April 2020] THE "WEAPONIZATION" OF FACEBOOK 829 further criminal activity of the users on its platform or, in the alternative as in IG Farben, that Facebook knew about the overall plan to commit human rights abuses. B. THE ACTUS REUS REQUIREMENT In addition to knowledge, the complicit actor must provide the kind of assistance that contributes directly and substantially to the commission of the crime.120 The actor may “be convicted for aiding and abetting a crime when it is established that his conduct amounted to tacit approval and encouragement of the crime and that such conduct substantially contributed to the crime.”121 Examples of substantial conduct include: [T]he [corporation’s] provision of goods or services used in the commission of crimes; the provision of information which leads to the commission of crimes; the provision of personnel to commit crimes; . . . the procurement and use of products or resources (including labour) in the knowledge that the supply of these resources involves the commission of the crimes; [and] the provision of banking facilities so that proceeds of crimes can be deposited.122 The ICTY, in its widely cited judgment in Prosecutor v. Anto Furundžija, defines actus reus in criminal law as rendering “practical assistance, encouragement, or moral support which has a substantial effect on the perpetration of the crime.”123 At what level are social media corporations acting in a way that substantially effects the perpetration of crime on their platform? Such companies claim they are immune to corporate liability because they function as a “utility” and thereby, do not contribute to abuse that occurs through their platform.124 Specifically, social media companies in the United States hide behind Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,125 which states: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”126 By 120. Int’l Law Comm’n, Rep. of the Int’l Law Comm’n on its Forty-Eighth Session, U.N. Doc. A/51/10, at Art. 2, 6 (1996), http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/7_4_1996.pdf. 121. Prosecutor v. Radosalv Brdanin, Case No. IT 99-36-A, Appeal on Judgement, ¶ 273 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for Yugoslavia Apr. 3, 2007). 122. INT'L COMM'N OF JURISTS, supra note 18, at 19. 123. Prosecutor v. Aton Furundžija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, ¶ 235, 249 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for Yugoslavia Dec. 10, 1998). 124. Owen Thomas, Mark Zuckerberg Calls Facebook A “Utility.” He Might Want to Rethink That, S.F. CHRON., https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Mark-Zuckerberg-calls-Facebook-a-utility13536881.php (last updated Jan. 16, 2019, 4:00 AM). 125. In 1996, Congress passed this Act to encourage Internet growth. In an effort to foster innovation and participation, Congress shielded websites from any liability arising from content posted by website users. While some credit this Act for the Internet boom over the past few years, some suggest that the Act overly protects websites by virtually immunizing websites from any liability. See Derek Khanna, The Law that Gave Us the Modern Internet—and the Campaign to Kill It, ATLANTIC (Sept. 12, 2013), https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/09/the-law-that-gave-us-the-modern-internet-and-thecampaign-to-kill-it/279588/. 126. Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) (2018).