8. META’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS HARMS SUFFERED BY THE ROHINGYA In this section, Meta’s role in the human rights abuses suffered by the Rohingya in the context of the 2017 atrocities is analysed based on the evidence and human rights standards laid out in the preceding sections. As established under the UN Guiding Principles, the key question to answer when seeking to assess a company’s responsibility to provide an effective remedy to an affected community is whether the company’s actions reached the threshold of causing or contributing to the adverse human rights impact. This analysis seeks to ascertain whether Meta caused, contributed, or was directly linked to the adverse human rights impacts suffered by the Rohingya. When assessing whether Meta fulfilled its responsibility to respect human rights in the context of its business activities in Myanmar, there are two adverse human rights impacts that are particularly important: the discrimination towards the Rohingya created by the dissemination of harmful speech including advocacy of hatred (as detailed in Section 5.2), and secondly, the violence that the dissemination of this content contributed to, which had knock-on impacts on the rights to life and freedom from torture; and the rights to education, to adequate housing and an adequate standard of living, and the right to food (as detailed in Sections 3.2 and 5.3). The UN Guiding Principles and the OECD Guidelines provide guidance on how to assess whether a company should provide an effective remedy when they are implicated in an adverse human rights impact.311 This guidance (outlined in detail in Chapter 4) is incorporated throughout the following assessment of Meta’s role in respect of the human rights harms suffered by the Rohingya. BSR, White Paper: Seven Questions to Help Determine When a Company Should Remedy Human Rights Harm under the UN Guiding Principles, 2021. 311 THE SOCIAL ATROCITY META AND THE RIGHT TO REMEDY FOR THE ROHINGYA Amnesty International 58