Contribution must be substantial, meaning that it does not include minor or trivial contributions. Facebook facilitated the Tatmadaw to cause an adverse impact through the inter-related aspects of its business model in Myanmar. The “Free Basics” and “Facebook Flex” initiatives were geared at maximising the number of Facebook users in Myanmar in the shortest period of time possible, for the purposes of mining individual data for targeted advertising. At the same time, Facebook was actively hosting targeted advertisements from the Tatmadaw, as well as hosting Tatmadaw officials who were using their channels to disseminate news and false information about the Rohingya. The algorithmic systems employed by Facebook resulted in the most incendiary and hateful speech receiving the most engagement, leading to the human rights impacts described above. These actions were further exacerbated by Facebook’s omissions in failing to take down harmful content, its wholly inadequate moderation policy as at 2017, as well as its failure to effectively implement its own community standards. The Due Diligence Guidance also lists the following factors with respect to establishing the existence of ‘contribution’ to adverse impacts by an MNE:70 • • • The degree to which the activity increased the risk of the impact occurring. The extent to which an enterprise could or should have known about the adverse impact or potential for adverse impact, i.e., the degree of foreseeability. The degree to which any of enterprise’s activities actually mitigated the adverse impact or decreased the risk of the impact occurring. None of these factors were considered in the HRIA. The application of the factors to this case provides further support for the conclusion that Facebook contributed to the human rights impacts. • • • Facebook’s omissions in failing to adequately moderate content and allowing hatespeech to flourish on its platform – coupled with the algorithms and aggressive business practices it employed – significantly increased the risk of the impact occurring and drastically accelerated its materialisation. Facebook knew of these adverse impacts as its platform had been used previously to incite hatred against the Rohingya, and had been explicitly warned on numerous occasions of this fact. Facebook did nothing to actually mitigate the risks of the adverse impact occurring, and in fact increased the risk of the impact occurring through the its introduction of the ‘Free Basics’ and ‘Facebook Flex’ initiatives. As John Ruggie, the author of the UNGPs, stated specifically in regards to Facebook: “When can we say that a company like Facebook is ‘contributing to’ human rights harm? Isn’t it simply a platform on which others can share views? Unwittingly getting even severely consequential cases wrong once or twice is one thing. But persistent refusal to substantially change what the company does 70 Ibid. 16