CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS 10 TO META 10 TO META’S ‘HOME’ STATES INCLUDING USA AND IRELAND, AND REGIONAL BODIES SUCH AS THE EU 11 2. METHODOLOGY 12 3. BACKGROUND 13 3.1 THE ROHINGYA IN MYANMAR: A HISTORY OF PERSECUTION 13 3.2 THE 2017 ETHNIC CLEANSING OF THE ROHINGYA 14 3.3 META’S ENTRY INTO MYANMAR 16 4. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 18 4.1 BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS 18 4.2 SOCIAL MEDIA ALGORITHMS AND HUMAN RIGHTS DUE DILIGENCE 20 4.3 THE CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE REMEDY 22 4.4 “HATE SPEECH” AND ADVOCACY OF HATRED UNDER INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW 23 5. META AND ADVOCACY OF HATRED AGAINST THE ROHINGYA 26 5.1 THE RISE OF SOCIAL MEDIA IN SPREADING ANTI-ROHINGYA SENTIMENT 26 5.2 ANTI-ROHINGYA “HATE SPEECH” ON FACEBOOK 27 5.2.1 THE ACTIVE ROLE OF THE MYANMAR MILITARY AND AUTHORITIES IN SPREADING ANTI-ROHINGYA CONTENT 29 5.3 ANALYSIS: HOW ANTI-ROHINGYA CONTENT ON FACEBOOK LINKED TO OFFLINE VIOLENCE 32 5.4 CONTENT MODERATION AND ANTI-ROHINGYA CONTENT ON FACEBOOK 34 6. “THE MECHANICS OF OUR PLATFORM ARE NOT NEUTRAL”: HOW FACEBOOK FUELED HUMAN RIGHTS HARMS AGAINST THE ROHINGYA 38 6.1 “PLAYING WHACK-A-MOLE”: THE FALLACY OF CONTENT-BASED SOLUTIONS TO ALGORITHMIC HARMS 39 6.2 ENGAGEMENT AT ALL COSTS: HOW META MAKES HATE GO VIRAL 41 THE SOCIAL ATROCITY META AND THE RIGHT TO REMEDY FOR THE ROHINGYA Amnesty International 3