displacement into Bangladesh is that children are unable to attend high-school. They asked Facebook to fund an education project in the refugee camp in Cox’s Bazar. Ms. Sissons informed the groups that if a proposal was sent to Facebook describing the logistics of such a project and requesting funding, she would send this to the relevant people for consideration.87 After this phone call, and a further three months of developing a comprehensive proposal, a concept note for a camp-based education project was sent to Facebook. The note was prepared by a prominent academic institution in Bangladesh. It proposed a million-dollar project through which educated refugees from the camp would be given materials, training, and support to teach younger and less educated members of their community. Many Rohingya groups were involved in the design of the activities described in the concept note, and many of their members were eager to take on teaching roles as part of the project. Its submission was accompanied by a letter requesting that Facebook support the project, signed by 21 communitybased groups within the camp.88 Facebook refused the request on 10 February 2021. In her email rejecting the proposal, Ms. Sissons explained that Facebook does not directly engage in ‘philanthropic activities,’ and that while it does partner on some initiatives, these “generally have a more direct link to [Facebook] products, internet literacy or digital empowerment.89” The HRIA commissioned in response to the 2017 operations focuses on “content moderation” as a remedy, which is further reflected by Facebook’s 2021 human rights policy. Again, this finding ignores that Facebook’s actions and omissions contributed to the human rights violations above, and Facebook’s duty to provide a remedy for those who suffered adverse human rights impacts. Content moderation, a forward-looking action, does not do anything to remedy the immense physical and emotional harm already suffered by the Rohingya, nor does it do anything to address the deprivation of basic necessities such as educational facilities to which the Rohingya are now subjected thanks to Facebook’s contribution to the Tatmadaw’s cleansing campaign. The remedy that Facebook owes to the Rohingya ought to be commensurate to its contribution to the human rights impacts. The million-dollar education project previously requested by members of the Rohingya community was a modest one, especially in light of Facebook’s profit margin that year. Moreover, Facebook has called any requests “philanthropy,” as opposed to remediation and has explicitly said that any such philanthropy ought to have some link to its products or services, such as internet literacy or digital empowerment. Internet literacy is no substitute for an actual education. Further, internet literacy and the inability of internet users in Myanmar to verify content was seen by human rights organisations and the IIFFMM as a driving factor behind the 2017 operations. While pursuing greater internet literacy so that populations can verify content is a laudable goal, it is not an appropriate remedy considering the extent of human rights violations suffered by the Rohingya in 2017. 87 A compilation of the communication between Ms Sissons and the Rohingya groups can be found at ‘Rohingya victim groups ask Facebook to provide them support, following its role in the violence against them’, Victim Advocates International, 10 July 2020, <https://www.victimadvocatesinternational.org/letter-tofacebook-human-rights-head-miranda-sissons-from-rohingya-refugee-groups/>. [accessed 29 September 2021] 88 This letter was confidential due to some of the Rohingya organisations concerns about being named publicly, for security reasons. However, a copy of it may be provided confidentially on request. 89 Email can be provided confidentially on request. 20