6. “THE MECHANICS OF OUR PLATFORM ARE NOT NEUTRAL”: HOW FACEBOOK FUELED HUMAN RIGHTS HARMS AGAINST THE ROHINGYA “We have evidence from a variety of sources that hate speech, divisive political speech, and misinformation on Facebook and the family of apps are affecting societies around the world. We also have compelling evidence that our core product mechanics, such as virality, recommendations, and optimizing for engagement, are a significant part of why these types of speech flourish on the platform… The mechanics of our platform are not neutral.” Unnamed Facebook employee, 12 August 2019185 Amnesty International and others have previously warned of the human rights risks associated with Meta’s use of content-shaping algorithms (as defined in Section 4.2, above).186 These algorithms are based on the premise that the more engaged an individual is on Facebook, the longer they will spend on the platform, which increases their exposure to tracking-based advertising and boosts Meta’s revenues. Equally, the more time users spend on Facebook, the more invasive personal data the company can collect on them. This data enables enhanced micro-targeting to increase revenues. This model has driven Meta to constantly seek out new sources of personal data and new markets across the globe. The model has proven to be extraordinarily profitable for Meta. When whistle-blower Frances Haugen testified before the U.S. Congress in October 2021 on the most harmful aspects of Meta’s business practices, much of her testimony focused on Meta’s use of content185 The Facebook Papers, “What is Collateral Damage?”,12 August 2019, comment on p. 34. Amnesty International, Surveillance Giants: How the business model of Google and Facebook threatens human rights” (Index: POL 30/1404/2019), 21 November 2019, amnesty.org/en/documents/pol30/1404/2019/en, p. 34. 186 THE SOCIAL ATROCITY META AND THE RIGHT TO REMEDY FOR THE ROHINGYA Amnesty International 38