has several shortcomings, and is wholly inadequate to address the human rights impacts to which Facebook contributed in 2017. First, Facebook did not adequately consult with members of the Rohingya community when developing its policy. Facebook says that its human rights policy was formed in consultation with rights holders and stakeholders.77 The Complainants are unaware of any attempts to consult with any Rohingya group within Cox’s Bazar camp when Facebook was formulating its policy. Given the publicity over Facebook’s role in the 2017 operations, which resulted in the commissioning of HRIA, and informed its policy, members of the Rohingya ought to have been amongst the first groups consulted. This is especially the case given Facebook has stated that it pays “particular attention to the rights and needs of users from groups or populations that may be at heightened risk of becoming vulnerable or marginalised” and that when identifying such groups, they undertake “meaningful engagement to hear their hopes and concerns.”78 Second, the human rights policy stated that it identified and prioritised the most salient human rights issues. Facebook’s policy identifies freedom of expression as the most salient of human rights, and does not appear to have prioritised the human rights of groups impacted by disinformation and hate-speech used on its platform as is evidenced by the limited mandate of the oversight board which Facebook established as an independent grievance mechanism. Facebook’s new human rights policy establishes an independent oversight board with a “mandate to protect freedom of expression and other human rights by making independent decisions about emblematic pieces of content it selects from among those submitted to it for appeal, and by issuing advisory opinions on Facebook’s content policies.”79 As stated in the BSR Report on the Facebook Oversight Board, the Oversight Board’s scope at present “does not include Facebook algorithms or changes to the visibility of a piece of content, such as its promotion or de-prioritization in the News Feed.”80 The policy goes on to state that that the Oversight Board is intended to increase access to remedy for Facebook and Instagram Users.81 This policy places sole emphasis on content moderation, without addressing the other human rights impacts cause by the data-driven and algorithmic nature of its business model. A corollary of this policy is that the right to a remedy is narrowly construed to content removal, or having decisions relating to content removal reviewed. Content moderation is only one aspect of the human rights impacts of Facebook’s business model. The policy does not consider broader human rights impacts of its business model, including the processes of data-mining as well as the algorithmic processes employed. Given the decades of systematic oppression and persecution of the Rohingya and other ethnic minorities at the hands of the Tatmadaw, the algorithmic systems employed by Facebook’s business model only serve to exacerbate pre-existing prejudices. While better content moderation may have mitigated some of the human rights impacts suffered by the Rohingya as a result of the 2017 operations, it is unlikely that it would have mitigated all of them. As noted 77 Ibid. (Our Commitments). Ibid. 79 Ibid (03, Providing Remedies for Human Rights Impacts). 80 Business For Social Responsibility (December 2019) 'Human Rights Review: Facebook Oversight Board” <h https://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_Facebook_Oversight_Board.pdf.>. [viewed 11 October 2021], p 20. 81 Facebook’s Corporate Human Rights Policy’ https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/FacebooksCorporate-Human-Rights-Policy.pdf [accessed 11 October 2021] (03, Providing Remedies for Human Rights Impacts). 78 18