828 HASTINGS LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 71:813 in the cash profit to be made out of the sale, but he can still be an aider and abettor.110 From Justice Devlin’s reasoning in National Coal Board, the ICTR concluded: “As a result, anyone who knowing of another’s criminal purpose, voluntarily aids him or her in it, can be convicted of complicity even though he regretted the outcome of the offense.”111 The accomplice does not need to wish that the principal offender commit the offense.112 Rather the inquiry turns on whether the accomplice had knowledge.113 In IG Farben, the United States Military Court found that some defendants, from their leadership positions in the firm, had knowledge of the program to “expropriate” French dye to industrial plants, which were ultimately used as poison gas in Nazi concentration camps.114 Because the officers of the firm knew about the overall plan to use the dye as poison, the court held that IG Farben knowingly aided by explicitly or impliedly authorizing and approving the program.115 For social media companies, officers may have knowledge simply from embedded reporting features within the platforms that alert the company of harmful content. For Facebook, users can flag harmful content by selecting an embedded option to “report” on the platform itself.116 Facebook encourages this embedded form of reporting, stating that using the “report” link that appears next to the content is the best way to report abusive content.117 Users’ flagging of harmful content alerts Facebook to certain crimes, or support thereof, that may be occurring on its platform.118 Once content is flagged, content reviewers review the flagged content and decide whether it should be removed according to Facebook’s Community Standards.119 While reporting may raise suspicion of crimes that violate international criminal law, reporting alone is likely not sufficient to establish knowledge. Applying the knowledge plus substantial act standard, to establish that Facebook had knowing intent, the prosecution must show that Facebook knew its assistance would further criminal activity of user(s) on its platform. Therefore, there must be concrete indicators that Facebook knew its assistance would 110. Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR 96-4-T, Judgement, 218 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for Rwanda Sept. 2, 1998) (quoting Nat’l Coal Bd. v. Gamble [1958] All ER 203 at 209 (Eng.)). 111. Id. 112. Clapham & Jerbi, supra note 89, at 342. 113. Id. 114. Indictment at 38, Prosecutor v. I.G. Farben, Case No. 6, Military Tribunals at Nuremberg (May 3, 1947). 115. Harmen van der Wilt, Corporate Criminal Responsibility for International Crimes: Exploring the Possibilities, 12 CHINESE J. INT’L L. 43 (Mar. 2013). 116. How Do I Report a Facebook Profile?, FACEBOOK, https://www.facebook.com/help/ 171757096241231 (last visited Mar. 20, 2020). 117. How to Report Things on Facebook, FACEBOOK, https://www.facebook.com/help/181495968648557 (last visited Mar. 20, 2020). 118. Id. 119. Jessica Guynn, These Are Facebook’s Secret Rules for Removing Posts, USA TODAY, https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2018/04/24/facebook-discloses-secret-guidelines-policing-contentintroduces-appeals/544046002/ (last updated Apr. 24, 2018, 5:00 AM).