities such as Senegalese, Ivorians, Cameroonians, Malians, Sudanese, Chadians, and Ethiopians. The findings show a persistent pattern of racialized hostility directed at African migrants in particular. Women and children were also singled out in disturbing ways. The report highlighted attacks targeting migrant women and children, exposing the layered vulnerabilities of groups who face discrimination not only because of their migration status but also because of their gender and age. These attacks are not limited to nameless internet users. Public institutions and political actors were targeted in 88 publications, or 10.8% of the corpus, while civil society organizations and rights defenders appeared in 37 posts, representing 4.5%. This suggests that hostility is not just aimed at migrants themselves but also at anyone perceived as supporting them, including NGOs, activists, and state officials. The effect is to create a chilling environment around migration advocacy. If human rights defenders are mocked, threatened, or delegitimized online, they may hesitate to speak out, and the space for compassion and accountability shrinks even further.
The timing of these posts adds another layer of concern. The report found that hostile content spiked during the summer months. Of the 613 posts that were correctly dated, 559 were published between July and September, accounting for 91.2% of the total. August registered the highest proportion of hostile content, with 67.8% of posts that month classified as hostile. July followed at 62.4%, and September saw a slightly lower but still alarming rate of 54.8%, even as the overall number of posts increased. This seasonal pattern may reflect shifts in migration movements, political events, or media attention, but it also reveals how quickly online hostility can surge and become entrenched. During these months, a steady stream of negative content likely reached thousands if not millions of Facebook users, shaping attitudes and reinforcing stereotypes. The concentration of hostile posts in summer also suggests that online campaigns against migrants are not random. They may be coordinated, reactive, or timed to coincide with moments when migration is already in the public eye. Whatever the cause, the effect is a crescendo of negativity that makes measured, truthful, and humane discussion almost impossible to hear. The report’s authors underline that this is not an inevitable or harmless online phenomenon. It is a pattern with the power to affect public policy, community relations, and the daily lives of migrants in Morocco.
What makes this report so significant is that it moves beyond impression to evidence. It shows that misinformation, hatred, and stigmatization are widespread, measurable, and structurally embedded in Facebook content about migrants in Morocco. But the findings also point to the need for urgent action. Social media platforms, especially Facebook, must be held accountable for their role in amplifying toxic content. Algorithms that reward outrage and engagement cannot be allowed to continue placing false and hateful posts before their users without consequences. At the same time, media literacy must become a priority for Moroccan society. People need the tools to recognize misinformation and to question narratives that dehumanize entire communities. Journalists, civil society groups, and rights defenders have a critical role to play in telling more accurate and compassionate stories about migration. The report is a mirror held up to the digital spaces where public opinion is shaped, and what it shows is uncomfortable. But it is also a call to action. If nearly six in ten anti-migrant posts are false, and nearly half are hateful, then the battle for truth and empathy is far from won. Every individual who chooses to challenge a hateful comment, share a factual story, or defend the dignity of a stranger makes a difference. The MigraPress Barometer reminds us that behind every statistic there is a person, and behind every post there is a choice. The question is whether we will choose fear or humanity, falsehood or truth, division or solidarity. The answer will shape not only the online conversation but the kind of society Morocco—and the world—wants to become.